Download Fitness Tools

At the moment it is by no means clear which type of athlete / gymrat would benefit from milk fat globule membrane supplementation and which wouldn't. It's after all well possible that the effects Soga et al. observed in rookies wouldn't occur in adv. trainees or professional athletes.

After the study on nucleotide supplements the Satako Soga's latest paper on the dietary supplementation with milk fat globule membrane is #2 on the list of studies with promising new ergogenics in less than a month. In view of the fact that the last year has been devoid of any true innovations, this is a welcome diversion from writing about whey (or other protein powders), creatine, beta alanine and baking soda, as well as the occasional study on HMB for me.

In spite of the fact that this is a follow up on previous rodent studies from the same researchers, I must warn you not to to expect too much of MFGMs, yet. More data and studies with more realistic resistance training + supplementation protocols from independent labs are warranted before MFGMs may eventually appear next to the previously mentioned top dogs on a list of "waredownloadsoft Recommended Supplements".
But hey, let's keep the skepticism for the bottom line and take a look at what the scientists from the Kao Corporation did with their fourteen Japanese subjects. The men, who were aged 31–48 years and did not participate in regular strength training before the study, took 1 g of the  structural membranes of milk which are usually covering the triglyceride globules that are dispersed as emulsified bodies in milk or 1g of an identically looking whole milk powder as a placebo in tablet form for 4-weeks (composition see Table 1).

Table 1: Composition of MFGM and whole milk powder (Soga. 2015)

"On the exercise training enforcement days [i.e. the days on which the subjects were required to train], the subjects were instructed to take the tablet within 1 h before training. On the other days, the subjects were instructed to consume the tablet at the time of their choice during their daily routines.

The MFGM was prepared from buttermilk by filtering and centrifugation. The MFGM and whole milk powder compositions were analyzed at Japan Food Research Laboratories (Tokyo, Japan)" (Soga. 2015).

The exercise routine the subjects from both groups had to follow consisted of two workouts per week. The workouts had to be performed on nonconsecutive days for 4 weeks using StrengthErgo 240 stationary cycling exercise machines (Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). On these machines, the subjects completed 3 sets of 15 % maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) cycle exercises for 60 s and 7 sets of 20 % MVC cycle exercises for 40 s at 50 rpm.
Physical function tests and surface electromyography (EMG) were conducted at baseline and at the end of the study period. In addition, some hemotological parameters were tested of which - surprise - the data in Figure 1 tells you that MFGMs have a small, but statistically significant "EPO-effect" and are thus capable of raising both the red blood cell and hemoglobin content - an effect that has been observed in rodents too (Haramizu. 2014b) and may be ascribed to the incorporation of MFGM phospholipids into red blood cells which would in turn be less vulnerable to exercise-related or other stressors. Whatever the reason for these changes may be, they are certainly in line with the previously mentioned (see red box) increase in fatty acid oxidation during endurance exercise that may be facilitated by an RBC and hemoglogin related increase in oxygen transport.

Figure 1: The significant increase in red blood cell and hemoglogin content could explain the previously observed increases in endurance performance and fatty acid oxidation in Haramizu et al. (2014a). The buffered decrease in white blood cell may not be statistically significant, but may still indicate beneficial effects on the immune system (Soga. 2015).

Both the increase in RBC and hemoglobin, as well as the buffering of the albeit non-significant decline in white blood cells in the placebo group, which may be a response to the exercise-induced stress and evidence of an immune-boosting effect of MFGM supplementation during any potentially exercise induced immune suppression, do yet need further investigation before they can be explained mechanistically.

No further research is needed, though, to state that all other blood markers. These included AST + ALT (liver health), glucose and triglycerides + cholesterol, neither of which was affected by the supplement. The latter cannot be said of the increase in leg extension strength before and after the intervention and the EMG activity which showed highly significant inter-group differences.
In fact, the differences in Figure 2 are pronounced enough to ask the question: Were they induced by the supplementation alone or did the pathetic training regimen have an effect here, as well? As I am going to point out in the bottom line one paragraph below, we will need studies with more realistic training programs to answer this question in a way that's relevant for trainees like you and me. In the mean time, however, there is no debating "that the daily intake of 1 g MFGM combined with regular, twice weekly exercise improved skeletal muscle strength (leg extension) in middle-aged adults, despite a lack of change in muscle mass" (Soga. 2015).

Figure 2: The MFGM supplementation lead to significant increases in leg extension strength, of which the increase in EMG activity (likewise sign.) suggests that they were mediated by neuronal changes (Soga. 2015).

The same goes for the increase in RMS of surface EMG, which indicates that the dietary provision of MFGM increased the average (RMS = root mean square) motor unit activity during muscle contraction and may thus mechanistically explain why the subjects got stronger even though they didn't make substantial gains in muscle mass: The supplement helped them to "make the most" of the muscle they had. This hypothesis is in line with results from rodent studies which

"[...] revealed that dietary MFGM combined with regular exercise improved muscle strength in adult mice primarily by stimulating the pathway involving “nervous system development” in the skeletal muscle (Haramizu. 2014b). This pathway includes functional annotations such as formation of synapses, growth of neurites, or development of NMJ. Dietary MFGM combined with exercise increased skeletal muscle expression of docking protein-7 (Dok-7) and muscle-specific receptor tyrosine kinase in mice, both of which play a critical role in NMJ [neuromuscular junction] formation. Defects in NMJ function causes muscle weakness in neuromuscular disorders, and Dok-7 gene therapy improves NMJ formation and rescues the motor activity" (Soga. 2015).

And still, even at the risk that I may sound like a broken record, I have to repeat that without future research it is impossible to tell (a) whether the assumptions we've made about the increase in red blood cell count are accurate and, maybe even more importantly, (b) who, i.e. which type of athlete, will benefit most from using MFGM supplements.
References:

• Cano-Ruiz, M. E., and R. L. Richter. "Effect of homogenization pressure on the milk fat globule membrane proteins." Journal of Dairy Science 80.11 (1997): 2732-2739.
• Haramizu, Satoshi, et al. "Dietary milk fat globule membrane improves endurance capacity in mice." American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 307.8 (2014): R1009-R1017.
• Haramizu, Satoshi, et al. "Habitual exercise plus dietary supplementation with milk fat globule membrane improves muscle function deficits via neuromuscular development in senescence-accelerated mice." SpringerPlus 3 (2014): 339.
• Kim, Hunkyung, et al. "Effects of Exercise and Milk Fat Globule Membrane (MFGM) Supplementation on Body Composition, Physical Function, and Hematological Parameters in Community-Dwelling Frail Japanese Women: A Randomized Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Follow-Up Trial." PloS one 6.10.2 (2015): e0116256.
• Lemonnier, Lori A., et al. "Sphingomyelin in the suppression of colon tumors: prevention versus intervention." Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 419.2 (2003): 129-138.
• Riccio, Paolo. "The proteins of the milk fat globule membrane in the balance." Trends in food science & technology 15.9 (2004): 458-461.
• Singh, Harjinder. "The milk fat globule membrane—A biophysical system for food applications." Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 11.2 (2006): 154-163.
• Snow, D. R., et al. "Membrane-rich milk fat diet provides protection against gastrointestinal leakiness in mice treated with lipopolysaccharide." Journal of dairy science 94.5 (2011): 2201-2212.
• Soga, Satoko, Noriyasu Ota, and Akira Shimotoyodome. "Dietary milk fat globule membrane supplementation combined with regular exercise improves skeletal muscle strength in healthy adults: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial." Nutrition Journal 14.1 (2015): 85.
• Spitsberg, V. L. "Invited review: Bovine milk fat globule membrane as a potential nutraceutical." Journal of dairy science 88.7 (2005): 2289-2294.
• Timby, Niklas, et al. "Neurodevelopment, nutrition, and growth until 12 mo of age in infants fed a low-energy, low-protein formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes: a randomized controlled trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 99.4 (2014a): 860-868.
• Timby, Niklas, et al. "Cardiovascular risk markers until 12 mo of age in infants fed a formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes." Pediatric research 76.4 (2014b): 394-400.

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to be at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know from the (very different things) I've heard from (ex-)girl friends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.
According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.
"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).

Resting long enough to maximize your training volume could be the key to success, i.e. strength and size gains.

If you have been following the various affords to ascribe differences in strength and, even more so, size-increases to a specific training variable, you will remember that the only promising parameters that appear to be supported by more than the literal "outlier study" are training load and volume.

Of these, the former is pretty much uncontested. The latter, however, is still questioned by a camp of inconvincible skep- tics, who simply ignore the fact that there's ample evidence that "[h]igher-volume, multiple-set protocols have consistent- ly proven superior over single set protocols with respect to increased muscle hypertrophy" (Schoenfeld. 2010).
What still isn't clear, though, is the role of other training parameters, such as the time you take to recover between multiple sets and exercises aka the "rest intervals". As Schoenfeld et al. point out in the introduction to their most recent study, "several studies have investigated the effects of varying rest interval length on muscular adaptations," (Schoenfeld. 2015) albeit with contradictory results: While Ahtiainen et al (2005) were unable to find a significant inter-group size or strength difference in well-trained subjects (6.6 +/- 2.8 years of continuous strength training) who rested 2 minutes compared to those who rested only 5 minute in response to their 21-week training intervention, Buresh et al (2005) reported more recently that significantly greater size increases of the arms and a trend for greater muscle hypertrophy in the legs in young, albeit untrained subjects who rested for 2.5 minutes instead of just one.

Figure 1: Previous studies found "conflicting" evidence. While Ahtiainen et al. found no effects of 2 vs. 5 minutes in trained, Buresh et al. found effects of 2 vs. 1 minutes rest in untrained subjects. With different subjects, different workouts and most importantly different rest times that were compared it is yet not exactly right to say that the studies contradict each other.

Now, obviously, the ostensible "contradiction" I alluded to in the previous paragraph does eventually not exist. With trained vs. untrained subjects, different workout protocols and most importantly different rest intervals (1 vs. 2 minutes and 2 vs. 5 minutes) the studies by Ahtiainen and Buresh cannot really contradict each other. The same must be said of an even more recent study by Villanueva et al. (2014) the surprising findings of which, i.e. "longer rest periods compromise the gains of older trainees", I've discussed last year, already.Eventually, however, this does not change that there is, as Schoenfeld et al. write that "a need for more research to provide greater clarity on the topic" (Schoenfeld. 2015). A "clarity" Schoenfeld et al. sought to find with a study that "used current rest interval recommendations for hypertrophy and strength of 1 versus 3 minutes, respectively, and employed validated measures to directly assess site-specific changes in muscle thickness" (ibid). In that, the researchers speculated that ...

"[c]onsistent with generally accepted guidelines on the topic (Willardson. 2006), we hypothesized that short rest intervals would produce greater increases in muscle growth and local muscle endurance while long rest intervals would result in superior strength increases" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

As you will know if you didn't miss the headline of this waredownloadsoft article, this hypothesis was only partly validated. The data in Figure 2 confirms that the subjects, "experienced lifters (defined as consistently lifting weights for a minimum of 6 months and a back squat / body weight ratio ≥ 1.0)" (Schoenfeld. 2015), gained significantly more strength, when they rested 3 versus just 1 minute between the 3 sets of their three weekly workouts (Figure 2 does also tell you that the strength endurance increases were identical in both groups).

Figure 2: Changes in markers of strength and strength endurance; * denotes significant pre- vs. post difference, # denotes significant inter-group difference (here in favor of long(er) rest periods | Schoenfeld. 2015).

What was Schoenfeld et al. did not find, however, were increased size gains in the short-rest period group whose 24 workouts that were performed on non-consecutive days over the course of the 8-week study period, were otherwise identical with those of the long-rest period group and comprised a total of 7 exercises for all major body parts, namely...

• three leg exercises, i.e. barbell back squats, plate-loaded leg presses, and plate-loaded leg extensions), 
• two exercises for the anterior torso muscles, i.e. flat barbell presses and seated barbell military presses, and 
• two exercises for the posterior torso muscles, i.e. wide-grip plate-loaded lateral pulldowns, and plate-loaded seated cable rows

This is a highly significant result even for you who is - according to an older waredownloadsoft Poll - probably training according to a split regimen, albeit most likely with very similar exercises. What may be different from the some, but obviously *smile* not your workout though, is that the supervision by members of the research team ensured that the subjects stuck to the prescribed cadence of 1 second for the concentric and "approximately 2 seconds" (ibid.) for the eccentric part of every the exercise. This as well as the imperative progression to higher weights, whence the prescribed number of 8-12 reps per set could be performed is unfortunately overlooked by many recreational trainees - with disappointing consequences in the form of inferior or even no size and strength gains, by the way... but I am digressing, let's rather take a look at the already mentioned, unexpectedly superior strength size gains in the long(er) rest interval group (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Changes in muscle thickness and corresponding effect sizes; * denotes significant pre- vs. post-changes, # denotes significant inter-group differences; overall it is obvious that there's a long(er) rest advantage (Schoenfeld. 2015).

As the single "#" in Figure 3 tells you, the inter-group differences and thus the advantage of the long(er) rest intervals was statistically significant only for the quads, though. If we also take into account the lack of statistically significant effects on the sleeve sizes (biceps and triceps) in the short rest interval group, as well as the obvious differences in effect sizes (Figure 3, right), there's yet little doubt that the hypothesis that shorter rest intervals yield greater size increases must be considered falsified - at least under the given experimental conditions (trained subjects, three full-body workouts per week, standard hypertrophy set and rep-ranges, etc.).
References:

• Ahtiainen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• Buresh, Robert, Kris Berg, and Jeffrey French. "The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 62-71.
• Henselmans, Menno, and Brad J. Schoenfeld. "The Effect of Inter-Set Rest Intervals on Resistance Exercise-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy." Sports Medicine 44.12 (2014): 1635-1643.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010): 2857-2872.
• Schoenfeld, et al. "Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance trained men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015): Publish Ahead of Print.
• Villanueva, Matthew G., Christianne Joy Lane, and E. Todd Schroeder. "Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-14.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M. "A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.4 (2006): 978-984.

You can't expect wonders from protein supplements... no matter, when you take them, by the way. But I wouldn't mark them down as useless - even for rookies - based on the study at hand.

When I look at the 14 year old kids who need an written permission from their mum to train at the gym buying protein tons o powders and dozens of bars from the vending machines at the gym, even I have to shake my head. Not necessarily, because they're buying those products, but rather about what they tell each other about the effects: "Yo,... recently I ate this protein bar right after my workout and I felt swole for day..."

Now, you know that I am into supplement psychology and have no doubt about the fact that said kiddo felt swole all day, but we all know that protein is in no way a supplement the muscle-building and strength advantages of which will show within hours. And with that, I have a perfect transition to today's topic: The recent study from University of Central Florida in Orlando (Boone. 2015).
You will probably remember the most striking result of this study in which Carleigh H. Boone and colleagues "examine[d] the short-term effect of resistance training with and without protein supplementation on changes in muscle morphology and strength in untrained young men" (Boone. 2015).

Some of you may now be wondering: Why on earth do they even test that? We have ample evidence that protein supplements are powerful muscle builders! And you are right, but as it is the case for (almost) every research question in exercise science, even the highly acclaimed benefits of pre- or post-workout protein supplementation are somewhat contested. There's the evidence that supports the benefits of peri-workout protein supplementation on exercise induced muscle gains. Unfortunately, many of these studies may have been over-interpreted. Why?

FSR ≠ more muscle. Just because the post-exercise fractional protein synthesis increases this does not mean that you will gain more muscle in the long term. Check out this SV Classic to learn why!

Well, many of the often-cited studies in rookies, like Biolo et al. (1995), Phillips et al. (1997), or Tipton et al. (1999), measured increases in acute muscle protein synthesis and markers of anabolism. Due to their short design, however, increased long-term gains could only be predict, but not detect. In my 2014 article "Study Confirms: Acute Post-Exercise Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Is Not Correlated with Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy in Young Men" (read more) you have learned, though, that the assumption that significant increases in post-workout muscle protein synthesis will necessary lead to significant augmented increases in muscle size in the long run is logical. but futile.

There are studies where this is the case, e.g. Coburn et al. (2006); Hulmi et al. (2010); Walker et al. (2009); Willoughby et al. (2007) - in both, trained and untrained individuals, but as Boone et al. rightly point out, there are also studies by Antonio et al. (2000) or Hoffman et al. (2009) in which protein or amino acid supplements had no beneficial effects on muscle or strength gains in either or trained and untrained individuals. The randomized, double-blinded study Boone et al. (2015) conducted is thus by no means superfluous. It is yet no perfect either, because with a length of only our week, the scientists picked exactly the time-frame in which things, or I should say "gains" happen faster than you can measure them. Furthermore, the use o a lower body unilateral resistance training makes it very difficult to infer the effects of protein supplementation on (a) muscle morphology [cross-sectional area, muscle thickness, pennation angle], (b) lower body power output, (c) maximal dynamic strength, and (d) maximal isometric strength in other muscle groups and in response to an overall metabolically more demanding workout.

Dude, it won't suffice to just bring your chains to the gym to show them off, you will also have to attach them to the barbell before squatting and benching to see results... and bro, the science on the benefits of elastic bands is much more solid - even though they are not as "cool"!

I've written about the use of bands and chains in previous waredownloadsoft articles, but Miguel A. Soria-Gila recent paper is the first meta-analysis that aggregates the available data to answer the important question, whether the use of "variable resistance" training (VRT), as the use of bands and chains is usually referred to in the literature, is generally advisable, or if the existing positive results are nothing but outliers.

Now, from the headline of today's waredownloadsoft article you already know that Sotia-Gila's analysis yielded positive results, or as the authors have it: " Long-term VRT training using chains or elastic bands attached to the barbell emerged as an effective evidence-based method of improving maximal strength both in athletes with different sports backgrounds and untrained subjects."
What is particularly interesting, though, is whether the statistically significant benefits are practically relevant enough for you to consider bringing your chains and/or resistance bands to the gym.

Figure 1: Relative strength increase in bench press (BP), back squat (BSQ), leg press (LP) and squat (SQ) in response to regular and variable resistance training; if not indicated otherwise, the variable resistance training was done with bands, only the study by Ghigarelli, et al. compared bands to chains (Soria-Gila. 2015).

To answer this question we need both, the relative and absolute strength increases in both, the variable resistance training (VRT) and control groups of the four pertinent studies in the meta-analysis - data I've plotted for you in Figure 1 and 2.

Figure 2: Absolute increase in 1-RM strength (all values in kg) in the respective exercises (see Figure 1 for abbreviations) in the seven 7-week plus studies that were part of the meta-analysis (Soria-Gila. 2015).

In five of the studies (indexed with "(T)" in Figure 1) the subjects were trained individuals, in the studies by Anderson (basketball and hockey players + wrestlers), Cronin and McCurdy (baseball, Division I) the subjects actually had ~3 or even more years of training experience. The results of these studies may thus be of particular interest for the average waredownloadsoft reader of whom I know that he / she is not a total foreigner to gym. If we assume that they / you would see the same benfits, the extra-increases on the bench and in the squat would be:

• An extra 5% increase in 1RM and thus 2x greater strength gains on the bench.
• An extra 11% increase in 1RM and thus 2.6x greater strength gains for squats.

In relative terms the benefits you may achieve after only 10-13 weeks are thus quite impressive. But can the same be said for the absolute extra-gains? Soria-Gila et al. report an extra strength gain of 5.03 kg (95% confidence interval: 2.26–7.80 kg) for all studies and all exercises. If we, again, consider only the bench press and the squat and eliminate the studies with untrained participants, the absolute values are much smaller: 1.8 kg and 2.7 kg, respectively.
References:

• Anderson, Corey E., Gary A. Sforzo, and John A. Sigg. "The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.2 (2008): 567-574.
• Bellar, David M., et al. "The effects of combined elastic-and free-weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum strength in the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.2 (2011): 459-463.
• Cronin, John, Peter Mcnair, and Robert Marshall. "The effects of bungy weight training on muscle function and functional performance." Journal of sports sciences 21.1 (2003): 59-71.
• Ghigiarelli, Jamie J., et al. "The effects of a 7-week heavy elastic band and weight chain program on upper-body strength and upper-body power in a sample of division 1-AA football players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.3 (2009): 756-764.
• McCurdy, Kevin, et al. "Comparison of chain-and plate-loaded bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 187-195.
• Rhea, Matthew R., Joseph G. Kenn, and Bryan M. Dermody. "Alterations in speed of squat movement and the use of accommodated resistance among college athletes training for power." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.9 (2009): 2645-2650.
• Shoepe, Todd, et al. "The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular performance of novice lifters." Journal of human kinetics 29 (2011): 93-106.
• Soria-gila, Miguel A., et al. "Effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis." Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2015): Accepted article.