Download Fitness Tools

Deadlifts w/ bands as they were done in the Galpin study (original photo from Galpin's 2015 study | see below).

Time for a news-quickie with the latest science to use at the gym - either for your workouts or just to impress the bros with your knowledge. I mean, who else reads and understands all the latest papers in the #1 strength and conditional journal on earth? Well, you do... ok, you read my laymen summaries, but your bros don't have to know that, do they?

Ok, that's enough of the pseudo-comedian warm-up, let's deadlift the first scientific paper... oh,yeah: Actually the paper is about deadlifting, deadlifting with resistance bands as it is shown in the photo on the right, where a subject performs the deadlift on a force plate.

• Deadlift with bands for power and speed - Galpin et al. (2015) investigated how using bands while deadlifting at different loads, namely 60 and 85% of one's individual 1RM, i.e. the maximal weight you can lift for exactly one perfect rep, would influence the power and velocity at which twelve trained men (age: 24.08 ± 2.35 years, height: 175.94 ± 5.38 cm, mass: 85.58 ± 12.49 kg) with deadlift 1 repetition maxima (1RM) of 188.64 ± 16.13 kg pulled the weight off the floor.
  
  The results of the study show that there were significant peak (yet not relative) power changes irrespective of whether only 15% of the total resistance (group B1) or 35% of the total resistance (group B1) came from the bands (vs. the actual weight).
  

  Figure 1: Relative changes in power and bar velocity (compared to training w/out bands = control); * denotes sign. difference to control, ** denotes significant difference to control and light bands (Galpin. 2015)

  The effect became even more pronounced and extended from peak to average power, when the subjects used the heavier (85% 1RM) weights. In this condition using bands lead to greater peak and relative power production and lowered the velocity significantly compared to the control condition in which the subjects lifted at the same total level of resistance, albeit without bands (all values in Figure 1 are relative differences).
  
  For trainees the data in Figure 1 could be highly relevant, because it indicates that heavy bands should be used, when "prescribing the deadlift for speed or power, but not maximal force" (Galpin. 2015). If that's not you, i.e. you're not training for speed and power, but e.g. for size, future long(er)-term studies will have to show whether using bands makes a difference with respect to this study training goal.
• Interval length, can you really pick whichever suits your best? Even though a recent study by Wesley Tucker et al. (2015) shows that the rate of perceived exertion, as well as the mean heart rate of 14 recreationally active and thus not exactly jacked males who participated in their latest study were identical on 4x4 and 16x1 high intensity interval protocols (i.e. 4 intervals à 4 minutes vs. 16 intervals a 1 minute | see Figure 2), seasoned waredownloadsoft readers will probably remember that previous studies showed highly relevant differences in the long(er) term effects which obviously cannot be measured in an acute phase study like the one at hand.
  

  Figure 2: Illustration of the two HIIT protocols, incl. warm-up and cool down on cycle ergometers. White boxes are intervals during which the subjects were supposed to exercise at 90% of their peak heart rate (during the 16x1 protocol this was not achieved by all study participants in the latter intervals, though | Tucker. 2015).

  To be more specific, previous studies on high intensity interval training suggested that athletes who want to increase their VO2 max benefit more from fewer longer intervals, while "Mr. and Mrs. Average" could be better off improving their body composition and metabolic rate with a higher number of short intervals (even as short as 15 seconds in the Tabata protocol). Against that background and in order to explain or contradict the previous findings, it may be worth to consider other study outcomes in Tucker et al. (2015). Study outcomes which did differ. The total energy expenditure, for example, was 19% higher during the 16x1 protocol (p < 0.001) which is in line with the previously referenced recommendation of short intervals for people who are trying to lose weight.
  

  Figure 3: VO2, heart rate, and energy expenditure during the two HIIT protocols (watch the units! I converted them to be able to put all data into the same graph | Tucker. 2015).

  The VO2 uptake, as well as the maximal heart rates, which could be of interest for endurance athletes, on the other hand, were higher in the 4x4 protocol - a finding that would likewise support the previously voiced recommendation that (endurance) athletes should torture themselves with long(er) intervals to trigger further adaptations in VO2max and heart rate at a given power output.
  
  Overall, the study at hand will thus not revolutionize your training, but if you haven't read the previous waredownloadsoft articles, you may still have gotten some new insights into how you may want to adapt your HIIT training in the future.
• Kettlebell or cycle ergometer? Which do you chose for your HIIT sessions? I've written about kettlebell swings as muscle builders before and I've also hinted at the possibility of using the "bells" for your HIIT workouts. Now, a recent study by Williams and Kraemer shows that

  "[kettlebell high intensity interval training aka] KB-HIIT may [even] be more attractive and sustainable than [sprint interval cycling aka] SIC and can be effective in stimulating cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses that could improve health and aerobic performance" (Williams. 2015).

  The purpose of the study was - you probably already guessed it - to determine the effectiveness of a novel exercise protocol we developed for kettlebell high-intensity interval training (KB-HIIT) in comparison to the classic, standard sprint interval cycling (SIC) exercise protocol most people associate with equipment-based HIIT sessions. To this ends, the researchers from the Southeastern Louisiana University had eight "very active" young men (mean age 21.5 years; body fat 18.52 +/-3.04%, fat free mass 67.44 kg of a total weight of 82.95 kg) complete two 12-minute sessions of KB-HIIT and SIC in a counterbalanced fashion.

  Figure 4: Overview of the KB-HIIT workout (my illustration).

  "In the KB-HITT session [exercises see Figure 4, mean weight depending on exercise and subject 10-22 kg], 3 circuits of 4 exercises were performed using a Tabata regimen.

  
  

  In the SIC session, three 30-second sprints were performed, with 4 minutes of recovery in between the first 2 sprints and 2.5 minutes of recovery after the last sprint" (Williams. 2015)

  The study's within-subjects' design over multiple time points allowed Williams and Kraemer to compare the oxygen consumption, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER, a marker of the ratio of fat to carbohydrates that is used as fuel during the workout), the tidal volume (TV, the volume of air that is inspired or expired in a single breath during regular breathing), the breathing frequency (f), the subject's minute ventilation (VE), caloric expenditure rate (kcal/min), and their heart rate (HR) on an individual basis between the exercise protocols. In conjunction with the total caloric expenditure which was likewise measured / calculated and compared. The total amount of data the authors collected was thus quite large.
  

  Figure 5: Mean total energy expenditure in kcal during the KB and SIC sessions (Williams. 2015)

  Significant inter-group differences were found for VO2, RER, TV and total energy expenditure, with VO2 and total energy expenditure being higher and TV and RER being lower in the KB-HIIT compared with the cycle ergometer HIIT protocol. For f, VE, the energy expenditure per minute and the heart rate, there were no general inter-group differences, but "only" significant group × time interactions. Practically speaking, this means that they changed differently over the course of the whole protocol and are thus maybe relevant for certain athletes, yet not for the general public.
  
  Overall, the William's and Kraemer's study does therefore support the notion that doing kettlebell HIIT workouts is probably at least on par with the classic cycling HIIT sessions. In view of the increased total caloric expenditure and the lower RER, which signifies a significantly higher fat oxidation during the workout, it is even possible that KB-HIIT would be the better choice for dieters than doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. Since there is no direct link between fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure during workouts and fat loss, however, long(er)-term studies are necessary to find out whether doing KB-HIIT is in fact more than a equivalent and for many of you maybe funnier alternative to doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. 

If Arnold did them you should do them, too - right? Curls and triceps extensions for bigger arms.  A recent study in subjects with at least two years of resistance training experience negates that: Neither size nor strength of the arms will benefit from isolation exercises. At least in trained athletes on an ABAB regimen w/ 4 workouts per week that's the case.

Some people say: "Squats, deadlifts and the bench! That's all you need to do." Others compile a longer list, but still believe that there's no need or even no room for single joint exercises like biceps curls or triceps extensions. Are they right? I mean, there's no debating about the time-efficacy of multi-joint only workout routines, but what about the "gains"? Will you compromise your strength and size gains on the altar of time efficacy?

A recent study from the Santa Cecilia University and other universities in Brazil tried to answer this and related questions in a group of  trained subjects: Their study evaluated the differential effects on alterations in upper body muscle strength and size of resistance training protocols involving only multi-joint (MG) or both multi-joint (MJ) and single-joined (SJ) exercises in a single workout session in trained men (França. 2015).
The participants were randomly assigned to one out of two groups: A combination group with both multi- and single joint exercise MJ+SJ (n = 10, 27.7 + 6.6 year) and a multi-joint only group MJ (n = 10, 29.4 + 4.6 years). To be included in the study, participants had to be currently practicing RT and have been continuously training for at least two years previous to the beginning of the study. Their programs had to involve both MJ and SJ exercises and had to be geared towards muscle hypertrophy. People with a history of anabolic steroid use were not accepted. Furthermore, all participants were instructed not change their nutritional habits or ingest ergogenic aids during the study. Minimum training attendance was set at 85% (all 20 volunteers complied).

"In order to increase ecological validity, RT [resistance training] program design and exercise choice were based on the common practices used in gyms and fitness centers by experienced trainees who desire to increase muscle strength and size. RT followed a linear periodization model with sequences of ordinary (two), shock (one) and restorative (one) microcyles as shown in Table 1" (de França. 2015).

During the ordinary microcycle, sets were performed to concentric failure - with one minute rest interval between sets. During the shock microcycle, each exercise was performed with the same load of the ordinary week, however, after failure, external assistance was given during the concentric phase to allow the performance of 2-5 additional repetitions, a method that's usually called forced repetitions (Ahtiainen. 2003).

Table 1: Periodization scheme used in the study (explanation follows | de França. 2015)

During the ordinary and shock microcycles,  the loads were reduced by ~10% from set to set to maintain the designated number of repetitions (Willardson. 2012). During the restorative microcycle, the loads were equivalent to 50% of the load used in the previous microcycle but the number of repetitions was kept at 10 and no load adjustment were necessary from set to set.

"Participants were instructed to take one second to perform the concentric and two seconds to perform the eccentric phase, whenever possible. Rest intervals were set at one minute between sets and two minutes between exercises" (de França. 2015).

Each session lasted approximately 35 and 50 minutes for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively, and the subjects trained according to an A-B regimen that was performed twice a week for a total of four training days per week. In that, the lower limbs, low back and abdominal muscles were trained on Wednesdays and Saturdays through the same complementary training program for both groups.

Table 2: Overview of the RT programs | * denotes exercises done only in the MJ+SJ group (de França. 2015).

As show in Table 2, both groups performed the same MJ exercises, but the MJ+SJ groups also performed the exercises marked with asterisks. This means we are not comparing workouts with identical volume, but actually normal volume MJ only vs. high volume MJ + SJ workouts.
To assess the results of the program, the researchers did 1-RM tests (for strength) and measured the flexed arm circumference (FAC) and arm muscle circumference (AMC) before the training program and 5-7 days after the last training session (see red box to learn why this is important).

Figure 1: Pre-/post-changes in arm circumference and biceps + triceps strength (de Franca. 2015).

The results of these measurements or, more specifically, the mean changes between pre- and post-test are shown in Figure 1. As the scientists highlight in their paper, significant differences between pre- and post-tests (p<0.05) were found for all variables analyzed. Comparison between groups, however, did not show significant differences for any variable (p>0.05).
References:

• Ahtiainen, Juha P., et al. "Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced vs maximum repetitions multiple resistance exercises." International journal of sports medicine 24.6 (2003): 410-418.
• de França, Henrique Silvestre, et al. "The Effects Of Adding Single-Joint Exercises To A Multi-Joint Exercise Resistance Training Program On Upper Body Muscle Strength And Size In Trained Men." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (2015): Ahead of print.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M., Roberto Simão, and Fabio E. Fontana. "The effect of load reductions on repetition performance for commonly performed multijoint resistance exercises." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.11 (2012): 2939-2945.

If you are just starting out on your way to build a body like this, there's little doubt that circuit training is worth considering. If you are more advanced and have a priority on strength and muscle gains, things may be different.

This is not the first article about the benefits of circuit training here at the waredownloadsoft. It is however one of the most convincing ones, as far as the the choice between time-efficient circuit training regimen and a more time-consuming classic resistance training + aerobic training combo is concerned.

To test, which of the two regimen is "better, the subjects of the study, 34 sedentary young women (20.9 +/- 3.2 years; 167.6 +/- 6.4 cm; 65.0 +-/ 15.2 kg), were assigned to either (a) a combined resistance and aerobic exercise group (COMBINED; n = 17) or (b) a circuit-based whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit group (CIRCUIT; n = 17).
All subjects, regardless of which group (for a detailed description of the training protocols see Figure 1) they'd been assigned to trained 3 days per week for 5 weeks.

Figure 1: Tabular overviews of the two training protocols; the COMBINED training group did 30 minutes of resistance training followed by 15 minutes of aerobic exercise (Myers. 2015).

The study outcomes included pre- and post-training measures including VO2peak, anaerobic Wingate cycling, and muscular strength and endurance tests. Tests that revealed that...

• Figure 2: Selected study results (Myers.2015).

  the aerobic performance, as measured by the VO2peak pre- vs. post-test, increased exclusively in the CIRCUIT group (11%),
• peak and relative average power increased to similar extents in both groups, i.e. by 5% (p = 0.027) and 3.2% (p = 0.006), respectively, in the CIRCUIT group and by 5.3% (p = 0.025) and 5.1% (p = 0.003) in the COMBINED training group, 
• a slightly greater inter-group difference was observed for the chest and hamstrings 1 repetition maximum (1RM) which improved by 20.6% (p = 0.011) and 8.3% (p = 0.022) in the CIRCUIT and by 35.6% (p , 0.001) and 10.2% (p = 0.004) in the COMBINED group, respectively,
• the most significant advantage of the COMBINED training group, was observed for the back (11.7%; p = 0.017) and quadriceps (9.6%; p = 0.006) 1RM, which did not improve in the CIRCUIT group, 

• Myers TR, Schneider MG, Schmale MS, Hazell TJ. Whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit improves aerobic fitness and muscle strength in sedentary young females. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):1592-600.