Ongoing Study Discussion Thread - Nutrition, Training, Health etc.

[Mrpb]

My gf would laugh at me as I take 2-3min breaks between sets. I then had her try training to failure and she quickly switched back to leaving reps in the tank and stopped teasing me. Ain't that some chit lol.

Given that longer resting is better for muscle growth, I'd say you should be laughing at your gf

This has convinced me enough to at least give this low volume idea a go, considering i have not taken more than a few day's off from lifting for around 3 years, if there was a trend for decreased test in a short study the effect of years with no break is pretty scary!at the same time though its pretty exciting as i may end up feeling and performing better in the long run if i am indeed over trained and simply don't know it.

I have to say, while i am stronger than i was a couple of years ago, i don't feel as vital or energetic as i used to, my sex drive also isn't what it once was but i thought this could be just me getting older, that said at the same time no breaks from the gym in 3 years is pretty extreme when i think about it, i am 100% giving this a try and see how it effects my performance and general well being.

I am not sure weather to reduce my workouts from 3 times per week to twice per week or just go straight to once per week, Tempted to just go to once per week for now and see how i feel.

Very similar to my situation. Pretty much always done higher volume training with resting too little. My first couple of day on lower volume are promising: I feel a lot more energetic. No strength gains though. I think the body may need more time to get used to it.

[Heisman2]

I just read through the whole study. I'd really like a repeat study comparing 5 sets once weekly to 5 sets twice weekly to 10 sets twice weekly.

One thing of note is that in this study they did a 2 second concentric phase and a 2 second eccentric phase with no pause. This is a key thing to note as most people if training for say a 10 rep set and doing reps as fast as possible will do the concentric phase much faster than this for the first several reps. There is some thought that the rep speed does not matter if you are training to true failure (which they do in this study) (see: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sp...h-press-gains/), but I think this should be noted as I for example will be able to do a lot more weight for a 10 rep max if I go as fast as possible on the concentric than if I purposely do each rep with a 2 second concentric.

Another thing of note is that for the most part the results were identical between the 5 and 10 set groups. That makes me think 5 sets twice weekly may be the way to go if one can recover sufficiently for this. On that note, there is no mention in the methods of how they adjust load with each successive set if they fail outside of the expected rep range; this should have been included.

I also think what Mrpb alluded to previously with diet may be a big factor as they were encouraged to eat the same amount without varying intake; that would potentially make the higher volume people under eat relative to the lower volume.

Most of the gains were seen in the first 12 weeks. I plan to do this for 12 weeks with upper body, but will do 5 sets twice weekly. That will be much less volume than I typically do. I'm not sure there is a safe way for me to train to failure with lower body (meaning squats specifically), and I do paused reps (not done in the study), but if I get really good results with upper body then I may try to find a way to do it with lower body as well.

[Nedo]

Given that longer resting is better for muscle growth, I'd say you should be laughing at your gf

Yeah that's why I do it and have reiterated this to her. I've had other gym bro's criticize me as well. Most people don't break long from what I see. I even find lifting more enjoyable when I can take a proper rest as opposed to feeling all rushed.

I have noticed though that my break requirements are less on the odd day that I pig out and eat what I want (always more carbs). I feel ready to go for the next set sooner.

[Mrpb]

Yeah that's why I do it and have reiterated this to her. I've had other gym bro's criticize me as well. Most people don't break long from what I see. I even find lifting more enjoyable when I can take a proper rest as opposed to feeling all rushed.

I have noticed though that my break requirements are less on the odd day that I pig out and eat what I want (always more carbs). I feel ready to go for the next set sooner.

Something to consider as well: I usually rest at least 3 minutes between sets. This allows me to perform fully on the next set and do more volume in total. The end result is that I'm probably more tired after than I would be if I had only rested 1 minute.

[Mrpb]

One thing of note is that in this study they did a 2 second concentric phase and a 2 second eccentric phase with no pause. This is a key thing to note as most people if training for say a 10 rep set and doing reps as fast as possible will do the concentric phase much faster than this for the first several reps. There is some thought that the rep speed does not matter if you are training to true failure (which they do in this study) (see: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/sp...h-press-gains/), but I think this should be noted as I for example will be able to do a lot more weight for a 10 rep max if I go as fast as possible on the concentric than if I purposely do each rep with a 2 second concentric.

That's interesting, I have no read that part. If people are lifting to failure though the last few reps will be forced to be slower, so on average it may work out as 2 seconds.

Or are they saying they purposely slowed down concentrics?

Eric Helms seems to be pretty adamant that there's no added benefit from that.

[Nedo]

This allows me to perform fully on the next set and do more volume in total.

Yep, I can't hit my targeted rep range either if I don't rest sufficiently between sets.

[boo99]

This topic on caffeine and fat burning is not new, however this study was just released today, June 24th

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45540-1

[Heisman2]

Lyle has addressed the volume study, pretty much stating the same exact things that we all said. https://bodyrecomposition.com/resear...h-review.html/

[boo99]

Lyle has addressed the volume study, pretty much stating the same exact things that we all said. https://bodyrecomposition.com/resear...h-review.html/

Thanx for posting, just read his lengthy discussion

[Mrpb]

I'm not a big fan of Lyle anymore. There are many inaccuracies in that article, usually fuelled by his own biasses and his anger against Brad Schoenfeld and James Krieger.

Menno Henselmans has done a write up too: Is there a maximum productive training volume per session?
https://mennohenselmans.com/maximum-...e-per-session/

[boo99]

Given that longer resting is better for muscle growth, I'd say you should be laughing at your gf



Very similar to my situation. Pretty much always done higher volume training with resting too little. My first couple of day on lower volume are promising: I feel a lot more energetic. No strength gains though. I think the body may need more time to get used to it.

Curious to see what happens with your body composition with the low volume which I hope is positive for you

I've done it in late 90s, mid 2000s and my body composition took a hit and returned to where I wanted it to be when I went back to higher volume

I definitely respond better with higher volume however....

I could have done those lower volume workouts with less intensity than I could have so been thinking of giving it a go again (lower volume) but with more intensity

[Mrpb]

I definitely respond better with higher volume however....

I think my experience says the same so far. We'll see.

[boo99]

I think my experience says the same so far. We'll see.

Curious to hear how it goes for you

I mentioned bodybuilder Mike Mentzer (RIP) before and I remember more of my chat about volume cause back when I began I seemed to always leave the gym with the questions....

Did i do enough?

Did I do too little?

If only we had a way of knowing for sure?


So when I asked Mike all this he simply said well start with one set (applies to upper body only) and see what happens over time then increase it if needed to find the amount you respond to

Of course I never did that one set test and I did what I wanted like a noob usually does till he learns what works best

[Heisman2]

I'm not a big fan of Lyle anymore. There are many inaccuracies in that article, usually fuelled by his own biasses and his anger against Brad Schoenfeld and James Krieger.

Menno Henselmans has done a write up too: Is there a maximum productive training volume per session?
https://mennohenselmans.com/maximum-...e-per-session/

He kind of said the same things we were saying about the study so when you say inaccuracies do you mean his other comments that are not related to the analysis of the article itself? His personal conflicts with others do shine through nicely (and I don't follow any of them specifically enough to have known there was an issue prior to reading this).

[Mrpb]

He kind of said the same things we were saying about the study so when you say inaccuracies do you mean his other comments that are not related to the analysis of the article itself?

His summary of the literature is heavily biassed. For example when a study doesn't support his biasses the study is "a f*ing trashfire". When he discusses the Ostrowski study he mentions "a trend for a benefit of lower volume" for triceps but omits the trend for the largest gains in the legs for the highest volume group. And the list goes on and on.

James Krieger has written a very good, neutral summary of the literature (the volume bible) but unfortunately he puts it behind a paywall.

[Heisman2]

His summary of the literature is heavily biassed. For example when a study doesn't support his biasses the study is "a f*ing trashfire". When he discusses the Ostrowski study he mentions "a trend for a benefit of lower volume" for triceps but omits the trend for the largest gains in the legs for the highest volume group. And the list goes on and on.

James Krieger has written a very good, neutral summary of the literature (the volume bible) but unfortunately he puts it behind a paywall.

Ah, got it.

Yeah, I will not be paying money to read anyone else's analysis of the literature. I generally form somewhat different opinions then a lot of these big name analysts/coaches when I read things in full so I prefer to just read up on the topics I care about on my own time.

[Mrpb]

Interesting posts from Brad on volume/frequency:

"Our paper demonstrating greater increases in muscle growth when training 5 vs 1 d/wk when volume is equated in resistance-trained men. The findings suggest a benefit to spreading out training volume over more days when volume is high. Also pubbed in the same issue: Our paper showing no benefits to training 6 vs 3 d/wk with volume equated; in fact, biceps growth favored the 3 day/wk group. This indicates that high training frequencies do not provide an advantage for muscle-building. Consistent with our previous meta-analysis, it appears that you don't get any additional hypertrophic benefits from training more than 2 x/wk. "

" when we employ >20 sets/week there may be a benefit to going to 3 days. I certainly don't see any more than 3 days being being beneficial, but open to changing my mind if future data points in that directions..."

This quote was not written by Brad but he called it reasonable speculation: "If you can progress at 25-30 sets/wk for a given muscle group, I'd think you can benefit from training that muscle group 3 x/wk instead of 2 x/wk, considering the sweet spot of 5-10 sets per muscle group per session."

https://www.********.com/brad.schoen...18617917100161

Yeah, I will not be paying money to read anyone else's analysis of the literature. I generally form somewhat different opinions then a lot of these big name analysts/coaches when I read things in full so I prefer to just read up on the topics I care about on my own time.

Yeah I agree. However, I did do it once last year. Paid $10 for one month and then cancelled. I must say all his study reviews and volume bible are so comprehensive, it's worth something. In his volume bible he basically does a meta analysis of all the data (with all the calculations).

[boo99]

This brand new info on BCAAs was just released this minute on Jorns (Trommelen) IG page


https://www.nutritiontactics.com/onl...onse-to-bcaas/

conclusion, BCAAs and BCKAs stimulate muscle protein synthesis for relatively short period compared to whole protein ingestion (matched for BCAA content)

[Mrpb]

Nice one ^. I had not seen it. I'm not insta.

[boo99]

Nice one ^. I had not seen it. I'm not insta.

The IG is very useful as I set a notification for Jorns (and others) new posts and my cell alerts me

[boo99]

This was released a few days ago, small study however.


"Resistance Exercise on Cardiac Adipose Tissues"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2737412

In individuals with abdominal obesity, both endurance and resistance training reduced epicardial adipose tissue mass, while only resistance training reduced pericardial adipose tissue mass

[Mrpb]

Interesting. thanks for the share Boo.

This one was interesting too: Mycoprotein beating milk protein.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0703121431.htm

Rather surprising imo. Study funded by Mycoprotein.

[boo99]

Interesting. thanks for the share Boo.

This one was interesting too: Mycoprotein beating milk protein.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0703121431.htm

Rather surprising imo. Study funded by Mycoprotein.

Welcome and thanks for this one.

Agree. Interesting and surprising.

Do you think the leucine is higher in the mycoprotein explaining why it beat milk protein?

Study funded by Mycoprotein, hmmm ?

[Mrpb]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31252598

Six Weeks of Calorie Restriction Improves Body Composition and Lipid Profile in Obese and Overweight Former Athletes.

[boo99]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31252598

Six Weeks of Calorie Restriction Improves Body Composition and Lipid Profile in Obese and Overweight Former Athletes.

Good read, thank you

Have you seen a study that showed that heart adipose tissue was reduced better with weightlifting vs cardio

I had a screenshot of it but can't find it and no clue if this was a new or older study

[broganoff]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31252598

Six Weeks of Calorie Restriction Improves Body Composition and Lipid Profile in Obese and Overweight Former Athletes.

Should be required reading for the "calories dont matter" crowd. Maybe there is a Keto reddit we can post it to? haha

[Mrpb]

Good read, thank you

Have you seen a study that showed that heart adipose tissue was reduced better with weightlifting vs cardio

I had a screenshot of it but can't find it and no clue if this was a new or older study

I remember seeing something like that but can't find it.

[Heisman2]

Good read, thank you

Have you seen a study that showed that heart adipose tissue was reduced better with weightlifting vs cardio

I had a screenshot of it but can't find it and no clue if this was a new or older study

Didn't you just post the study a few posts before this one? Post 442 in this thread.

[boo99]

Didn't you just post the study a few posts before this one? Post 442 in this thread.

Yes, thanks, I knew it sounded familiar lol

I totally forgot I posted that; no one responded so I forgot

[boo99]

This was released today.

They used healthy non obese people here.

So those who eat at their TDEE or above are at a higher risk for cardiometabolic issues?


The Lancet link to the study works within this article

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...-heart-healthy