Continuous vs Cluster Reps

<div>
(omega99 @ Nov. 28 2007,17:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> </div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do most of you guys feel that Max-Stim helps mitigate fatigue? I've been on Dan's site and read his experiment regarding more TUT doing dumbell curls with Max-Stim, but I didn't have the same results. Whether doing MS or consecutive reps, I still reached the fatigue threshold at about the same TUT using a 5 sec m-time. </div>Can you elaborate or shoot me an email I would really like to know, in detail, what you did.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Also, how would MS reduce fatigue anymore than just resting &quot;as needed&quot; after a certain number of consecutive reps?</div>MS is primarily about reducing fatigue and hence being able to use heavier loads for the same or greater number of total reps but that is only part of it.

Another aspect I am closely looking into is how this strain is sensed when the load is removed briefly and it's impact on mechanotransduction. In bone this has been proven to be quite interesting and when rest is inserted between strain events the bone growth surpasses the growth seen when the strain event is one continous event. Granted bone and muscle are different tissues and may not respond in the same manner but both do sense strain and react to it.

Lastly is the lactic acid accumulation truly important or even may it be inhibitory? There is some, let me stress some, evidence that one can conclude this, obviously I did, and this may be a reason why there is a difference in the time protein synthesis begins to rise between concentrics and eccentrics. Now if, big if here, PS elevations can be shifted to the left, as seen with eccentrics, while still using concentric actions this would ultimately lead to a larger AUC (area under curve) and hence a larger (duration) PS response. This naturally assumes that PD (protein degradation) stays the same.

So ultimately yes, MS is about fatigue management and the increased, well generally increased, you seem to be an outlyer
wink.gif
, force/volume that comes with it but there are other reasonings in there as well.


Nav, how are you coming along on your MS trial?
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 28 2007,19:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(omega99 @ Nov. 28 2007,17:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> </div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do most of you guys feel that Max-Stim helps mitigate fatigue?  I've been on Dan's site and read his experiment regarding more TUT doing dumbell curls with Max-Stim, but I didn't have the same results.  Whether doing MS or consecutive reps, I still reached the fatigue threshold at about the same TUT using a 5 sec m-time. </div>Can you elaborate or shoot me an email I would really like to know, in detail, what you did.</div>
Dan and All,

As I recall, here are the details of my M-stim trial:

Using Consecutive Reps
------------------------------
Cycle: HST -- 5th workout in 10 rep range
Exercise: DB Incline Curls
Weight: 40 lbs.
Form: One arm at a time (not alternating)
Rest: No rest between reps
TUT Result: 6 reps to fatigue

Using Max-Stim 5 Sec M-time
------------------------------------
Cycle: HST -- 6th workout in 10 rep range
Exercise: DB Incline Curls
Weight: 40 lbs.
Form: One arm at a time (not alternating)
Rest:  Approx 5 seconds between each rep
TUT Result: 6 reps to fatigue

Because I could not hit 10 reps on my 5th workout, I decided to try M-stim on my 6th workout to see if that would get me any closer to 10.  As you can see, it did not.   Of course, I clustered to eventually get there.

One thing to note is that, in both cases, I did the curls after doing close-grip pull-ups, so perhaps my biceps were already a bit fatigued at that point.

I will plan to repeat the curls as a stand-alone bicep exercise to see if the results change.
 
To MS or not, is indeed the question... or rather, does continuous reps...accumulating fatigue, offer an advantage in hypertrophy.

If fatigue doesnt offer anything...
AND Load is the main factor that generates growth
AND fatigue is actually bad...limits load
AND fatigue is bad, because it brings us closer to failure, more exhausting on CNS

Then...seems like MS or small clustering..2-3, would be the way to go... NOT just at the end of a cycle to extend, but always, in place of continuous reps. MS offers equal or More Load while reducing fatigue.

Unless of course there is some evidence that continuous reps, fatigue etc.. offers something to hypertrophy that fatigue management does not.
 
OMEGA...strange you couldnt manage alot more reps using MS. I believe you mustve been quite fatigued from previous exercise, in which case, you would need to increase the M-Time rest between reps. Everyones m-time seems to be a bit different however. The m-time is very flexable...depending on fatigue, you can go from 5 sec to 30 sec. between reps.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 28 2007,16:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nav, how are you coming along on your MS trial?</div>
Hi Dan,

Great to see you weighing on this thread!

I'm still plugging away at the MS cycle. This week I'm working with 20 reps per exercise at 100% of my 10RM weights. The cycle has gotten harder than I mentioned before.
biggrin.gif


As for results: The scale reads about the same, but the calipers say that my BF% is dropping gradually each week (which according to my calculation suggests that LBM has gone up a bit). The mirror is deceptive, but I could swear that I look a bit more defined without losing any muscularity. Funny thing, my BIA scale says that I'm basically spinning me wheels. But I know that BIA fluctuates wildly with hydration, too, so I'm relying on the calipers (they're more encouraging).
 
After reading past posts from long ago, i noticed alot of discussion on burn sets being advised during the 5's. idea being metabolic, continuous high reps sets were needed for optimum growth. however, burn sets dont seem to be advocated much anymore. seems like load is king now, fatigue and metabolic stress is avoided.
 
<div>
(RAMROD @ Dec. 02 2007,06:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">After reading past posts from long ago, i noticed alot of discussion on burn sets being advised during the 5's. idea being metabolic, continuous high reps sets were needed for optimum growth. however, burn sets dont seem to be advocated much anymore. seems like load is king now, fatigue and metabolic stress is avoided.</div>
My thinking has gone the same way. I used to do metabolic work after my heavy work a long time ago but am finding comparable, if not superior results now without doing it. I have experimented with adding it back in, but it hasn't seemed to work out to well.

My thought is that even if you cluster, max-stim or whatever to avoid fatigue, you are still going to accumulate fatigue. You have to remember also that generally, if you are using max-stim or just clustering, you are probably doing a lot more total reps than you would be if you were doing regular HST.
When I was doing a lot of burn sets a long time ago, I was also only doing a couple work sets for each exercise, at most, and in several cases only one work set. Compare that to now when I do a minimum of 20 reps for each exercise, and I think you'll see the difference.
 
Fatigue accumulation is also dependent on the actual exercise you are performing. I know that if I was to do 20 reps MS style with my 5RM for bench I would be tired but happy to move on to my next exercise. If, on the other hand I tried for 20 reps with my 5RM for deads I would be wiped out for quite a while (if I actually made it to 20 reps). Logically, fatigue is a function of the load used (level of intensity) and the work done with that load.
 
Question for Dan, as he said this:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot; when rest is inserted between strain events the bone growth surpasses the growth seen when the strain event is one continous event. Granted bone and muscle are different tissues and may not respond in the same manner but both do sense strain and react to it.

Lastly is the lactic acid accumulation truly important or even may it be inhibitory? &quot;</div>
I think the answer might be found in extremism, or exaggeration. I find that with MS, fatigue does accumulate. Therefore, what would be going on if you added enough M-time to eliminate this almost entirely? Let's say for example, you have a dumbell in the kitchen, and while you're making supper and the week's meat supply up, you swing that sucker up and press it overhead every 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the suggested M-times.
You'd probably last through a hundred reps or until bedtime, so why wouldn't that create more growth?
I know it wouldn't work, but don't know why. If the workload with less fatigue is the principle that causes MS to work, and accumulated fatigue stops you at around 20 reps; why wouldn't less fatigue and more reps be better? If that were truly the case, I could just keep walking into my gym all day and slam off one rep here, a rep there, here a rep, there a rep, everywhere a reprep...
oh, scooz, I got carried away...
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Dec. 02 2007,19:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Question for Dan, as he said this:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot; when rest is inserted between strain events the bone growth surpasses the growth seen when the strain event is one continous event. Granted bone and muscle are different tissues and may not respond in the same manner but both do sense strain and react to it.

Lastly is the lactic acid accumulation truly important or even may it be inhibitory? &quot;</div>
I think the answer might be found in extremism, or exaggeration. I find that with MS, fatigue does accumulate. Therefore, what would be going on if you added enough M-time to eliminate this almost entirely? Let's say for example, you have a dumbell in the kitchen, and while you're making supper and the week's meat supply up, you swing that sucker up and press it overhead every 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the suggested M-times.
You'd probably last through a hundred reps or until bedtime, so why wouldn't that create more growth?
I know it wouldn't work, but don't know why. If the workload with less fatigue is the principle that causes MS to work, and accumulated fatigue stops you at around 20 reps; why wouldn't less fatigue and more reps be better? If that were truly the case, I could just keep walking into my gym all day and slam off one rep here, a rep there, here a rep, there a rep, everywhere a reprep...
oh, scooz, I got carried away...</div>
IIRC, that's exactly the kind of thing Paul Anderson used to do (well, not exactly but pretty close). He would lift really heavy loads all day! But, he'd allow plenty of rest between lifts. Didn't hurt him any. The main issue is, how do you get time to train this way? It's not really practical for most folks. So, just in case another benefit of M-time between reps is that each lift is treated as a separate strain event (which might produce a larger PS response), Max-Stim would seem like a pretty good compromise if you want a change from continuous reps.
 
Those of us with home gyms could actually do it on the weekends at times. I didn't know about anyone (Paul Andersen) actually doing it though. He was a regular hero too.
But I'm just curious about all this regarding the lactic acid, fatigue, and effects of no metabolic work in a well-spaced rep scheme. (regarding hypertrophy mostly)
I'm sure that at some point, if all you were doing was that, there would be more benefit from the metabolic work, if not merely just for mitochondrial growth purposes and VO2 uptake, circulation and the like.
One could also consider doing it along with a cardio program to keep up conditioning, as I would imagine Big Paul did. For guys my age, I couldn't see lifting 100% or more of a 1rm without a warm set of joints! Probably not good for anyone else either.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Dec. 02 2007,14:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Question for Dan, as he said this:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot; when rest is inserted between strain events the bone growth surpasses the growth seen when the strain event is one continous event. Granted bone and muscle are different tissues and may not respond in the same manner but both do sense strain and react to it.

Lastly is the lactic acid accumulation truly important or even may it be inhibitory? &quot;</div>
I think the answer might be found in extremism, or exaggeration. I find that with MS, fatigue does accumulate. Therefore, what would be going on if you added enough M-time to eliminate this almost entirely? Let's say for example, you have a dumbell in the kitchen, and while you're making supper and the week's meat supply up, you swing that sucker up and press it overhead every 3 or 5 minutes, rather than the suggested M-times.
You'd probably last through a hundred reps or until bedtime, so why wouldn't that create more growth?
I know it wouldn't work, but don't know why. If the workload with less fatigue is the principle that causes MS to work, and accumulated fatigue stops you at around 20 reps; why wouldn't less fatigue and more reps be better? If that were truly the case, I could just keep walking into my gym all day and slam off one rep here, a rep there, here a rep, there a rep, everywhere a reprep...
oh, scooz, I got carried away...</div>
this is exactly what im talking about. ive read over n over...total workload...reps, is all that matters.  get the reps in, no matter how... cluster if needed. so..wouldnt your extreme example of performing 1-2 heavy reps spaced out all day, be the same thing...

is fatigue needed to stimulate hypertrophy.... is metabolic continuous reps a requirement

if one were to space out 30 total reps for an exercise throughout the day... 1 rep at a time, complete rest between reps.. no accumulated fatigue, would this stimulate the same hypertrophy as 3 sets of 10 continuous reps?? if not, why??
 
<div>
(RAMROD @ Dec. 02 2007,19:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">is fatigue needed to stimulate hypertrophy.... is metabolic continuous reps a requirement</div>
Ahhhh, so with all the discussion, we're back to the same question!  After spending some serious time reading up on Dan's site, it's easy to see why there is no clear-cut answer to this.  Continuous contractions have been reported to cause a variety of events, some good, some not so good:

increased signalling proteins (ERK1/2)
increased inhibitory signalling (AMPK)
increased fiber recruitment
increased fatigue limiting TUT
etc., etc.

What you believe is true is probably based on which study you believe or which way one feels the preponderance of evidence tilts.  

Ramrod, perhaps you could run a trial using max-stim for one cycle and continuous reps for another (other variables as consistent as possible).   When in doubt, let your body guide you  :)
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">is fatigue needed to stimulate hypertrophy</div>

No.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If fatigue doesnt offer anything... </div>

Fatigue. Fatigue. Fatigue. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the dwindling of muscle and liver glycogen? The reduced response a muscle has to the CNS for several minutes after a heavy bout? The 2 minute downtime of the motor cortex in your brain? Fatigue is not one thing. It is many things that are comprised of still other things that occur in many tissues throughout your body. &quot;Fatigue&quot; is a word for muscle mags. You must get beyond simplistic thinking if you are to progress in your understanding.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">is metabolic continuous reps a requirement</div>

No.

It is a question of optimality, not necessity.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> ive read over n over...total workload...reps, is all that matters</div>

The fundamentals manifest themselves in myriad forms. Master the essentials and their permutations will not confuse you. Then you will know.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> ive read over n over...total workload...reps, is all that matters</div>

Of course workload matters. You can do your reps in clusters, with pauses, or continuously.
 
I don't have the links, but Lyle Mcdonlad once posted me some studies at his forum in defense of metabolic fatigue as at least a part of hypertrophy signalling.
The studies looked at continuous type reps causing fatigue versus a similar load and volume but with more rest.  And the group with more fatigueing exercise had a better response to the training.  But it may have been on untrained subjects, (which is a poor control if you ask me,) I can't recall.
I tried searching the bodyrecomposition forum archive for the paper links, but can't find them.
sad.gif
 
Dan Moore, do you know of any studies which find fatigue as a hypertrophy stimulus benefit?  I swear the papers Lyle posted were fairly decent studies in conclusion pointing strongly at fatigue as a significant factor in training response.
 
For the record, I see max-stim as a beneficial training method due to the fact that there is some fatigue accumulation even with m-time as some have pointed out.  AND it does the trick of allowing increased muscle-fiber strain via increased LOAD and VOLUME due the fatigue-management.
But I also feel that m-time must be kept strictly controlled and fairly short or the fatigue-accumulation will be almost nil and may not have as strong an effect as when the m-time is kept small.
In quadancer's extreme example of doing many reps throughout the day, I think the lack of metabolic byproducts such as lactic acid will actually have a diminished effect on the training response versus using regular sets or stricter, short m-time.

Of course this thinking is caused primarily by those studies of which I can't provide at the moment.
blush.gif
 
well...it looks like the more i try to get a solid hold on what i should do for best results, the less i understand. what i do know is this... its becoming obvious ill have to just experiment on myself for a long, long time to determine what works. and unfortunately, thatll involve alot of wasted time. was hoping the science wouldve come up with some definative answers by now about exactly what works best and what doesnt. sure, the basic principles are there... progressive load, rest, eat. these have always been there. looks like alot more to it than that. i mean, weve got a bunch of guys at doggcrap going to total failure 2x a week making good gains, yet the science says failure will lead to cns burnout and no gains in a very short time. dc says they are right, hit says them, hst, max-stim, jreps, on n on. all these programs based on science and or training experience, many contradicting eachother. its extremely frustrating for a trainer whos willing to put in the effort to learn and work. i just want to know what to do, and ill do it. i know everyone here wants the same thing and im sure many can understand my frustration. sorry, i needed to rant. my head hurts.
sad.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Dec. 02 2007,23:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dan Moore, do you know of any studies which find fatigue as a hypertrophy stimulus benefit?  I swear the papers Lyle posted were fairly decent studies in conclusion pointing strongly at fatigue as a significant factor in training response.</div>
He's talking about the Smith Schott studies, they are crap. He's used these same studies over and over again as evidence and the problems with those studies are many.

You couldn't find the studies because he didn't have them, only the abstracts.

What they did was compare long continous isometrics (higher metabolic cost) versus short isometrics (lower metabolic costs) that matched total time only. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that these are very poorly constructed in terms of recruitment between groups.

Also how can one take metabolic change measurements from a group that didn't even show the hypertrophy they are talking about and then draw the conclusion that the hypertrophy seen was because of the higher changes seen in metabolites?

The other one he mentions I'm sure is the Goto et al study.

I've discussed these ad nauseum before. But if you want me to elaborate email me.
 
Ramrod,

If folks are training in a manner that adheres to the basic principles of hypertrophy then they will grow, as long as they are eating enough (good, balanced diet) and have enough test in their bodies. Going to failure regularly doesn't preclude you from making gains. What happens is that your body will get better at dealing with failure training (ie. you get better at dealing with fatigue). It doesn't mean that it's an optimal way to train for hypertrophy but it is still possible to make gains. Some folks will handle it better than others.

The fact is, you will have to experiment to a degree; your own conditioning to exercise will change over time, meaning that you will have to change the way you structure your workouts as you progress. However, I don't see any major problems in getting on a road to good gains right now, as long as all the prerequisites mentioned above are in place. Start with around 20 reps per exercise per session. Do what you can in an hour or so and try 3 sessions a week. Keep the loads progressing over a cycle and see how you get on.

It may be that you have progressed enough already such that you need a bit more volume each session to trigger a response. In this case you may need to split your workouts into upper and lower body (or push/pull) and try four sessions a week with a bit more volume per exercise per session. Your weekly total might not be much different to 3 x weekly but you will be doing more for a body part each session.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Dec. 03 2007,08:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Dec. 02 2007,23:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dan Moore, do you know of any studies which find fatigue as a hypertrophy stimulus benefit?  I swear the papers Lyle posted were fairly decent studies in conclusion pointing strongly at fatigue as a significant factor in training response.</div>
He's talking about the Smith Schott studies, they are crap. He's used these same studies over and over again as evidence and the problems with those studies are many.

You couldn't find the studies because he didn't have them, only the abstracts.

What they did was compare long continous isometrics (higher metabolic cost) versus short isometrics (lower metabolic costs) that matched total time only. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that these are very poorly constructed in terms of recruitment between groups.

Also how can one take metabolic change measurements from a group that didn't even show the hypertrophy they are talking about and then draw the conclusion that the hypertrophy seen was because of the higher changes seen in metabolites?

The other one he mentions I'm sure is the Goto et al study.

I've discussed these ad nauseum before. But if you want me to elaborate email me.</div>
Dan, I found them. You are right about which studies he posted abstracts to. And come to think of it, it is true that isometric long vs. short contractions is not anywhere near the same as isotonic contraction with or without rest (max-stim vs, conventional).
Anyway, good point. I haven't bothered arguing with Lyle for a LONG time, since he resorts to insults instead of answering questions politely as yourself.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">***
1: Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(4):332-6.

The role of metabolites in strength training. I. A comparison of eccentric and
concentric contractions.

Smith RC, Rutherford OM.

Department of Physiology, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London, UK.

This study examined the role of high forces versus metabolic cost in the
adaptations following strength training. Ten young, healthy male and female
subjects trained one leg using concentric (CL) and the other using eccentric (EL)
contractions of the quadriceps muscle for 20 weeks. EL used weights which were
35% higher than those used for CL. Isometric strength, and the length:tension and
force:velocity relationship of the muscle were measured before and after
training. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured near the knee and hip
using computed tomography. Increases in isometric strength were greater for CL
compared to EL, the difference being significant with the knee at 1.57 rad (90
degrees) [mean (SD), 43.7 (19.6)% vs 22.9 (9.8)%, respectively; P = 0.01].
Increases in isokinetic strength tended to be larger for EL, although the
differences were not significant. Significant increases in CSA occurred near the
hip for both EL and CL. These results suggest that metabolic cost, and not high
forces alone, are involved in the stimuli for muscle hypertrophy and strength
gains following high-resistance training.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

PMID: 8549576 [Pubmed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(4):337-41.

The role of metabolites in strength training. II. Short versus long isometric
contractions.

Schott J, McCully K, Rutherford OM.

Department of Physiology, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London, UK.

The role of intramuscular metabolite changes in the adaptations following
isometric strength training was examined by comparing the effect of short,
intermittent contractions (IC) and longer, continuous (CC) contractions. In a
parallel study, the changes in phosphate metabolites and pH were examined during
the two protocols using whole-body nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
(NMRS). Seven subjects trained three time per week for 14 weeks. The right leg
was trained using four sets of ten contractions, each lasting 3 s with a 2-s rest
period between each contraction and 2 min between each set. The left leg was
trained using four 30-s contractions with a 1-min rest period between each. Both
protocols involved isometric contractions at 70% of a maximum voluntary isometric
contraction (MVC). The MVC, length:tension and force:velocity relationships and
cross-sectional area (CSA) of each leg were measured before and after training.
The increase in isometric strength was significantly greater (P = 0.041) for the
CC leg (median 54.7%; P = 0.022) than for IC (31.5%; P = 0.022). There were no
significant differences between the two protocols for changes in the
length:tension or force:velocity relationships. There were significant increases
in muscle CSA for the CC leg only. NMRS demonstrated that the changes in
phosphate metabolites and pH were greater for the CC protocol. These findings
suggest that factors related to the greater metabolite changes during CC training
results in greater increases in isometric strength and muscle CSA.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

PMID: 8549577 [Pubmed - indexed for MEDLINE]</div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">****
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Jun;37(6):955-63. Links
The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations.
Goto K, Ishii N, Kizuka T, Takamatsu K.

Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of exercise-induced metabolic stress on hormonal responses and chronic muscular adaptations. METHODS: We compared the acute and long-term effects of an &quot;NR regimen&quot; (no-rest regimen) and those of a &quot;WR regimen&quot; (regimen with rest period within a set). Twenty-six male subjects were assigned to either the NR (N = 9), WR (N = 9), or control (CON, N = 8) groups. The NR regimen consisted of 3-5 sets of 10 repetitions at 10-repetition maximum (RM) with an interset rest period of 1 min (lat pulldown, shoulder press, and bilateral knee extension). In the WR regimen, subjects completed the same protocol as the NR regimen, but took a 30-s rest period at the midpoint of each set of exercises in order to reduce exercise-induced metabolic stress. Acute hormonal responses to both regimens were measured followed by a 12-wk period of resistance training. RESULTS: Measurements of blood lactate and serum hormone concentrations after the NR and WR regimens showed that the NR regimen induced strong lactate, growth hormone (GH), epinephrine (E), and norepinephrine (NE) responses, whereas the WR regimen did not. Both regimens failed to cause significant changes in testosterone. After 12 wk of resistance training, the NR regimen caused greater increases in 1RM (P &lt; 0.01), maximal isometric strength (P &lt; 0.05), and muscular endurance (P &lt; 0.05) with knee extension than the WR regimen. The NR group showed a marked increase (P &lt; 0.01) in muscle cross-sectional area, whereas the WR and CON groups did not. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that exercise-induced metabolic stress is associated with acute GH, E, and NE responses and chronic muscular adaptations following resistance training.

***
J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Nov;18(4):730-7. Links
Muscular adaptations to combinations of high- and low-intensity resistance exercises.
Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K.

Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

Acute and long-term effects of resistance-training regimens with varied combinations of high- and low-intensity exercises were studied. Acute changes in the serum growth hormone (GH) concentration were initially measured after 3 types of regimens for knee extension exercise: a medium intensity (approximately 10 repetition maximum [RM]) short interset rest period (30 s) with progressively decreasing load (&quot;hypertrophy type&quot;); 5 sets of a high-intensity (90% of 1RM) and low-repetition exercise (&quot;strength type&quot;); and a single set of low-intensity and high-repetition exercise added immediately after the strength-type regimen (&quot;combi-type&quot;). Postexercise increases in serum GH concentration showed a significant regimen dependence: hypertrophy-type &gt; combi-type &gt; strength-type (p &lt; 0.05, n = 8). Next, the long-term effects of periodized training protocols with the above regimens on muscular function were investigated. Male subjects (n = 16) were assigned to either hypertrophy/combi (HC) or hypertrophy/ strength (HS) groups and performed leg press and extension exercises twice a week for 10 weeks. During the first 6 weeks, both groups used the hypertrophy-type regimen to gain muscular size. During the subsequent 4 weeks, HC and HS groups performed combi-type and strength-type regimens, respectively. Muscular strength, endurance, and cross sectional area (CSA) were examined after 2, 6, and 10 weeks. After the initial 6 weeks, no significant difference was seen in the percentage changes of all variables between the groups. After the subsequent 4 weeks, however, 1RM of leg press, maximal isokinetic strength, and muscular endurance of leg extension showed significantly (p &lt; 0.05) larger increases in the HC group than in the HS group. In addition, increases in CSA after this period also tended to be larger in the HC group than in the HS group (p = 0.08). The results suggest that a combination of high- and low-intensity regimens is effective for optimizing the strength adaptation of muscle in a periodized training program.
</div>
 
Back
Top