0

Greg Nuckols

STRENGTHEORY.COM

BRAIN GAINS: THE BEST OF STRENGTHEORY

1

Read This First:

Let me start by saying thanks for downloading a copy of this ebook.

Next, let me explain what this IS, and what it ISNT.

This is not a comprehensive training manual. You wont find much that looks like do x sets of x

reps of these exercises and youll get big and strong. There are plenty of books like that, and Im

planning on writing specifically about programming in the future; but thats another book not

this one.

Also, this is not a book in the traditional sense of one section building upon another. Its a

collection of articles and essays from my blog, loosely organized around themes. Because of this,

dont feel obligated to read it cover to cover. If a heading looks interesting to you, dive in. If it

doesnt grab your attention, skip on over.

More than anything, I want this to serve as a repository for some of the best work on the site. If

youre a new reader, this will save you a lot of time separating the wheat from the chaff a lot of

the early articles on the site were admittedly pretty rough. If youve stuck with me from the start

(double thanks!), this will give you most of your favorites in one place.

One more note the articles in this book go back 2 years or more. As Ive learned more, my views

on some of these subjects have shifted somewhat, or have at least become more nuanced.

However, Ive gone back through all these articles to make sure theres nothing in here that is just

flat-out wrong; but there are some topics presented in a manner thats a little more simplistic than

my current way of looking at them. Ultimately, though, if I were to put out a book to capture

exactly what I think about every fitness-related topic, Id have to write it in one day, and pieces of

it would already be outdated by the next week. I guess what Im saying is that you shouldnt take

everything in this book as my final word (and CERTAINLY not THE final word) on these topics.

2

Contents

PROGRAMMING ....................................................................................................................................... 5

More is More ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Peaking AKA, How to Hit PRs in Meets .................................................................................................... 16

Increasing Work Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 22

The Bogeyman of Training Programs (and Why It May Be Just What You Need) ...................................... 29

In Defense of Program Hoppers; DUP Revisited ......................................................................................... 36

Study Write-up: Sprints Are Anabolic*, Even When Fasted! but with Big Gender Differences .............. 47

Cardio and Lifting Cardio Wont Hugely Impact Your Gains in the Short Run, and May Be Beneficial for

Strength and Size in the Long Run .............................................................................................................. 54

Practical Considerations for Combining Cardiovascular Training and Lifting ............................................. 61

Cardio Isnt Going to Kill Your Gains. Need More Evidence? You Got It..................................................... 72

Making Your Novice Strength Training Routine More Effective Two Quick Tips ..................................... 78

PubMed Doesnt Replace A Strength Coach ............................................................................................... 82

Do Women Need to Train Differently Than Men? ...................................................................................... 89

What I Learned on the Way to Squatting 500 ............................................................................................ 93

What I Learned on the Way to Deadlifting 500 pounds ............................................................................. 98

What I Learned on the Way to Benching 350 pounds .............................................................................. 103

DIET ........................................................................................................................................................... 107

The Three Laws of Protein ........................................................................................................................ 107

3

Being Strong Is Not an Excuse to be Fat (and Being Fat is Probably Holding You Back)........................... 111

TECHNIQUE ............................................................................................................................................. 117

Should You Wear a Belt or Not? Study Write-Up ..................................................................................... 117

Everything You Think Is Wrong With Your Deadlift Is Probably Right ...................................................... 122

Fixing the Good-Morning Squat ................................................................................................................ 132

Hamstrings The Most Overrated Muscle Group for the Squat .............................................................. 135

Its Time to End this Nonsense. High Bar vs. Low Bar Squatting .............................................................. 139

Squats are not Hip Dominant or Knee Dominant. Some Biomechanical Black Magic. ............................. 147

Speed Kills: 2x the Intended Bar Speed Yields ~2x the Bench Press Gains ............................................... 159

Band-Resisted Pushups = Bench Press for Strength Gains? Plus, How Useful is EMG? ........................... 172

MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................................................................... 182

Making Sense of Strength ......................................................................................................................... 182

Unleash Your Inner Superhero .................................................................................................................. 199

What it Takes to Break World Records ..................................................................................................... 211

The Science of Steroids ............................................................................................................................. 225

Stress: The Silent Killer (of gains) .............................................................................................................. 247

Wrecking Your Diet, One Night at a Time ................................................................................................. 259

Poor Recovery and Increased Muscle Breakdown: Insufficient Sleep Part 2! .......................................... 266

Exercise Science: What is it good for? ...................................................................................................... 270

Buy-In ........................................................................................................................................................ 279

4

Be Honest with Yourself. Training for Health vs. Performance ................................................................ 288

The Size of your Pond ............................................................................................................................... 291

5

PROGRAMMING

More is More

Key points

1) The most reliable way, though not the ONLY way, to get stronger is to do more.

2) Even advanced, drug-free athletes can make great progress training a lift just twice per week.

3) You probably dont need to worry about overtraining. Participants in this study squatted 8

sets to failure with 80% of their max and made sweet gainz.

If you dont understand anything else about programming, understand this:

The most reliable way to make progress is to do more.

Its certainly not the ONLY way to make progress. Exercise selection plays a role, intensity

plays a role, frequency plays a role, and proper periodization plays a role. But the primary

contributor hands down is training volume.

Its been a while since Ive done a dedicated study write-up. Ive come across some cool stuff,

but nothing that deserved its own article. This study really caught my eye, though, because it

illustrates this concept perfectly:

The Effect of Training Volume on Lower-Body Strength by Robbins et. Al. (2012)

Participants

http://gregnuckols.com/2014/11/29/more-is-more/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158142

6

Most of the guys were mid-20s to early 30s. The great thing about this study was that they were

all experienced lifters. A minimum of two years of consistent training was required, but most of

the participants had been under the bar for 5-8 years.

A squat of at least 130% of bodyweight was required to participate, and the average squat for the

people in the study was around 155kg to start with. Strangely, the participants weights werent

reported, but for most studies like this, the people are somewhere between 75-85kg. Its pretty

safe to assume that most of the people in this study were squatting around 1.5-2

times bodyweight.

Not too shabby these werent the untrained subjects typical of most strength training studies.

Training Protocol

Before the study, all the participants did two weeks of a body part split routine (chest and bis,

back and tris, and legs) with standardized volume and intensity to make sure their prior training

wouldnt significantly influence their results. After that, they maxed and were put on different

training protocols.

For the actual trial period, all the groups trained 4 times per week for six weeks. One day was

squats and upper back work. The other was all upper body work (since youd have a hard time

recruiting well-trained subjects for a study if they knew theyd lose all their upper body

swole). All of the training was the same for all three groups, except for their squat work.

One group did 1 set of squats to failure with 80%.

One group did 4 sets of squats to failure with 80%.

7

One group did 8 sets of squats to failure with 80%.

Failure was defined as volitional failure (i.e. when they felt like they couldnt get the next rep),

or when they needed to take more than three seconds between reps.

They squatted twice per week, with no extra exercises that were leg- or lower back-intensive.

They retested maxes after Week 3 and Week 6.

After Week 6, they were put back on a standardized protocol. They all trained four times per

week, hitting each muscle group twice per week, and all squatted for three sets with a 4rm load.

Basically, they were on a training program that was similar to how people actually train, which

makes it easier to generalize the results.

The one thing that irked me a bit was that squat depth was specified as 90 degrees of knee

flexion a bit above parallel. Oh well. Thats fairly standard, though. Assuming results are

generalizable from a slightly above parallel squat to a slightly below parallel squat isnt too

much of a leap of faith.

Results

As its explained in the study, the 1-set group did not get any stronger at three weeks, but did get

stronger at six weeks, with no difference between Week 6 and Week 10. The 4-set group got

stronger by Week 3, but didnt gain any further strength between Week 3 and Week 10. The 8-

set group was stronger at Week 3 than Week 1, but wasnt significantly stronger at weeks 6 and

10 than at Week 3. The 8-set group gained significantly more strength than the 1-set group, but

8

there was no significant difference between the 4-set group and either the 1-set group or the 8-

set group.

However, I dont think those results are telling the whole story. This study, like many exercise

science studies, was plagued by small study groups (10-11 people per group), which means

pretty big differences between groups or time points are required to reach statistical

significance. The chart of the results themselves tells a somewhat different story.

From Robbins (2012)

9

Over three weeks, the 4-set and 8-set groups got almost identical gains, but between weeks 3 and

6, and between weeks 6 and 10, the 8-set group starts to pull away.

Average strength gains through the first six weeks.

By the end of the six week intervention, the 1-set group had gained about 16kg on their squats on

average (~148kg to ~164kg), the 4-set group had gained about 23kg (~157kg to ~180kg), and the

8-set group had gained about 31kg (~160kg to ~191kg). So while the difference between the 4-

set and 8-set group may have not been *statistically* significant, its still probably relevant in the

real world. The effect sizes (often used in studies like this where the sample size is rarely large

enough to produce significant results) bear this out the effect size for the difference between 1

and 4 sets was small, and the effect size for the difference between 4 and 8 sets was

moderate. The authors say as much in the abstract as well:

At 6 weeks, the magnitude of improvement was significantly greater for the 8-SET, as

compared with that of the 1-SET group. The magnitude of improvement elicited in the 4-SET

10

group was not different from that of the 1-SET or 8-SET groups. The results suggest that high

volumes (i.e., >4 sets) are associated with enhanced strength development but that moderate

volumes offer no advantage. Practitioners should be aware that strength development may be

dependent on appropriate volume doses and training duration.

Another interesting thing to notice is that the 8-set group was the only one that gained strength

during the four weeks of training heavier at the end of the study (about 7kg, on average). Again,

the results werent significant so you may not want to put TOO much stock in them, but it

conforms to typically-held beliefs about overreaching and peaking only the group that was

previously doing a lot of volume actually got stronger during a heavier, lower volume phase

(somewhat similar to a peaking program) before the final maxes.

Another interesting thing to note is that only in the 4-set group did everyone actually get

stronger. In the 1-set group, eight people were able to increase their training loads, there was no

change for one participant, and two actually had to decrease their training loads. In the 8-set

group, nine out of 10 were able to increase their training load, but one was not (no change). So

while 8 sets of squats produced the best average results, 4 sets was the only condition that caused

strength gains across the board.

Discussion

I wanted to write about this journal article because it represents a larger trend, both in

research and in-the-trenches practice. This was the particular article I chose because it was 1)

done on dudes who were actually pretty strong and experienced (5-8 years training, on average)

and 2) because it was about squatting, not leg extensions or something of that nature.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012

11

If you want to get stronger, the best thing you can do is train more, provided youre sleeping

enough, managing stress, and have good technique.

Sure, other factors certainly matter. And sure, its certainly possible (though unlikely) to

overtrain. But in the simplest terms possible, your current program is probably less effective

than it would be if you just added an extra couple of sets to each exercise. If youre not making

progress, your default thought shouldnt simply be, time to find an exciting new program! It

should be either time to add more work to my current program or time to seek out a new

program that employs more volume than my current one.

Another thing Id like to point out in the face of the current prevailing wisdom in the

powerlifting world: It is entirely possible to get great strength gains just training a lift a couple

times per week. The current trend seems to be recommending everyone (especially drug-free

lifters) train every lift 3-4 or more times per week.

These were experienced lifters with an average of five to eight years under the bar and an

average squat of ~155kg. Every group had non-negligible strength average strength

gains. Every person in the 4-set group made strength gains, and the average strength gains over

10 weeks in the 8-set group were around 37kg (82lbs). Yes, there is a trend for higher frequency

to yield better results (one, two, three), but you can certainly get stronger doing a lift just once or

twice per week.

Another interesting thing to point out about this particular study the point of diminishing

returns doesnt even seem to be kicking in yet at 8 sets for these experienced trainees. The

difference in average strength gains between the 8-set and 4-set group was actually greater than

http://gregnuckols.com/2014/02/18/high-frequency-training-for-a-bigger-total-research-on-highly-trained-norwegian-powerlifters/http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2014/04/07/training-frequency/http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2014/01/23/frequency-hypertrophy/

12

the difference between the 4-set and 1-set groups (again, the difference isnt statistically

significant, but the effect size was considerably larger). Although 8 sets to failure may sound

like a ton of work for a single training session, this study indicates that its perfectly reasonable.

Another thing to point out about the awesome results the subjects got this wasnt even a

periodized training program (which tend to yield better results). It was the same percentage of

their 1rm, for the same number of sets, week-in and week-out. They didnt even do any lower

body exercises EXCEPT squatting. However, the average squat gains across the board were still

10-20% on average.

Fancy programs with a ton of bells and whistles may be more fun and engaging (which shouldnt

be discounted), and may produce better results yet, but you can DEFINITELY get stronger on a

basic meat-and-potatoes training plan.

This should be obvious, but just to explicitly mention it 8 sets to failure (average of 7 reps per

set) was not enough to cause overtraining, rhabdo, and death. Its the level of volume that the

participants responded the most positively to.

Another thing worth mentioning: Although doing more work yields better strength gains, that

doesnt necessarily mean its efficient. The 8-set group gained about 80% more strength on

average than the 1-set group, but they did about five times as much total work (131 total reps

versus 670 total reps) over the six weeks of volume manipulated training. As Ive said before,

its entirely possible to get results with a low volume program, but it probably wont give you the

BEST results. And although the process gets less and less efficient the more you do (less gains

per unit of increased work), more gains are still more gains.

http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2014/09/02/periodization/http://gregnuckols.com/2014/10/01/in-defense-of-program-hoppers-dup-revisited/http://gregnuckols.com/2014/10/01/in-defense-of-program-hoppers-dup-revisited/http://www.jtsstrength.com/articles/2014/05/07/new-minimalism/

13

When comparing the 1-set group to the 8-set group, youre looking at ~five times as much work

for ~80% better results.

One last practical caveat before ramping up the volume (especially if youre training close to

failure as these guys were), make sure your form is good. If you get a ton of practice with great

technique, you get stronger and further ingrain great technique. If you get a ton of practice with

bad technique, youll still get stronger, but youll further ingrain bad habits youll have a much

harder time unlearning.

Practical Application

So how should you apply this information to your training?

Well, heres a super simple decision tree:

14

Disregard the HRV bit if youd like (I made this for a presentation for Elite Fitness Mentoring

where Id already talked about HRV, but you can read more about it here), and substitute it with

feeling great and energetic for high HRV and feeling crummy and worn down for low

HRV.

Essentially, if youre getting stronger, dont fix what isnt broken. If youre not getting stronger,

assuming you arent feeling worn down all the time, do more.

That could take a few different forms:

1) sticking with your current program, but doing more work sets or adding dropback sets

http://elitefitnessmentoring.com/http://www.8weeksout.com/2011/12/05/heart-rate-variability-research-review/

15

2) starting or increasing accessory work targeting specific weaknesses

3) adding more work for your stalled lift on another day of the week

The amount of work you do doesnt need to double overnight, but if you look through your

training journals and see that a lift has been stalled for a year, and youre doing the same amount

of work for that lift today as you were doing a year ago, youve probably found your culprit.

If you find yourself unable to increase training volume while still recovering, the factor

bottlenecking your progress is probably work capacity (read more about it here and here). In this

case, you still need to eventually do more work, but you need to take a step back (put maximal

strength on the back burner for a while so you can focus on increasing work capacity) so that you

can ultimately take a step forward (increasing training volume productively).

Wrapping it up

As an athlete or coach, you should have a lot of tools in your toolbox. However, increasing

training volume should be one of the tools you always keep at the top of your mind. If you dont

see any glaring issues in program design, you already have good technique, and youre taking

care of business outside of the gym, simply doing more is the most reliable way to keep making

progress.

http://rippedbody.jp/2014/07/18/intermediate-training-greg-nuckols/http://gregnuckols.com/2013/02/18/increasing-work-capacity/

16

Peaking AKA, How to Hit PRs in Meets

How many times have you heard someone say something like this, Well, I squatted 500 in the

gym a few weeks ago, but 450 felt heavy at the meet and I missed 475.

Thats because they peaked wrong. Im even convinced that if you ONLY hit your gym PRs in

meets, you peaked poorly. If youre good at programming, meets should be PR city.

Here is a breakdown of my last two meets:

August 2012

Gym PRs (under the same circumstances)* 625 squat, 415 bench, 625 deadlift

Meet 650 squat, 419 bench, 645 deadlift

May 2013

Gym PRs (under the same circumstances) 725 squat, 420 bench, 675 deadlift

Meet 750 squat, 425 bench, 710 deadlift

*I had hit a couple bigger benches in the gym before my meets, and before my 2013 meet I had

pulled more with straps. However, Im a low bar squatter and squatting low bar before benching

makes a little biceps tendonitis flare up, so I listed my gym PRs after low bar squatting to mimic

meet conditions, and I listed my strapless DL PRs.

http://www.strengtheory.com/2013/09/16/peaking-aka-how-to-hit-prs-in-meets/

17

I dont intend for my own example to be perceived as bragging. This is essentially what meet

numbers SHOULD look like compared to gym numbers. When you walk into a meet, you

should be set for PRs across the board. Any other outcome, barring something beyond your

control (getting sick on meet day, sustaining some random injury at work, no AC at the meet

venue, etc.), either indicates that your training lifts didnt mimic meet lifts (high squats, bounced

benches, hitched DLs, etc.), or your programming was bad. Oh, you may want to chalk it up to

some trite excuse like, oh, it was just a bad day. Well, why was it a bad day? Because you

failed to peak properly. Simple as that.

Matthias Steiner hit a 12kg (26.5 pound) clean and jerk PR to win Olympic gold in 2008.

18

So, now lets examine the factors that influence how well your peak goes:

1. Training volume leading up to the meet

This is an important factor. Ive written about this subject before here. Peaking 101 youre

training hard, you taper volume, your body supercompensates, and youre stronger on meet

day. Well, if youre not training hard in the first place, theres really no peaking that can

occur. Theres no overreaching from which you can supercompensate. And when I say

training hard, Im not talking about hitting a vein-popping 1rm or 3rm. Im talking about

putting in volume. High-intensity stimuli (heavy freaking weight) tend to cause primarily neural

adaptations which tend to occur fairly quickly. Increasing volume, on the other hand, will have

cumulative effects that may take a few weeks to fully recover from once overreaching occurs.

If you train a lift only once per week, and in that session you get in less than 25 or so heavy

working reps, and then you pack it up without hammering accessory work hard, you simply

havent been doing enough work to warrant a taper, and if you try, theres no overreaching to

warrant a supercompensatory response from your body. Higher frequency helps fix this problem

(because you can get in a lot more volume over two or three sessions without having to kill

yourself in any given one of them), and if you prefer lower frequency, make sure you focus on

constantly increasing your training volume leading up to a meet, so when you DO pull back, you

actually benefit from the taper.

2. How long you take to taper

http://gregnuckols.com/2013/02/18/increasing-work-capacity/

19

This is another common mistake. People either tend to overdo or underdo tapering.

Overdoing: You either see people who read old Westside articles about the delayed

transformation method and trying to taper volume over 3 or 4 weeks, only to peak a week or

two before the meet (because, keep in mind, you only peak for a short period of time, and then

optimal performance quickly becomes detraining). When youre aiming to squat 1100 and

youre cranking out 12 training sessions a week, you may need that long to taper. When youre

the other 99% of lifters (especially raw lifters), one week of lowered volume followed be one

week of deload is plenty. That approach works great even for me personally. I may take one

more week to not push quite as close to failure (same general training plan, but shave a rep or

two off of everything), but I only purposefully taper for one week before my deload. In my

experience, very few people are strong enough to warrant a taper longer than two weeks before

meet week. During this period, maximize your schedule for sleep. Shoot for 10 hours a night, or

at least an extra hour compared to your norm.

On the other hand, other people think peaking means just taking a session or two off before a

meet. They may hit their openers Monday, skip training the rest of the week, and compete

Saturday. Thats simply not enough time off. (Warning, its about to get bro-sciency, but this is

a reflection of my experience and conversations with a LOT of lifters) Its enough time for your

body to get shifted into recovery mode and for you to lose your edge, but not long enough for

you to start really getting the itch to tear into some weights. Your physical strength and your

psychological aggression simply dont have enough time to manifest themselves. Its like

preparing for battle the next day, but then being caught off-guard by your enemy during the

night. Be willing to take some time off. If you trained for several months to get ready for a

20

meet, one easy week and one off week isnt going to make you weak. You think strength that

took that long to build is going to leave you so quickly? Trust the work you put in, and give your

body a chance to reward you for your efforts.

3. Nutritional factors

For people cutting water weight: get the weight off as fast as possible, and put it back on as fast

as possible. Dont spend hours jogging in a trash bag the day before a meet. Get in a hot tub or

run a hot bath. Water has a much higher thermal conductivity constant than air, which means

more heat is imparted into your body, so you sweat WAY more. Get that weight off fast, then

have a couple gallons of 1/2 Gatorade 1/2 water waiting for you. Then hit a buffet. You should

be heavier than you were prior to the water cut within an hour or two of stepping off the

scales. Dont let a botched weight cut ruin your meet.

The night before and the entire day of the meet, eat as much salt and as many starchy foods as

possible, and drink as much water as possible. You want a huge bloat.

I recommend cutting out caffeine a few weeks before the meet. Youll be re-sensitized by meet

day, and you can use that to your advantage. High doses of caffeine have been shown to reliably

increase power output, but only in people how are caffeine-sensitive. Ill usually have a coffee

and a monster in my system before my first squat attempt, and drink 4 or 5 more highly

caffeinated beverages throughout the course of a day. It makes weights feel much lighter and

move much faster. And, before anyone asks, this caffeine strategy is about maximizing weight

lifted, not about maximizing cardiovascular health. And besides, its just one day, so no big

deal.

21

So, there you go. Im sure I glossed over some details, but contained in this post are the basics

of consistently PRing in meets. Get your volume in in your pre-meet training cycle, take a week

or two to taper volume and a week of deloading, make your water cut as fast as possible (if you

cut), consume massive amounts of carbs, salt, and water, and use caffeine to your advantage. If

you dont feel comfortable setting up your training plan, hire a competent coach or take the time

to study training logs of lifters who consistently do well in meets.

On meet day, you shouldnt be wondering IF youll PR, the only question should be, HOW BIG

those PRs will those PRs be?

22

Increasing Work Capacity

A common question I get asked has to do with how to effectively build work capacity.

First, let me just start off with a working definition of work capacity, and an explanation of why

its so important. Work capacity is, essentially, the total amount of work you can perform and

recover from.

The total volume of work you expose your body to essentially determines the magnitude of the

training effect you receive from the work. We all intuitively know this. You dont walk into the

gym, warm up, do one easy set of 10 biceps curls, and expect to find yourself ripping the sleeves

of T-shirts any time soon. You have to expose your muscles to more of a training stimulus.

How do you progress then, to attain your 18 inch pythons of glory? Well, obviously, you do

more work. You pick a more challenging weight, increase you sets do more exercises, decrease

you rest intervals, etc. Its not rocket science, and we all know that eventually, if you want your

arms to grow, youll have to do more work.

However, this concept seems foreign to most people when you apply it to anything besides arm

hypertrophy. The fitness world has become so entranced by minimalism that weve forgotten

that eventually you just have to do more work. People are surprised when they do the same

program with the same sets and reps and the same accessory work for several months, and they

eventually plateau. Then they ask about it on a message board and get a response like, oh,

youre doing too much so you cant recover. Dial back what youre doing and youll keep

getting stronger.

http://www.strengtheory.com/2013/02/18/increasing-work-capacity/

23

So, lo and behold, they dial back their training volume and the gains start coming again. Only

they last for a mere 4-8 weeks. Then they plateau even harder. Why? They werent getting

stronger. They were peaking. Their body was used to a certain level of work. When they

reduced the amount of work, supercompensation happened, and they could put more weight on

the bar. However, thats not something that happens indefinitely. But, the fact is, it worked

for a while, so this person ends up banging their head against a wall on a super low volume

routine wondering why theyre not getting any stronger, not questioning the efficacy of their new

routine because it worked initially.

Eventually, after months of wasted time, they decide to change things up. They start increasing

their training volume, only to find that it beats them up, their lifts start regressing, and they start

losing motivation to go to the gym. So clearly low volume was the way to go, theyve just hit

their genetic ceiling and are in for a lifetime of hard-fought, incremental gains. Then they weep

and drown their sorrows in cheesecake.

Lets dissect this little (perhaps all-too-familiar) vignette:

1) The guy originally plateaued because he wasnt increasing the stimulus to his muscles and

nervous system. Remember the SAID principle (specific adaptations to imposed demands)? The

demands didnt change significantly, and eventually the guys body had adapted all it intended

to. Sure, as he initially got stronger, the slightly heavier weights were a slightly greater stimulus,

but his body finally reached the point that training was no longer disrupting homeostasis enough

to elicit a response.

24

2) He dials back the volume and gets stronger! Its a miracle! Orits what happens when

your body is used to adapting to a certain level of stress, then you dial back the stress and your

body is still used to the same magnitude of response. It would help to look at training in the

(overly simplified, but still instructive) light of simply tearing a muscle down and building it

back up. Lets say youre muscle mass is currently 100%, and your training breaks it down 20%,

and since youre plateauing, you build it back up 20% between sessions: 100 20 + 20 =

100. Then you dial back how much your tearing your muscles down, but your body is used to

recovering 20% between sessions: 100 17 + 20 = 103 17 + 20 = 106. However, the fun

doesnt last forever. Your body catches on to the game, and your recovery again aligns itself

with the training stress: 106 17 + 17 = 106. Viola, another plateau.

3) When he tries to add back in more volume, his body is used to recovering from less per

session. However, hes still trying to train at maximum intensity: 106 20 + 17 = 103. He

perceives himself as getting weaker, and sees no way around the plateau.

Work capacity, in essence, increases the amount your body is used to recovering from. As it

increases, you can increase your total training load, therefore the stimulus to your muscles and

nervous system, therefore your results. Theres a catch, however. As youre increasing your

work capacity, you shouldnt expect to be a peak performance (and certainly not PRing). PRs

come when youre recovery outpaces stress. The whole point of increasing work capacity is for

stress to slightly outpace recovery until recovery catches up to the stress. Once youve increased

your work capacity and allow recovery to catch up, youre in a position where youre able to

tolerate much more volume, which means a greater stimulus, which means an increased potential

for gains. Also, it gives you more ability to taper and hit PRs at meets. You know those guys

25

who always hit their biggest lifts in training, but fail hard at meets? Typically, theyre the ones

who never trained with high enough volume to get any significant supercompensation when they

tapered.

Basically, increasing your work capacity over time is THE ONLY way to continually make

gains. You can only say youve reached your genetic ceiling when you no longer have the

ability to increase your work capacity.

So, that finally brings us back to the question: How does one actually go about increasing their

work capacity? For a full, in-depth answer, Id recommend you read Supertraining, some

Zatsiorsky, some Verkhoshansky, or some Issurin. This answer is more based on

implementation and strategies that have proven themselves effective over time.

There are several different ways. The one in the original question really isnt a bad way to do

it. Adding sets DOES increase work capacity. Lets say you can do 3 sets of 3 with 315 on

squat. Whats easier? Trying to go 325 33 (assuming youve exhausted your linear gains), or

doing another single with 315 at the end? The single, obviously. Then a double the next session,

then a triple the one after that. Once you could do 6-8 triples, you could drop back to 3 sets, and

probably go 335 33 and do it all over again. Thats a 20 pound increase in about 2

months. Not too shabby. The key is that adding one rep per session isnt all that taxing on your

body over your established baseline. Then when you drop back to just 3 sets, its less volume

than youve grown accustomed to, setting you up nicely for the subsequent re-ramping of the

volume.

26

Another version of that same idea is the Doug Hepburn method. Hed pick a weight he could do

8 singles with, and slowly add an extra rep to each set until he was doing 8 doubles, at which

point hed increase the weight and start over with singles again.

A more sophisticated way is the way Sheiko waves volume week to week, but always increases

volume over time. A program for a ranked lifter (i.e. a novice) usually starts with a week thats

the exact right volume, based on where the trainees at. The second week has significantly

higher intensity, with a slight increase in volume, the third week dials back the intensity a bit but

raises the volume, and the fourth week drops the volume and intensity, allowing for

supercompensation. This same pattern basically holds true for months as well. Then, when

youd start over, youd dive back in with slightly higher volume to continue to drive

adaptation. Unfortunately, not all of Boris Sheikos writings have been translated into English,

but you can see the progression from ranked lifter routines to CMS/MS routines, to MSIC

routines. The volume increases incrementally as the lifter gets stronger until youre on a MSIC

routine that makes you want to cry just reading it.

Another way is to increase training density. Although this doesnt increase your work capacity

in the strictest of terms (total volume you can handle), it does increase your work capacity PER

UNIT TIME, allowing you to supercompensate when you spread you sets back out. Lets say

youre doing 55 with 315, and youve plateaued. You currently rest 5 minutes between

sets. Next workout, just knock 15 seconds off your rest periods. Continue to do so each workout

until youre only resting 2 minutes between sets. You could probably then jump to 335 55 with

5 minutes between sets again. This method has the drawback of not increasing your total

27

training volume which can make peaking for meets a little trickier, but its ideal for someone

who doesnt have room in their schedule to increase their weekly gym time.

Another way to increase work capacity is to add extra workouts. This method was popularized

by Westside, and can be easily implemented (although what Im about to say isnt how they do

it). Lets say you squat 315 55 twice per week, and youve plateaued. Try adding in a third

squat day. Start with 225 55. Just the simple act of practicing the motor patter more often

MAY get your maxes moving again. However, 225 55 shouldnt be enough to mess with your

recovery. If anything, it would enhance recovery by promoting blood flow without inducing any

more muscle damage. Add weight on your third squat day until it becomes difficult to get 315

55 on both of your main workouts (maybe 275-295 55). Then drop the third workout. You

should be able to increase the working weight on your main training days. Then, slowly build

back up the weight on your third squat day again, initially starting very light.

Finally, just something to keep in mind: over time, your total training volume MUST

increase. Most of these suggestions Ive written about tell you ways to effectively wave volume

and benefit from a short-term reduction in volume once youve acclimated to SLIGHTLY more

volume. As you progress, BOTH the peak volume youre handling, and the reduced level of

volume need to increase. So if youre working from 33 to 63 now, eventually youll need to

only drop back to 43 and increase to 73, then from 53 to 83, etc. If youre adding a third

workout to two 55 days, those days will need to eventually become 65 days, or 103 days, or

some other loading pattern that adds up to more overall volume. The reason I gave examples of

waving volume was that waving helps make the overall increase in volume over time easier to

manage. If youre plateaued doing 55, you cant just start doing 85 and make progress

28

forever. The way to add volume is to make the peak volume of a wave higher, and the reduced

volume slightly more. That way youre never overreaching too far, youre still giving yourself a

break for supercompensation, and youre gradually increasing the total magnitude of stimuli your

body can handle, and therefore your potential for growth.

Increasing work capacity really is the secret to long-term progress if ever there was one. The

best lifters, over time, have simply developed the ability to do more work than anyone else, so

they get better results than anyone else. Look at the Eastern Bloc PLers, successful nations in

weightlifting, pro strongmen, and practically any other group of incredibly strong people for

plentiful examples with surprisingly few exceptions.

29

The Bogeyman of Training Programs (and Why It May Be Just What You

Need)

Its always interesting to see how long it takes for scientific practices to gain traction on the

internet, and then in gyms everywhere.

Sometimes theres an exciting paper, it gets discussed on social media and across the internet,

and then people become guinea pigs within weeks or months.

Other times, its a slow burn creatine has been researched for well over 2 decades, but only

recently (in no small part because of the great work of Examine.com) have most people accepted

that its both safe and effective.

Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP), also called Daily Nonlinear Periodization, has been

another beast entirely. Its an idea that seems to be gathering cobwebs in the fitness world at

large, in spite of the fact that its been well-supported in the scientific literature for over a

decade.

Sure, a few articles on popular websites have popped up here and there, and a lot of the better

coaches have incorporated DUP into their programming, but the concept of it hasnt taken root

generally yet. It sounds so scientific and complicated, and that scares people.

However, Im here to explain it in simple terms, and tell you how you can use it in your own

training.

http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/04/15/the-bogeyman-of-training-programs-and-why-it-may-be-just-what-you-need/http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/04/15/the-bogeyman-of-training-programs-and-why-it-may-be-just-what-you-need/

30

DUP primarily serves to mitigate the repeated bout effect the idea that the more youre exposed

to a stimulus, the weaker your reaction to it will be. Think about your first days in the gym vs.

now back then you gained strength and size much faster, and you got much sorer after each

session thats the repeated bout effect in action.

With conventional training, youre exposing your body to essentially the same stimulus every

time you train. Sure, youre going to apply some sort of progressive overload, but the volume is

similar, the weights are similar, the reps are similar, and the goal is incremental progress. An

alternative is a periodized plan, with shifts in training variables every few weeks.

However, the theory behind DUP is that even periodized plans dont go far enough in varying

the stimulus to mitigate the repeated bout effect several weeks is still plenty of time to adapt to

a stimulus. Indeed, some research from Charles Poliquin showed as much back in the 80s

changing stimulus every 2 weeks wasnt any better than classic linear periodization (1).

With DUP, rather than changing your volume/intensity/rep ranges every few weeks, you change

them every day you train. That way, your muscles dont adapt with as much specificity as they

otherwise could, decreasing the impact of the repeated bout effect allowing responsiveness to

training to remain higher.

Now Im sure one of the questions Im going to get is, So bro, basically this is saying that

muscle confusion is scientific, right?

I almost hate to dignify this with a response, but I know I need to beforehand DUP is only

muscle confusion in the broadest sense. It maintains that the body will respond more strongly

to more novel stimuli, BUT without the haphazardness of what is typically seen as muscle

31

confusion. This isnt barbell curls today, dumbbell curls tomorrow, preacher curls after that,

followed by drag curls = all kinda gainz.

Its more like squat with more reps and volume today, then squat heavy doubles a couple days

from now, and squat with a classic 3-5 sets of 5-6 reps a couple days after that. You still get the

motor learning benefits of frequent exposure to a motor patterns, while retaining the benefits of

enhanced muscular responsiveness to changes in stimulus.

So, enough theory let me throw a study at you as proof of concept:

In one of the classic studies in this area, two groups of subjects that had been training for an

average of about 5 years prior to the study (not elite athletes by any stretch of the imagination,

but they at least had some time under the bar) used either a linear periodization, or a DUP

training plan.

The two plans were set up thusly (from Rhea et. Al. 2002):

The results? Mindboggling. These two groups had put in essentially the exact same work over

12 weeks. The workouts were the same, the order and structure were just different.

http://www.fmh.utl.pt/agon/cpfmh/docs/documentos/recursos/110/A%20Comparison%20of%20Linear%20and%20Daily%20Undulating%20Periodized%20Programs%20with%20Equated%20Volume%20and%20Intensity%20of%20Training.pdf

32

The DUP group experienced almost exactly double the results. 28.8% vs 14.4% improvement on

bench press, and 55.8% vs. 25.7% improvement on leg press.

Several other studies have shown similar results, but the study groups werent large enough to

reach statistical significance (often a problem in training studies).

Of course, to be honest about the data, there is one study showing that block periodization may

be slightly better than DUP under certain circumstances.

However, the fact remains, DUP is a better setup than most of the popular programs out

there. So, to make this article useful, lets go into how you can set up a simple DUP program for

yourself, and how to make adjustments moving forward.

Step 1: Choose exercises. These should be the exercises youre trying to improve in, or close

variations of them (i.e. close grip bench is fine for bench press, but DB incline may not be the

best choice)

Step 2: Pick 3 different set/rep schemes for each exercise. The Rhea study showed that 34,

36, and 38 is plenty of variety, but some coaches Ive talked to who rely heavily on DUP have

told me that larger swings works as well. In general, make these in line with your primary

goal. If youre trying to gain size, 12s, 8s, and 5s might be perfect. If strength is your main goal,

6s, 4s, and 2s might be a better option.

Step 3: Define how youre going to overload each lift and set/rep scheme

Step 4: When you plateau on one set/rep scheme, make some substitutions that keep the

integrity of overall program intact.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910831http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499134http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22173008

33

Example:

Day 1 (combo strength/hypertrophy day):

Squat 55, progress by adding weight

Bench 55, progress by adding sets until 8 sets are attained, then drop back to 5 sets and add

weight

Deadlift 63>4; Start with 6 sets of 3. When you can get 6 sets of 4 with a weight, go up next

week.

Day 2 (hypertrophy day):

High bar squat 310, progress by adding sets until 5 sets are attained, then drop back to 3 sets

and add weight

Close grip bench 312, progress by lengthening the eccentric from 3 seconds per rep on week 1,

4 seconds per rep on week 2, and 5 seconds on week 3. Then add weight and go back to 3

second eccentrics on week 4

RDL 58, progress by adding weight

Day 3 (strength/overload day):

34

Chain squat, Start at your current 5rm. Add 5 pounds each week until you can no longer do a

double.

2 Board press, 42 progress by adding sets until 8 sets are attained, then drop back to 4 sets

and add weight.

Rack pull from mid shins work up to a conservative 3rm. Pull it for one more rep each week

until you hit it for 5 reps. Then add weight and start over with 3 reps.

Once you stall with one of your progressions, simply substitute it for something that

accomplishes the same purpose (max strength, hypertrophy, or a blend thereof) and keep rolling.

Scary sounding programs arent so intimidating when you can apply a paint-by-numbers

approach to building them, are they?

Or, if you dont want to add your own creative flare, you can just run a linear program for each

lift on each day, but still achieve DUP simply by rotating workouts. So instead of crazy

sets/reps/progressions, it could be as simple as sticking with the same set/rep scheme on day 1,

having a different one for day 2, and having another one yet for day 3, and running each training

day as if it was a linear progression adding weight as youre able. Like:

Day 1

Squat 55

Bench 55

35

Deadlift 55

Day 2

Squat 312

Bench 312

Deadlift 38 (who does 12 reps on deadlift?)

Day 3

Squat 33

Bench 33

Deadlift 33

It can be as simple as this example, or way more complicated than my first example (adding in

RPEs, biofeedback, and all kinds of goodies). The elegance of it is that its not a rigid workout

its a system you can work with regardless of your experience and confidence in programming.

Hopefully now another bogeyman can be laid to rest.

(1) POLIQUIN, C. Five steps to increasing the effectiveness of your strength training

program. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 10:3439. 1988.

36

In Defense of Program Hoppers; DUP Revisited

Ever since I wrote my article on Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) a couple months ago,

Ive had a nagging feeling that something wasnt quite right, like something was a little bit

off. (If you havent read the first article, or if you dont know what DUP is, Id suggest you

check it out first)

Physiologically, Im not sure the rationale behind DUP totally makes sense of the situation. Not

that it is entirely nonsensical, but I had a feeling that the effects and benefits couldnt be

explained solely by the physiological mechanisms proposed.

The basic notion is that your body meets a new stressor, and responds strongly to it. The more

times its exposed to the same stressor, the weaker the reaction to it is. When you give someone

similar workouts week-in-and-week-out their body habituates to the stressor, so the rate of

adaptation slows down. This is known as the repeated bouts effect. With DUP, since youre

changing the volume and intensity with every training session, youre not dealing with the exact

same stressor all the time, so less habituation takes place, so your body keeps adapting

faster. DUP, the theory goes, minimizes the factors contributing to the repeated bouts effect, so

you get better gains from it.

Thats the basic theory, and its certainly a plausible one. And I certainly believe that it can

account for some of the differences observed in the research. However, the more I think about it,

the more Im convinced these physiological differences dont account for the entirety of the

difference, or perhaps even the majority.

Id like to go back to the study I used as an illustration in my first DUP article, Rhea (2002).

http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/10/01/in-defense-of-program-hoppers-dup-revisited/http://gregnuckols.com/2014/04/15/the-bogeyman-of-training-programs-and-why-it-may-be-just-what-you-need/http://www.fmh.utl.pt/agon/cpfmh/docs/documentos/recursos/110/A%20Comparison%20of%20Linear%20and%20Daily%20Undulating%20Periodized%20Programs%20with%20Equated%20Volume%20and%20Intensity%20of%20Training.pdf

37

Just to recap the study, two group of people trained their bench press and leg press. One group

did linear periodization (LP), and the other group did daily undulating periodization.

The LP group did 38 for each movement three times per week for 4 weeks, then 36 three

times per week for 4 weeks, and then 34 three times per week for 4 weeks.

The DUP group did 38 for each movement one day, 36 the next training day, and 34 the last

training day of each week. They continued with that pattern for the 12 weeks of the study.

Training volume was the same, average intensity was the same, but the DUP group got, on

average, twice the gains of the LP group.* 28.8% vs 14.4% improvement on bench press, and

55.8% vs. 25.7% improvement on leg press.

38

So lets just stop and think about this for a moment. Volume and intensity, which are generally

considered the most important factors for strength and hypertrophy, were equated. Simply

changing around when people did which workout made a big enough difference to result it

basically twice the gains for the DUP group.

Lets think about something for a moment, though. Are the sets of 6 on Wednesday REALLY that

different from the sets of 8 on Monday? Are the sets of 4 on Friday REALLY that different from the sets

of 6 on Wednesday? Although the stressors are slightly different, are they really so different that your

body wouldnt experience the repeated bouts effect? I dont think theres a definitive answer, but Im

skeptical of the notion that your bodys adaptations are so specific that its response to training at 75% 1rm

(about what youd use for 3 sets of 8) would have no bearing on how it would subsequently respond to

training at 80% (about what 3 sets of 6 would be) or 85% (about what 3 sets of 4 would be).

39

However, I think theres something else going on here. I think theres a psychological

component that is quite important.

Theres an old British proverb that has become popular in sports psychology, a change is as

good as a rest. This notion is captured in the Russian weightlifting concept of staleness the

idea that if an athlete does the exact same type of training for too long, theyll lose motivation

and burn out emotionally, leading to decreased performance and adaptation.

Lets do a scary thing with a scientific study. Lets forget about the data for a moment,

remember that the participants were human beings and not robots, and step into the subjects

shoes.

Youre in the LP group.

First day in the gym/lab. 3 sets of 8 leg press and bench press. Time to kill it. Lets give this

100% and hop aboard the gain train. Workout went well. Looking forward to the next 12

weeks.

Second training day. You gave it everything you had on day 1. Youre a little sore, but youre

pretty sure that if you push yourself, you can lift a little more than you did a couple day

ago. Sure enough, you get sets of 8 with 5 more pounds on your bench press and 10 pounds

more on your leg press. Feeling good about yourself.

Third training day. Man, it took everything you had to make improvements on day 2. Getting

those sets in with a little more weight seems a bit more intimidating today, but youre going to

40

give it your best. You end up having to repeat the same weights on bench press, but you get 10

more pounds on leg press. Not bad.

Fourth training day. Really not looking forward to this. 3 sets of 8 again?! Stalled on both. Oh

well, Ill do better next time.

Fifth training day. 3 more sets of 8? If I HAVE to. Do I seriously have to do two and half more

weeks of this exact same workout?

Now youre in the DUP group.

First day in the gym/lab. 3 sets of 8 leg press and bench press. Time to kill it. Lets give this

100% and hop aboard the gain train. Workout went well. Looking forward to the next 12

weeks.

Second training day. 3 sets of 6 for each. Fewer reps mean I can go a little heavier than day

1. Time to load up the bar/leg press and destroy these weights.

Third training day. 3 sets of 4. Heck yes, even heavier. Low volume today, too, so walking out

of the gym feeling good. I am a god among men.

Fourth training day. 3 sets of 8 again. Good week of training last week. Im pretty darn sure I

can get more weight than I did on day 1. Sure enough, I can. Lets keep the gain train rolling.

Fifth training day. 3 more sets of 6. Lets keep this momentum rolling. If I could go up for 3

sets of 8, I bet I can do the same for 3 sets of 6. What do you know, I can. Let the sweet, sweet

gains shower down upon me forever.

41

You see where Im going with this. Even though both groups were doing the same workouts

across the 12 weeks of training, the way the LP program was structured all but ensured that the

subjects would hit a wall with each set/rep combination at some point, and even if the

participants WERE able to keep adding weight to the bar, the only exciting thing about the

training was the gains the workouts themselves were bound to get pretty dull, pretty quickly.

For the DUP program, since each workout was always a bit different from the previous one, they

would be a little more novel and exciting, and it would take longer for the participants to reach a

point that they couldnt progress with a certain set/rep scheme, thus avoiding the demotivational

effects of failure.

Those factors enjoyment and novelty, can affect perception and effort, which can impact

performance and training effect. If you do two equally difficult tasks, the one that is fresh and

challenging without throwing you too terribly far outside your comfort zone is the one that will

seem easier, and the one youre going to pour more effort into.

Like I said previously, if we lean solely on physiological explanations for DUPs success, we

have to ask ourselves, Are sets of 6 on Wednesday really that different from sets of 8 on

Monday? Are sets of 4 on Friday really that different from sets of 6 on Wednesday? Its not

that Im saying the repeated bouts effect is totally unimportant, but I dont think you can lean on

it, and it alone, to explain the difference.

So, what do we do with all this?

42

Lets take a look at some of the popular training programs floating around out there, and try to

understand why people tend to hop from program to program. Im sure theres an element of

chasing the exciting new thing the strength worlds flavor of the week but I think theres

more to it than that.

Lets start by looking at the various beginner routines out there. When you look at the Starting

Strength program, or Strong lifts 55, or any of the other LP programs, what do you see?

Basically the exact same workout every time you walk into the gym. The same exercises, with

the same volume and intensity, in the same rep ranges, 5 pounds heavier than last time. Im not

saying it cant work, but for many people itll be just as much a test of their patience as it will be

a test of their strength. Why not keep the latter while dispensing with the former?

When you move past that, you see a much broader range of approaches. Theres Sheiko with

vanilla exercise selection and the same general intensities, with weekly fluctuations in

volume. Theres Westside with a load of exercise variation, but similar volume and intensity

week to week. Theres the Cube and 5/3/1 that have more weekly variation in loading, with the

Cube having a broader array of exercises than 5/3/1. Theres Madcow and the Texas Method

with variations in volume and intensity workout to workout, but the same training setup week to

week. Going back to the Rhea DUP study from earlier in this article, the same principles

apply. Some things change (volume and intensity with each session), while others remain

constant (exercise selection and the structure of the training week). In all these examples, theres

variety of some sort or another to keep the training fresh, while retaining enough consistency for

you to gauge progress.

43

The great thing about this scenario? They all work. Plenty of people have gotten good results

with all of them.

So what do we make of the program hopper? Are they ADD, lacking diligence and

motivation? Or are they simply trying to find the type of training that clicks with them?

Motivation comes from both intrinsic and extrinsic sources. Your choice of training plan can

substantially affect your extrinsic motivation. The more you enjoy your training, the more

extrinsically motivating it is. Its the whole behaviorist idea of reinforcement. The more you

enjoy going to the gym and training, the more that reinforces the behavior. The more apt you are

to continue lifting, and the more effort youll put into your training. Conversely, if youre

intrinsically motivated to train, but your training plan bores you to tears and you stop looking

forward to going to the gym to carry out the training you have planned, it starts setting up a more

aversive relationship with training.

When you like what you do, it sets up a positive feedback loop. You enjoy training, so youre

more motivated to train harder, so you get better results, so you enjoy training more, so youre

more motivated to train harder, so you get better results, etc. Worst case scenario is that, even if

the training is psychologically appropriate, its not physiologically appropriate. In that case, you

can retain the training structure that you enjoy, and make some changes within that framework to

get the results to start coming again. Easy peasy.

When you dont like what you do, it sets up a negative feedback loop. You dont enjoy

training, so youre less motivated to train, so you get worse results, so you enjoy training less, so

youre less motivated to train, etc. Best case scenario here is that you get good results in spite of

44

hating your training plan the results of training are motivational while the training itself is

demotivational. Certainly not the worst possible scenario, but why suck it up and deal with such

a scenario when it can be improved upon?

Not to mention, this isnt Soviet Russia or Bulgaria where your ability to lift a barbell is directly

related to your ability to provide for your family. Why hate the process, in spite of good results,

when youre just doing it for personal enjoyment anyways? There are other options out there

that have worked for loads of people that you could also get results from, while also enjoying

training.

Now, obviously different people are affected more or less by different motivational factors. If

your only drive to train is to be the biggest and strongest you can possibly be, youll probably

find yourself enjoying any type of training that works for you, because the primary reinforcer

is the result of the training, not the process of it. But keep in mind that not everyone is wired like

that many people do want to get stronger and sexier, but the results themselves arent the only

thing that draws them to the gym. Maybe they lift for social reasons or for stress relief or just to

stay healthy. People competing at a high level (or striving to) are usually in the first category,

while more casual lifters tend to be in the second.

Its worth pointing out that not everyone finds the same type of training enjoyable. Personally, I

know that if I got my lifting advice from the internet when I first started and thought the only

way forward was to run an LP program, just adding 5 pounds to the bar each workout for sets of

5, theres no way in hell Id have stuck with it for more than a couple weeks. However, there are

people who totally dig training in that style. More variety and ambiguity drives them crazy,

while predictable workouts and easily measurable progress are very motivating.

45

I still think the goal should be to stick with a training plan long-term for 12 to 16 weeks

minimum. However, I dont think you should necessarily stick with the training plan you have

NOW long-term. Just because youve done a program for a week, that doesnt mean you have to

do it for 15 more. Try out a few training plans for a few weeks apiece. When you find one thats

enjoyable and clicks with you, where you say, Hey, Id really look forward to training like this

for the next year or so, then stick with THAT one. Until that point, program hop to your hearts

content. You may find you enjoy more exercise variety, or more changes in rep scheme, or

weekly changes in volume and intensity, or you may just like doing the same thing every day, a

little bit heavier. Until youve tried, you dont know what type of training youll find motivating

and productive.

The key is to find something that meshes with your unique psychology (motivational factors) and

physiology (it actually makes you bigger and stronger). When you find it, stick with it. Until

then, dont feel like youre married to any particular program because you used it for 2 weeks.

*I realize that subsequent research hasnt been AS eye-popping as Rheas 2002 study, but there

is a trend in strength training right now moving toward DUP. Additionally, though most of it

hasnt been published yet, Dr. Mike Zourdos has done a lot of research thats either in review or

being prepared for publication showing DUPs benefits specifically for powerlifters. Heres a

link to his dissertation for anyone interested.

So while we cant make any definitive statements about DUP being better for all people, at all

times, in all circumstances (which is obviously a ludicrously high bar in the first place), this is

based on the general assumption that it tends to be better than linear approaches, and Rheas

http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/2014/09/03/periodization-strength/http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6817&context=etd

46

study was used our illustration since it just make it easier to dig our teeth into some of these

concepts.

47

Study Write-up: Sprints Are Anabolic*, Even When Fasted! but With

Big Gender Differences

This is by far the most interesting journal article Ive read in a long time.

It touches on so many things that are relevant to all of us fasted training, sprints vs (?) low-

intensity cardio, gender differences, and insulin (so, by extension, peri-workout nutrition). On

top of that, its a really well-controlled study that uses a really challenging protocol, so it should

be more applicable than most. Ill warn you up front, the beginning of this post will be pretty

dry and sciency, but stick around and I promise itll get exciting by the end.

The study is called Sprint exercise enhances skeletal muscle p70S6k phosphorylation, and more

so in women than in men by Esbjrnsson et. Al.

What they were doing:

This was essentially a follow-up study. The same researchers had used a similar protocol in a

1996 study, and found a pretty substantial hypertrophy response in women after 4 weeks of

doing sprints 3x per week (+25% in cross-sectional area of type IIB fibers), with NO hypertrophy

response in men. Obviously thats a puzzling result, since men tend to hypertrophy easier than

women do, primarily its generally assumed due to differences in testosterone levels.

Since that 1996 study, more research had been done on gendered responses to sprinting

protocols, examining the mechanisms that could explain the difference primarily the via the

mTOR pathway which controls the initiation of protein translation and ultimately skeletal

muscle growth. In short, various protocols had shown that the mTOR pathway wasnt activated

http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/01/30/study-write-up-sprints-are-anabolic-even-when-fasted-but-with-big-gender-differences/http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/01/30/study-write-up-sprints-are-anabolic-even-when-fasted-but-with-big-gender-differences/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268492http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268492http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8911831

48

in men due to sprinting, so Esbjrnsson wanted to repeat the original protocol that had produced

gender differences in hypertrophy to see if women and men would have differing mTOR

responses, which would then explain the differences in hypertrophy.

Methods:

They recruited nine men and eight women, aged 20-30, who were active and healthy but didnt

compete in anything at the elite level.

The testing protocol was brutal report to the lab fasted, then 3 successive Wingate tests with 20

minutes rest in between. The Wingate test is a 30 second, all-out sprint on a stationary bike to

measure your anaerobic power. It may not sound difficult, but its generally considered one of

the most crushingly hard research protocols in existence. Doing it three times is, for lack of a

better term, insane.

They took muscle biopsies before the first sprint and 140 minutes after the last, and they drew

blood before the first sprint, between sprints, and 9, 80, and 140 minutes after the last sprint.

What they found:

1) When controlling for fat free mass, there was no significant difference in power output

between the men and the women. Thats a HUGELY important point, since that means,

normalized to negate body fat differences, the men and women were exercising at the same

relative intensities. So the potential contention that difference in response may be due to one

gender or the other working harder simply isnt founded.

49

2) There were also no significant fiber type differences between the men and the women. So

it cant be contended that the differences in outcome were actually due to fiber type

differences. After ruling out fiber type and work rate as potential differences, it really seems like

the influencing factor has to be gender which is exactly what the authors were going for.

3) mTOR phosphorylation after exercise was increased about 120% on average, with no

significant differences between men and women.

4) AMPK (a protein that, more-or-less, has an antagonistic relationship with mTOR)

phosphorylation was not different between men and women, or between pre- and post-exercise.

5) p70S6k, a downstream protein in the mTOR signaling pathway, was elevated in both men and

women, but the increase was 230% in women and only 60% in men. (VERY important

implications here that well discuss later)

6) Plasma leucine (the amino acid most associated with mTOR activation) was significantly

higher in men pre-exercise, but decreased significantly more in men pre- to post-exercise, though

it decreased significantly in women too.

7) Lactate levels were the same at rest between genders, and plasma lactate increased

significantly for both genders, but increased more in men than in women when measured

between sprints.

8) Glucose levels werent significantly different at rest and increased in both genders in response

to the sprints, but the increase was larger in women.

50

9) Serum insulin levels werent significantly different at rest, and increased in both genders, but

the increase was roughly 3x over baseline in men, and 5x over baseline in women.

10) Serum growth hormone levels were higher at rest for women, but increased to a larger

degree in men, though peak values werent significantly different.

11) There was a pretty strong correlation (r = .68) between increase in p70S6k and increase in

insulin in response to the sprints.

Making sense of it all:

I warned you that it would be a little science-heavy at first, but heres the pay-off. There are a

couple of really exciting implications here.

First and foremost if you train and dont get to eat right away, though its not optimal, you

certainly dont need to worry about getting catabolic. These people were training fasted, doing

an absurd protocol, and didnt eat for 2 hours after they worked out and they STILL had

elevated mTOR one of the primary markers of anabolism.

Secondly (this is the important part) energy status of your cells has a lot to do with

hypertrophy response to the same stimulus.

Let me break it down for you

a. Women had a larger rise in blood glucose, so the liver was putting out more glucose to be used

for the sprints.

51

b. Women had a larger increase in insulin, so there was a larger hormonal signal to drive glucose

uptake into the muscle.

c. Women had a SMALLER increase in lactate. Lactate levels acutely decrease insulin

sensitivity.

d. Women had a SMALLER decrease in plasma leucine

Add all this together, and the mens muscles were in a much more depleted state post-exercise

than the womens. mTOR is, to a degree, a fuel gauge for the cell.

So, what you wind up with is the SAME activation of mTOR due to exercise, but significantly

blunted downstream signaling in men, as evidenced by the much smaller increase in

phosphorylation of p70S6k.

Implications (one serious, and one *sort of* joking, and one to make you go hmmm):

1. If either hypertrophy or the maintenance of muscle while dieting is your goal, consider eating

or supplementing with some carbs before or during really depleting workout. Although the jury

is definitely still out regarding pure resistance training and carbohydrate supplementation, this

study seems to suggest that some carbs around your training would have a beneficial effect on

workouts that are similarly challenging to your anaerobic energy systems.

Obviously the rest periods (20 minutes) make this a difficult study to generalize to traditional

circuit training in general, but this at least seems to suggest that, as long as cellular energy status

is maintained, HIIT may actually be anabolic. At the very least, the type of training described in

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12110527http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12110527http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/42http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/42

52

this articles is definitely NOT catabolic to muscle tissue, even when done in a fasted state with

no food consumption for over 2 hours post-workout.

Interestingly, the authors of the study propose that one reason that the women may have had a

larger spike in insulin is that men tend to have higher catecholamine output (epinephrine and

norepinephrine) in response to sprint training, and catecholamines have been shown to blunt

insulin secretion. Maybe that should call into question the SUPER JACKED HARDCORE pre-

workout you take, considering the correlation the authors found between rise in insulin and

phosphorylation of p70S6k (and thus, hypertrophy)

2. The differences in gender response here may help explain why CrossFit women are so

freaking jacked. The physiological responses these women had to SEVERELY depleting

training elevated glucose, elevated insulin, blunted elevations in lactate, smaller decrease in

insulin might suggest that theyre metabolically suited to this type of training. At the very

least, we have mechanisms to explain a previously-observed hypertrophy response.

3. Hypertrophy is not just a mans game. This study sheds some light on the fact that theres a

gendered response to various hypertrophy stimuli. I think its pretty well-accepted that high

muscular tension tends to cause more hypertrophy in men than in women. However, stressing

the energetic capacity of the muscle cells evoked a larger response in women, at least in this

study. Whats more, as was previously established, the primary response is in the most powerful

fibers type IIB!

53

Thanks for wading through this one with me. Not as clear-cut and straight-forward as my belt

vs. beltless article, but I think this one gave us the opportunity to touch on a lot of interesting

topics.

http://gregnuckols.com/2013/12/04/should-you-wear-a-belt-or-not-study-write-up/http://gregnuckols.com/2013/12/04/should-you-wear-a-belt-or-not-study-write-up/

54

Cardio and Lifting Cardio Wont Hugely Impact Your Gains in the Short

Run, and May Be Beneficial for Strength and Size in the Long Run

The strength and fitness worlds have, unfortunately, fallen prey to cardio fear-mongering, and I

think thats to their detriment. At this point, it should be indisputable that aerobic training can

improve almost every major marker of health, however, I think that it might actually improve

your strength and size gains (or, at the very least, not hurt them) as well.

Short-Term

For starters, we dont really have to guess about the short-term effects of cardio on strength and

size gains . Ill give you the cliff notes.

1) You can still get bigger and stronger with doing strength training and cardio simultaneously.

2) In the short term, concurrent training (strength training and cardio together) is about 31% less

effective for hypertrophy, and about 18% less effective for strength.

3) Frequency and duration of aerobic training affected strength and hypertrophy gains more

frequency and volume of aerobic training meant smaller strength and size improvements.

4) When looking at the data more closely, mode of exercise mattered. Running, but not cycling,

negatively impacted strength and size gains.

http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/03/03/cardio-and-lifting-cardio-wont-hugely-impact-your-gains-in-the-short-run-and-may-be-beneficial-for-strength-and-size-in-the-long-run/http://www.strengtheory.com/2014/03/03/cardio-and-lifting-cardio-wont-hugely-impact-your-gains-in-the-short-run-and-may-be-beneficial-for-strength-and-size-in-the-long-run/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002517http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002517

55

So, theres one major takeaway here aerobic training does not hamper strength training in and

of itself. The effect starts materializing when it begins causing additional stress to the muscles

and soft tissues. Running, with its impact element, affected strength and size gains especially as

volume increased, whereas cycling didnt. Id venture that the old-school bodybuilding staple of

incline treadmill walking would also have minimal effects, just like cycling, due to its minimal

impact, and hence its minimal addition to training stress.

If your choice of cardio is 1) low impact, and 2) not overboard on volume and intensity, you

shouldnt have to worry about it negatively affecting your training or your results. Theres also a

strong vein of broscience suggesting that low intensity steady state cardio may actually aid in

recovery from workouts by promoting blood flow to the muscles without causing further

damage. It makes sense intuitively (and Ive noticed it to be true in my own training), though

theres not any studies confirming it at this time.

My friend Alex Viada is a poster boy for combining aerobic and

strength training as an ultra-endurance athlete and an 800 pound squatter.

56

Long-Term

So, short term, running for hours on end all the time may not be the best idea, but a reasonable

volume of low impact stuff is fine. But what about long-term effects? This is where the

potential benefits come in. This part is a little more theoretical, but also a lot more exciting.

For starters, theres preliminary evidence that aerobic training increases intra-muscular DHT

conversion. For those of you who clicked on the study, yes, its in rodents, so I realize that we

cant put TOO much stock it in. However, the potential implications are huge, especially for

drug-free athletes. Not to mention the training protocol wasnt anything crazy: 30 minutes, 5x

per week.

DHT is a derivative of testosterone which binds more readily to androgen receptors and stays

bound for longer allowing it to exert its anabolic effects for a longer period of time. The linked

study found that aerobic exercise can increase the activity of the enzyme that converts

testosterone to this more potent androgen, without altering the levels of the sex hormones in the

blood. Essentially, if this finding holds true in humans, it means you can get a lot more bang

for your buck from the testosterone you produce naturally. Luckily scientists have begun

studies examining the effects of exercise on DHT in healthy humans. Though theres not a ton

of research yet, early studies ARE finding that exercise (in this case, sprints) affects DHT in

healthy young people as well, and aerobic training can increase DHT without affecting

testosterone in middle-aged men. So, maybe cardio is a little manlier than youve been led to

believe!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21502890http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21502890http://www.jappl.org/content/114/10/1435.shorthttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18202581

57

Programming

To add a little context to this discussion, we also need to bring up periodization. The

effectiveness of any programming is based upon the work capacity of the athlete the amount of

work the trainee can perform and recover from. In all the literature on periodization and

program design, one major principle is that work capacity should be built from general to

specific. Start with a strong foundation of generally being able to move for long periods of time,

progress to more specific movements, and finally work on movements that are highly specific to

competition.

In these longer-term programs, building up work capacity at the beginning of the training cycle is

necessary for the volume and intensity of training thats necessary to hit PRs at the end of the

cycle. Aerobic work can be used to build up that base.

Im sure someone will object and say, Well sure, people write about that in training books, but

no good strength athletes ACTUALLY train that way. I suppose no one told Ilya Ilin, Olympic

champion weightlifter and one of the greatest strength athletes walking the face of the

earth. Near the end of the article: Ilya has a program that encompassed 10 months and went

from swimming and rowing to a gradual inclusion of the lifts, to an ultimate elimination of

everything but the lifts and squats. The Chinese weightlifting team, whose lifters have been

winning international competitions like theyre going out of style for the