S P E CIA L E DITION 2018

MASS
M ONTHLY A PPL ICATIO N S IN
STRE N G TH SPO R T

E R IC H E LMS | G R E G NUC KOLS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S

 The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and
physique competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, in
addition to writing for commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduate- and graduate-
level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial
conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second Master’s
in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports
Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro status as a natural
bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.

Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and
242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person.
He’s written for many of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry, including Men’s
Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com.
Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from numerous record holders,
champion athletes, and collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief
Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.

Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at Florida
Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization in strength and conditioning
and skeletal muscle physiology.  He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida State
University (FSU) in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior to attending FSU, Mike
received his B.S. in exercise science from Marietta College and M.S. in applied health physiology
from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012
state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU, Mike is the director of the FAU
Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and
among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike
owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open
division national champion.

2
 Note from Ben Pollack

W
hen Greg reached out to me about MASS, I was pretty excited, because as
you guys probably know, I put a lot of faith in the scientific process myself.
That said, I also understand that it takes a lot of time to pour over academic
publications; that interpreting that research requires a specific skill set; and that the
research itself is far from infallible. With MASS, Greg, Eric, and Mike have done
most of the work for you.
The MASS library is pretty extensive, so to help you get started, I’ve hand-picked
a few articles that I believe are the most directly relevant to the programs at phdead-
lift.com and packaged them together in a special issue. (Well – I picked them. Greg
packaged them.) The first half of the issue covers periodization, and the three vari-
ables we focus on the most in the Unf*ck Your Program course: volume, intensity,
and frequency. Having a bit of a better grasp on the research supporting the meth-
ods will, I hope, give you all that much more confidence in them, especially if you’re
just starting out.
The second half deals with some of the extras from the “Bonuses” section of UYP:
finding the right mindset, improving the quality of your recovery, and incorporating
cardio. I think you might be surprised by these! You probably already know the im-
portance of getting the little stuff, right, but the evidence of that can really help drive
the point home and give you that extra bit of motivation you need to give 100%,
inside and outside of the gym.
I hope you enjoy this special issue, and that you find MASS helpful in improving
your own training and understanding of your body. I’m pretty sure you will.

– Ben Pollack

3
 Table of Contents

6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Does Periodization Lead to Faster Strength Gains?

A recent meta-analysis showed that periodized training leads to bigger strength
gains than non-periodized training. However, the abstract doesn’t tell the whole
story.

18
BY E RI C HEL MS

Recovery from Training: High Intensity vs. High Volume

Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery is hindered by
heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which type of training causes more
muscle damage, inflammation, and force production suppression? Read here to find
out.

28
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

More Frequency is Not Always Better

We know that more volume is not always better. This study shows us that, similarly,
more frequency is not always better. But is it really that simple? Sometimes a critical
analysis of a study’s methods is necessary to establish true takeaways from a single
study.

39
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Mind Over Matter: Mental Training Increases Strength Gains

Everyone focuses on physical training, but mental training is a powerful, oft-overlooked
tool that can boost your strength gains.

4
50
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Which Sleep Interventions Help the Most with Recovery and

Performance?
Everyone pays lip service to the importance of sleep, but what sorts of interventions
actually improve sleep and performance the most?

60
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Is It Better to Combine Lifting With High Intensity or Traditional Cardio?

If you need to add cardio to your lifting, is it better to stick with high intensity intervals
(which some have called “anabolic cardio”), or to opt for traditional moderate intensity
cardio? This was the first study designed to actually answer that question.

5
Study Reviewed: Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance
Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Williams et al. (2017)

Does Periodization Lead to

Faster Strength Gains?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

A recent meta-analysis showed that periodized training leads to

bigger strength gains than non-periodized training. However, the
abstract doesn’t tell the whole story.

6
 KEY POINTS
1. A quantitative analysis of the entirety of the literature showed that periodized training
leads to larger strength gains than non-periodized training.
2. However, there were marked differences in study results, with some evidence of
publication bias in favor of periodized training. When accounting for those issues,
the relative benefits of periodization was nearly halved, though they remained
significant.
3. While periodization isn’t a more important factor than simply training hard (training
volume and intensity), periodizing your training will likely increase your rate of
strength gains.

P
eriodization is defined as “a logi-
cal method of organizing training
into sequential phases and cyclical
time periods in order to increase the po-
tential for achieving specific performance
goals while minimizing the potential for
overtraining” (1). In layman’s terms, pe-
riodized training involves manipulating
training variables over time instead of
holding all variables constant. For exam-
ple, if you simply do 5 sets of 5 reps on
the bench press twice per week, just add-
ing weight as you’re able, your program
would be non-periodized, as volume, rel-
ative intensity, and frequency would be
unchanged every week. However, if you
did 5 sets of 8 reps on week 1 with 70%
of your 1RM, 5 sets of 5 reps on week 2
with 75% of your 1RM, 5 sets of 3 reps
on week 3 with 80% of your 1RM, and
then start over with 5 sets of 8 reps on
week 4 with a slightly heavier load than
you used on week 1, that would be a very
simple periodized program as volume
(volume load) and relative intensity did
change over time.
This meta-analysis (a quantitative com-
parison of all the studies on the topic)
set out to determine whether periodized
training was truly superior for strength
gains compared to non-periodized train-
ing, as is often claimed. Based on the 18
studies that met the inclusion criteria, pe-
riodized training is superior to non-peri-
odized training, though the relative bene-
fit is likely minor, at least over the average
study duration in this meta (15 weeks).
However, this relatively minor effect may
undersell the benefits of periodization, as
most studies don’t systematically prog-
ress training volume over time, which is
one of the strongest tools periodization
equips you with.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The purpose of this meta-analysis
was to see whether periodized train-

7
ing is truly superior to non-periodized
training for increasing strength by an-
alyzing the entirety of the literature
on the subject.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
This meta-analysis drew from all stud-
ies comparing periodized and non-pe-
riodized training, regardless of subjects.
As such, it included studies on both men
and women, people of all age ranges, and
people of all training statuses.
Methods
The inclusion criteria for this me-
ta-analysis (the rules to determine which
studies to include) were as follows:
1. The study needed to be peer-re-
viewed.
2. The full text of the study needed to
be available in English.
3. The study needed to include at least
one group doing non-periodized
resistance training, and at least one
group doing periodized resistance
training.
4. Maximal strength needed to be
measured via the squat, bench press,
or leg press.
5. The studies needed to provide
means and standard deviations for
their strength measures.
Once the eligible studies were identi-
fied and coded (the key features of the
subjects and training plans were iden-
tified), the authors calculated the effect
sizes for each study and the mean effect
size for all effects, adjusted for nested ef-
fects, assessed heterogeneity and poten-
tial bias, and identified potential mod-
erators. Don’t worry if this sentence
sounds a bit overwhelming; it’ll all make
sense in the next section.
Findings
The big, bottom line finding of this me-
ta-analysis was that periodized training
was superior to non-periodized train-
ing for increasing maximal strength; the
mean effect was small (0.43±0.08) and
significant (p<0.001).
When adjusting for nested effects,
the mean effect decreased slightly and
the variability of the effect increased
(0.38±0.14), but the effect was still sig-
nificant (p=0.012). Nested effects are
multiple effects found in a single study.
Without adjusting for nested effects,
you can wind up giving a single study
too much weight, if it compared, say,
two periodized groups to one non-pe-
riodized group at four different time
points (you could extract six effects from
that) versus a similar study comparing
one periodized group to one non-pe-
riodized group at only two time points
(you could only extract one effect from
that).
8
 Figure 1 Effect sizes from Williams et al.

7.0 Mean ES = 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.58)

Favors periodized training

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0
Hedges’ d ES

2.0

1.0
Favors non-periodized training

0.0

-1.0

-2.0
Effects larger than zero favor periodized training and effect smaller than zero favor non-periodized training.

The results were found to be sufficient- ators associated with changes in 1RM
ly heterogeneous that the difference in strength. In other words, undulating pe-
the results between the studies couldn’t riodization models led to larger strength
simply be explained by sampling error. gains (in these studies) than linear mod-
As such, the authors looked for moder- els, less experienced lifters gained more
ating factors that could explain the ob- strength than more experienced lifters,
served heterogeneity. people gained more strength in longer
Periodization model, training status, studies versus shorter studies, and peo-
study length, and training frequency ple gained more strength with higher
were all found to be significant moder- training frequencies versus lower train-
ing frequencies.

9
 Finally, the authors undertook a bias
assessment. This was an important step,
because statistically significant findings
are much more likely to get published
than non-significant findings; with 18
published studies meeting the inclusion
criteria of this meta-analysis, it’s impos-
sible to know how many other studies
comparing periodized and non-peri-
odized training were conducted but
never published. The authors calculat-
ed that an additional 1,038 null effects
from studies with an average sample size
would need to be published to decrease
the mean effect size below the threshold
of significance. Furthermore, a single
null finding from a study with at least
252 participants would decrease the
mean effect size below the threshold of
significance. In short, it’s very unlikely
that publication bias fully explains the
observed superiority of periodized train-
ing over non-periodized training.
However, it was revealed that there
was still a high risk of publication bias,
so the authors performed a sensitivity
analysis and constructed a funnel plot to
identify outliers (Figure 2). You should
expect all effect sizes to fall within the
funnel (which represents the 95% con-
fidence interval). With lower standard
errors (near the top of the graph), the
measured effects should cluster right
around the mean effect (the line down
the middle of the funnel), while you ex-
pect more spread due to sampling er-
ror as standard errors increase (near the
bottom of the graph, where the funnel
widens). As you can see in Figure 2, the
effects skew right, and quite a few effects
fall outside the 95% confidence interval
of the funnel – 11 effects on the right
side, indicating larger-than-expected
effects in favor or periodized training,
and 3 effects on the left side, indicating
smaller-than-expected effects in favor of
periodized training, or effects in favor of
non-periodized training that exceed the
variation you could attribute to sampling
error. When removing these outliers, the
previously observed heterogeneity was
effectively eliminated (p=0.91), and the
mean effect size in favor of periodized
training was nearly halved (0.23±0.05),
though it remained highly significant
(p<0.001).
Interpretation
It’s good to have this new meta-anal-
ysis, as the previous meta comparing
periodized and non-periodized training
was published all the way back in 2004
and actually had to make use of unpub-
lished data since there weren’t enough
published studies at the time to analyze
(2). There were 10 studies included in
this meta-analysis that had been pub-
lished since the previous meta-analysis
came out, so we were due for an update.
Though I’m a strong proponent of
periodized training for strength devel-
opment, I think the most epistemically
honest interpretation of this meta-anal-
10
 Figure 2 Funnel plot of effects.

0.0
Effects

0.1

0.2

0.3
Standard error

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Hedges’ d ES

An effect larger than zero indicates greater strength gains for periodized, and an effect smaller than zero
indicates greater strength gains for non-periodized. You should expect most effects to fall within the funnel.

ysis is that the true effect in favor of pe-
riodized training is relatively small, and
closer to the effect size of 0.23 reported
after eliminating outliers, instead of the
larger effect size of 0.43 reported in the
abstract.
Several of the effects eliminated weren’t
“fair” comparisons of periodized and
non-periodized training. A few studies
compared periodized resistance train-
ing versus non-periodized resistance
training roughly equated for average
intensity and volume versus single-set
non-periodized resistance training. In
those studies, you’d extract one effect for
challenging periodized versus challeng-
ing non-periodized training, and one
effect for challenging periodized versus
incredibly easy non-periodized train-
ing. The first effect may have shown a

11
slight benefit for periodized training,
while the second effect may have shown
a massive benefit for periodized train-
ing, though the second effect would be
comparing apples and oranges. A cou-
ple other studies compared challenging
periodized training to only single set
non-periodized training (3, 4, 5, 6).
It may be easy to fault the authors for
using inclusion criteria that allowed
studies like that to slip into the analysis,
but I think that would be an unfair crit-
icism. Inclusion criteria have to be hard,
objective cutoffs, and a stipulation such
as requiring volume and intensity to be
matched may have done more harm than
good if, for example, some studies didn’t
specifically report that volume and in-
tensity were matched, or if volume and
intensity in some studies were very sim-
ilar but not perfectly matched. As prac-
titioners, we can read a study and say,
“these training programs may not have
been perfectly equated, but they were
definitely similar enough to make a valid
comparison.” That degree of reasonable
subjectivity isn’t allowed in a meta-anal-
ysis, so I like the authors’ decision to use
slightly laxer inclusion criteria and then
axe the less applicable comparisons later
via the funnel plot and sensitivity analy-
sis. However, since this is the route they
chose, we need to be careful when inter-
preting this meta; it’s probably best to
pay more attention to the smaller effect
size (0.23) after the outlier effects were
discarded instead of the mean effect size
(0.43) with all comparisons included.
However, it should be noted that the
true effect of periodization may be larg-
er than the effect observed in this me-
ta-analysis. It’s theorized that the true
benefits of periodization manifest them-
selves in long-term (i.e. a year or longer)
training organization. The longest stud-
ies included in this meta-analysis were
32 weeks, and the average study dura-
tion was 15 weeks. As such, there’s a
distinct gap between theory and data.
It’s also possible that the benefits of pe-
riodization manifest themselves quickly,
perhaps due to varied practice increas-
ing the rate of motor skill acquisition
(7), and that non-periodized training
would close the gap over the long term,
or that the gap would persist and not
meaningfully change in magnitude. I
personally think the first possibility
(the superiority of periodized training
becoming more clear over time) is the
most likely one, but we won’t know until
a bold, patient (well-funded) soul car-
ries out a multi-year study to test this
idea. Incidentally – and counter to my
self-admitted biases – the most appli-
cable 32-week study in this meta-anal-
ysis actually showed that the gap be-
tween periodized and non-periodized
may shrink over time rather than widen
(8). Over three and six months, the pe-
riodized training group gained signifi-
cantly more strength on the bench press
and shoulder press, but there weren’t
significant between-group differences in
12

PERIODIZATION DOES SEEM
TO MEANINGFULLY IMPROVE
STRENGTH GAINS, BUT
THE EFFECT IS RELATIVELY
SMALL, AT LEAST BASED ON
THIS ANALYSIS – CERTAINLY
SMALLER THAN THE EFFECTS
OF VOLUME AND INTENSITY.
strength gains after nine months, show-
ing that, in this study at least, the rela-
tive advantage of periodization was rel-
atively short-lived. On the other hand,
a four-month study by Willoughby (not
included in this review because it only
reported increases in strength as multi-
ples of body weight, rather than abso-
lute increases in strength) showed that
periodized and non-periodized training
caused similar increases in squat and
bench press strength over 4-12 weeks,
but that periodized training proved su-
perior for the bench from week 8 on-
ward, and for the squat by week 16 (12).
It’s also worth pointing out that most of
the studies included in this meta-anal-
ysis kept training volume (number of
sets performed per exercise per week)
constant over the duration of the study.
One of the benefits of periodized train-
ing is that it allows you to logically and
systematically increase training volume
over time. Therefore, it is still reasonable
to assume that the relative advantage of
periodized training over non-periodized
training would tend to increase over
time, as the training volumes required
to sustain progress also tend to increase
over time.
I’d also caution against getting too
caught up in the moderator analysis. Re-
member, when looking for moderators
that could explain some of the observed
heterogeneity, the authors reported that
undulating periodization models led to
larger strength gains than linear models,
higher frequencies were associated with
larger strength gains, less experienced
lifters gained more strength, and people
gained more strength when training for
a longer period of time. I hope we can
accept the last two moderators as almost
self-evidently true (training length and
training status). However, I think it’s im-
portant to keep the scope of a moderator
analysis in mind when interpreting this
study’s findings regarding periodization
style and training frequency.
A moderator analysis tells you about
the effects of a training variable in the
studies that met the inclusion criteria
for the meta-analysis. As such, its scope
is pretty narrow. Though there is some
evidence that higher training frequen-
cies may be beneficial for strength de-
velopment (9), this wasn’t a meta-anal-
13
ysis to determine the effects of training
frequency on strength development, and
the comparisons resulting from a mod-
erator analysis would be apples-to-or-
anges comparisons (i.e. higher versus
lower frequencies from different studies
with different volumes, intensities, study
populations, etc.), so this meta-anal-
ysis shouldn’t be used to argue for the
superiority of higher training frequen-
cies. Similarly, this wasn’t a meta-anal-
ysis constructed to compare undulating
versus linear periodization models. A
2015 meta-analysis by Harries et. al (10)
specifically set out to compare linear and
undulating periodization models, find-
ing no significant difference between
the two styles for strength gains in the
squat, bench press, or leg press (though
there was a non-significant difference in
favor of undulating periodization mod-
els for leg press strength; p=0.07). The
authors note that of the 17 studies in-
cluded by Harries et al in their analy-
sis, only three included non-periodized
groups and were thus included in the
present meta-analysis. As such, this me-
ta-analysis shouldn’t be used to argue for
the superiority of undulating periodiza-
tion models over linear models, as that
was not the question it was set up to in-
vestigate.
Finally, I think it’s important that we
think about periodization conceptual-
ly, instead of simply seeing periodized
training as inherently good and non-pe-
riodized training as inherently bad.
IT’S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT PERIODIZATION
CONCEPTS AREN’T BINARY.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN LINEAR OR
UNDULATING PERIODIZATION.
Periodization does seem to meaning-
fully improve strength gains, but the ef-
fect is relatively small, at least based on
this analysis – certainly smaller than the
effects of volume and intensity. To con-
textualize the mean effect of 0.23±0.05
(once outlier effects were discarded),
that means that if a group of people have
a 500±50kg powerlifting total initially,
people on a periodized training program
could expect to add an additional 9-14kg
on their total compared to people on a
non-periodized training program over
15 weeks (the average study duration in
this meta-analysis). An extra 3-5kg per
lift is great, but it’s probably not going to
make or break a training program. You
don’t have to periodize your training to
see results, but periodization is helpful
to making faster progress.
Furthermore, it’s important to recog-
nize that periodization concepts aren’t
binary. You don’t have to choose between
14
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Periodized training leads to strength gains that are modestly but consistently larger
than non-periodized training.
2. Don’t waste your time looking for the single best periodization model. Instead,
focus on how you can manipulate volume, intensity, and frequency to solve specific
problems and reach specific goals for yourself and your clients.

linear or undulating periodization. You entire 12 weeks to accumulate adequate

may increase intensity and decrease vol-
ume linearly across a training program,
while undulating volume and intensity
between the training days within each
week of training, for example. In fact,
that’s exactly what Dr. Zourdos did in
the study he performed for his disserta-
tion (11).
Periodization is simply a set of tools that
helps you solve problems you’ll face when
designing a program. For an incredibly
basic example, if you have a powerlifting
meet 12 weeks from now, you’re probably
going to want to get some practice with
loads in excess of 90% of 1RM before you
hit the platform so you’re confident lift-
ing near-max loads. However, you may
not want to lift 90%+ loads every week,
and you almost certainly won’t want to
lift 90%+ loads every session leading up
to your meet as this could limit training
volume, limit the total amount of reps you
could complete for practicing and hon-
ing technique, and lead to wear and tear
injuries. If using non-periodized train-
ing, you’ll have to make a sacrifice: Either
train with somewhat lighter loads for the
volume while sacrificing the highly spe-
cific practice you need to prepare for the
platform, or train with very heavy loads
the whole time while sacrificing train-
ing volume and perhaps increasing injury
risk. Periodization gives you tools to solve
this very simple problem. You could start
with lower loads and higher volume and
then increase load and decrease volume
as the meet approaches, giving you plenty
of practice along the way and still allow-
ing for experience with 90%+ loads near
the meet. You could split your training
into 3-week blocks, working up to 90%+
loads on the last week of each block to
spread out your practice with very heavy
loads. You could even have one flexible
day per week where you work up to 90%+
loads if you’re feeling good, or stick with
lighter loads for higher volumes if you
don’t think you could perform optimally
on that day. This is obviously a very sim-
ple example of a problem you can solve
better with periodized training versus
non-periodized training, but the range
of problems you may need to address are
endless: how to structure an offseason of
training to allow for hypertrophy without

15
sacrificing strength, how to accommodate
a week-long vacation without gym access
and ease back into training when you re-
turn, or even how to structure a block of
training focused on a specific lift without
letting your other lifts suffer. All of those
examples will benefit from manipulat-
ing volume, intensity, frequency, or exer-
cise selection to address the problem and
reach your goal; hence, they’d all benefit
from periodization.

Next Steps
While a multi-year periodization
study would be amazing and fill a huge
gap in the literature, I don’t expect to see
one anytime soon. Two other facets of
periodization for resistance training that
aren’t adequately studied are the effects
of block periodization and the effects of
combined periodization models versus a
single model in isolation (i.e. DUP with
the same average volume and intensity
each week versus DUP with increasing
intensity and decreasing volume week to
week).

16
References
1. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and Non-Peri-
odized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2017 May 12. doi:
10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y.
2. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power
training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004 Dec;75(4):413-22.
3. Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Dohi K, Bush JA, Gómez AL, Mazzetti
SA, Fleck SJ, Häkkinen K, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume peri-
odized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Apr;33(4):635-43.
4. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, Triplett-McBride T, Koziris LP, Bauer JA, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ.
Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adapta-
tions in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):626-33.
5. Kramer J, Stone M, Bryant H, Conley M, Johnson R, Nieman D, Honeycutt D, Hoke T. Effects of
Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight Training: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research: August 1997.
6. McGee D, Jessee C, Stone M, Blessing D. Leg and Hip Endurance Adaptations to Three
Weight-training Programs. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: May 1992.
7. Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA. Learning versus performance: an integrative review. Perspect Psychol
Sci. 2015 Mar;10(2):176-99. doi: 10.1177/1745691615569000.
8. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, Fry AC, Koziris LP, Ratamess NA, Bauer JE,
Volek JS, McConnell T, Newton RU, Gordon SE, Cummings D, Hauth J, Pullo F, Lynch JM, Fleck
SJ, Mazzetti SA, Knuttgen HG. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women
tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Jan;35(1):157-68. Erratum in: Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2003 May;35(5):889.
9. McLester J, Bishop E, Guilliams E. Comparison of 1 Day and 3 Days Per Week of Equal-Volume
Resistance Training in Experienced Subjects. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: August
2000
10. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undu-
lating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015
Apr;29(4):1113-25. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712.
11. Zourdos MC. Physiological Responses to Two Different Models of Daily Undulating Periodization
in Trained Powerlifters. 2012.
12. Willoughby D. The Effects of Mesocycle-Length Weight Training Programs Involving Periodiza-
tion and Partially Equated Volumes on Upper and Lower Body Strength. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research: February 1993.

17
 Study Reviewed: Comparison of the Recovery Response From High-
Intensity and High-Volume Resistance Exercise in Trained Men.
Bartolomei et al. (2017)

Recovery from Training: High

Intensity vs. High Volume
BY E RI C HE LMS

Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery
is hindered by heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which
type of training causes more muscle damage, inflammation, and force
production suppression? Read here to find out.

18
 KEY POINTS
1. An acute bout of high volume, moderate load training with short rest intervals (8
sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds rest between sets) suppresses force
production to a greater degree and for a longer period than a bout of moderate
volume, high load training with longer rest intervals (8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM
with 3 minutes rest between sets).
2. In the 72-hour period after high volume training, increases in cross-sectional area
(CSA) occurred as a result of inflammation, evidenced by relationships (r=0.60-0.66,
p<0.05) between increases in CSA and interleukin-6 (a myokine which increases
in response to contraction induced inflammation) and creatine kinase (a biomarker
for muscle damage).
3. Additionally, changes in CSA were inversely related (r=-0.58- -0.80, p<0.05) with
various measures of muscular strength and power. Thus, performance is impeded
proportionally to the degree of inflammation and muscle damage from high volume
training for at least 72 hours. Therefore, volume should be distributed over a
microcycle so as not to impede performance in subsequent sessions. Additionally,
volume should be increased gradually (on an as-needed basis) so the repeated
bout effect is elicited, protecting against excessive damage while accomplishing
progressive overload.

A
n appropriate training config-
uration within a microcycle of
training depends partially on
managing fatigue from previous train-
ing sessions. To better understand how
to distribute training sessions, you have
to know which days produce more fa-
tigue than others. In this study, 12 males
(18-35 years old) with at least two years
of training experience and a minimum
squat one-repetition maximum (1RM)
of 1.5 times bodyweight completed
two protocols – a high volume (HV,
8x10x70% 1RM), and a high intensi-
ty (HI, 8x3x90% 1RM) protocol – in a
counterbalanced crossover design. Vari-
ous tests were then conducted after this
protocol at 30 minutes, 24 hours, 48
hours, and 72 hours post-training. Spe-
cifically, performance was assessed via
counter-movement jump (CMJ) peak
power, isokinetic (fixed speed) leg exten-
sion strength, isometric (a fixed joint po-
sition) leg extension maximum voluntary
contraction (MVC) strength, isometric
mid-thigh pull strength, and isometric
half squat strength. Additionally, vas-
tus lateralis (a muscle of the quadriceps
group) cross-sectional area (CSA) was
assessed at each time point to determine
the degree of swelling and inflammation
in response to training. Finally, blood
draws were taken from the participants
to assess changes in endocrine (testos-

19
terone and cortisol), inflammatory (in-
terleukin-6 and C-reactive protein),
and muscle damage (creatine kinase,
lactate dehydrogenase, and myoglobin)
markers, in addition to subjective rat-
ings of pain and soreness. In response to
training, the HI group had lower levels
of soreness and blood lactate, and had
higher CMJ, isometric leg extension,
and MVC strength compared to HV at
various time points. Additionally, cor-
tisol, interleukin-6, and vastus lateralis
CSA were elevated from baseline only
in HV at specific time points, but not
HI. Thus, it seems that the HV protocol
produced more damage, soreness, and
suppressed force production to a greater
degree than the HI protocol over a 72-
hour period.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was
to compare the acute effects of a HV
and HI training protocol on perfor-
mance and recovery post-exercise in ex-
perienced, resistance-trained men.
Hypotheses
While not directly stated, the authors
cited previous work showing HV train-
ing to suppress force production. Much
of the prior work cited, however, was in
untrained individuals, and the authors
stated that the acute response to training
is dependent on training experience and
the protocol utilized. Thus, while the
authors likely expected HV training to
suppress force production more and re-
quire a longer recovery period, they left
the door open for the possibility that the
trained males in this study might have
responses that diverged from those seen
in prior research.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Twelve experienced, resistance-trained
men (body mass, 82.3 ± 8.4 kg; height,
175.2 ± 5.5 cm; body fat, 13.5 ± 3.4%)
volunteered to participate in this study.
Participants had to be between 18 and
35 years old with at least two years of re-
sistance training experience (actual, 6.3
± 3.4 years). Additionally, participants
had to be able to squat at least 1.5 times
their body mass (actual, 173.4 ± 31.7
kg). Participants could not use dietary
supplements or performance enhancing
drugs during the trial and were screened
for prior use.
Overall Design
In this crossover design, the partici-
pants were assessed a total of 11 times.
The first assessment was to test their
squat 1RM and to have their descrip-
tive characteristics measured (height,
weight, body composition, etc.). After at
20
 Figure 1

p-30 p-24 p-48 p-72

BL Day 1 min hr hr hr

� Anthropometric
measurements
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound

� Performance
assessments
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw

� Squat 1RM � Training

protocol
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
(HV or HI)

Reproduced from Bartolomei et al. 2017 (1)

least 72 hours, the participants returned
to perform either the HI or HV proto-
col (half started with one, half the other)
after baseline assessment of muscle CSA
and baseline blood collection. Then, at
30 minutes, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72
hours post-training, blood, CSA, and
performance analyses were conducted.
The participants then performed the op-
posite training protocol, and this process
was repeated. This is shown schemati-
cally in Figure 1.
Resistance Training
After a standardized warm-up, par-
ticipants performed either the HI or
HV protocol. Both HI and HV were
comprised of only the squat. During
HI, participants performed 8 sets of 3
repetitions at 90% of their previous-
ly measured 1RM with three-minute
rest intervals between sets. During HV,
participants performed 8 sets of 10 rep-
etitions at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds
between sets. During both protocols, if
the required number of repetitions per
set was not completed, the load was
reduced in the subsequent set to allow
participants to complete the required
number of repetitions. No forced repe-
titions were performed and all training
was supervised.
Performance, Biochemical, Ultrasound,
and Subjective Testing
At each testing time interval, CMJ
peak power, isokinetic leg extension
strength at a speed of 60 and 180 de-
grees per second, isometric leg extension
MVC, isometric mid-thigh pull, and
isometric half squat were assessed. Prior
to performance testing, serum concen-
trations of testosterone, cortisol, myo-
globin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)
activity, and creatine kinase (CK), as
well as plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6) and

21
 Table 1 Significant changes in high volume group relative to baseline and high intensity group

30 minutes post 24 hours post 48 hours post 72 hours post

VARIABLE From Baseline From HI From Baseline From HI From Baseline From HI From Baseline From HI

CMJ Both lower Lower Lower No difference Lower Lower No difference No difference

MVC Lower No difference No difference No difference No difference Lower Lower Lower

Iso60 Lower Lower Lower Lower No difference No difference No difference No difference

CSA Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher No difference No difference

Soreness Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher

Cortisol Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference

IL-6 Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference

Blood
Both higher Higher No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference
lactate

CMJ: counter-movement jump peak power, MVC: maximum voluntary isometric leg extension strength,
Iso60: isometric leg extension strength at 60 degrees per second, CSA: vastus lateralis cross sectional
area, IL-6: interleukin-6.

C-reactive protein (CRP) were assayed. second experimental trial, participants

Additionally, muscle CSA of the vastus
lateralis was measured via ultrasound.
Finally, participants were asked to assess
their perception of pain and soreness on
a 0-100 visual scale.
Dietary Control
Participants were instructed to record
everything they consumed during both
the HI and HV four-day trial. For the
were required to duplicate the content,
quantity, and timing of their daily diet
from the first trial. Participants were in-
structed not to eat or drink anything ex-
cept water within 10 hours of reporting
to the laboratory for testing sessions.
Findings
Table 1 lists all variables where signif-

22
icant differences were reported in the
HV group relative to baseline and rel-
ative to the HI group. It’s worth point-
ing out that mean changes in many of
the performance metrics that were not
significantly different between groups
still followed a similar pattern of greater
suppression in HV than HI, and a slow-
er return to baseline levels over 72 hours.
For example, in the HI group, the mid-
thigh pull peak force bottomed out at
98% and was slightly higher than base-
line levels at some time points during
the post-training measurement period,
while the HV group dropped to 92% of
baseline values at 30 minutes post and
gradually recovered back up to 97.5% of
baseline at 72 hours. Similarly, the iso-
metric half squat peak force dropped
to 85% of baseline values at 30 minutes
post-training in the HV group then re-
turned to 95% baseline values at 48 hours,
while the HI group dropped to 93% at
30 minutes post-training and returned
to 95% in only 24 hours. Likewise, cor-
tisol reached a peak at 24 hours relative
to baseline in both groups, increasing
by roughly two-thirds in the HI group,
but by over two-fold in the HV group.
The p-values were relatively low, yet not
quite significant in the above examples.
They likely would have reached signifi-
cance with more precise measurements
or a larger sample size.
Correlation between variables
The change in CSA from baseline to
WHILE THE DATA DO CONVINCINGLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT, INDEED,
HIGH VOLUME TRAINING CAUSES
MORE INFLAMMATION, CAUSES
MORE MUSCLE DAMAGE, AND
SUPPRESSES FORCE PRODUCTION
TO A GREATER DEGREE, AND FOR
A LONGER TIME PERIOD THAN
HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, IT
DOES MORE THAN THAT.
30 minutes post-training in HV was
inversely related to changes in CMJ
(r = -0.68; p = 0.01), MVC (r = -0.58;
p=0.05), and isokinetic leg extension
strength at 180 degrees per second (r
= -0.80; p=0.001). Inverse relationships
were also reported for changes in CSA
from baseline to 24 hours post-training
in both isokinetic leg extension strength
at 60 (r = -0.787; p = 0.002) and 180 de-
grees per second (r = -0.678; p = 0.015)
after HV training.
Additionally, correlations were report-
ed between IL-6 and the magnitude of
reduction in CMJ performance at both
30 minutes (r = 0.76; p = 0.004) and 48
23
 hours post-training (r = 0.66; p = 0.798)
in the HV group. In addition, a signifi-
cant correlation (r = 0.660; p = 0.019) was
reported between IL-6 and the increase
in CSA at 24 hours post-training in the
HV group. Finally, a correlation was also
observed between CK levels 72 hours
post-training and the change in CSA
from baseline to 72 hours post-training
in HV (r = 0.60; p = 0.037).
Interpretation
At first glance, this study seems to
simply answer the question, “What is
more fatiguing, high volume or high
intensity training?” While the data do
convincingly demonstrate that, indeed,
VOLUME IS ONLY USEFUL IF
ONE CAN RECOVER FROM IT
AND, AS DEMONSTRATED BY
THIS STUDY, DOING A MASSIVE
VOLUME OF WORK YOU ARE NOT
ACCUSTOMED TO IN A SINGLE
SESSION CAN NEGATIVELY
IMPACT YOUR PERFORMANCE
FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS.
high volume training causes more in-
flammation, causes more muscle dam-
age, and suppresses force production to
a greater degree, and for a longer time
period than high intensity training, it
does more than that. This acute study is
also illustrative of a number of concepts
we’ve discussed previously in MASS,
yet also combines them in such a way to
show the practical relevance in the im-
mediate microcycle-length term.
While there is a clear relationship be-
tween training volume and hypertrophy
(2, 3) and, to a lesser degree, strength (4,
5), we’ve previously discussed why more
volume is not always better and that
prematurely increasing training volume
beyond what is appropriate for one’s
training age can actually be counterpro-
ductive (6). This study gives more mech-
anistic insight into why doing massive
volumes in a single session is counter-
productive. If one were to simplistically
consider the relationship of volume with
hypertrophy and strength, they might
conclude that doing as much volume as
possible at all times would be optimal.
However, volume is only useful if one
can recover from it and, as demonstrat-
ed by this study, doing a massive volume
of work you are not accustomed to in
a single session can negatively impact
your performance for at least 72 hours.
Getting stronger over time is a result of
stringing multiple days, weeks, months,
and years of effective training together,
meaning that your training configura-
24
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. In the short term, 8 sets of 10 reps at 70% of 1RM will produce a large level of
fatigue that will suppress strength for at least 72 hours to a larger degree than
performing 8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM.
2. While this level of volume is not a realistic example for most people, when performing
a high-volume session relative to your own work capacity, it would be tactically
advantageous to place an easier training day (one that could be accomplished
with strength levels below normal) after this session (and maybe in conjunction
with a rest day) to allow more time for intra-week recovery before performing any
heavy sessions.
3. When you do attempt to increase volume or overreach through an increase in total
number of sets, it would behoove you to perform a microcycle (or two) in which
you gradually build up to the target volume. This will elicit the repeated bout effect
and make the coming sessions less damaging and fatiguing, so that you can
complete more of the prescribed workload.

tion in the short term should pay respect
to the long term. In fact, we’ve previous-
ly discussed the merits of setting up a
microcycle of training in an intelligent
way to manage fatigue, and how doing
so in a logical way can improve perfor-
mance over an entire mesocycle (7).
Also, another thing you’ve probably
heard about lifting heavy is that it will
cause “CNS burnout” if done too often.
While this study didn’t address that (and
I’m not sure that is something I would
even know how to quantify or measure),
it did show that on a per set basis, heavy
lifting actually did not suppress force
production to the same degree as mod-
erate load lifting. With that said, if you
were to actually match volume (not just
the number of sets), you would more
than likely run into issues lifting heavy
exclusively in the long term. It would re-
sult in greater joint stress, higher injury
risk, and more generalized “burn out,”
as sessions would take much longer be-
cause you’d have to perform many more
sets to equal the workload of the high-
er-repetition group (8).
Finally, it’s also worth addressing the
potential conclusion some people might
draw when reading this study: that the
damage and inflammation from HV
training is an inherently good thing for
hypertrophy. While it is true that mus-
cle damage likely plays a role in muscle
growth (9), in this previous review I dis-
cussed why muscle damage should not
be viewed as having a direct causative
and proportional relationship with hy-
pertrophy, and why it likely doesn’t need
to be deliberately sought out in training.
Indeed, a systematic review from 2007
found that rates of hypertrophy peaked

25
in the bicep and quadriceps when per- will always be impacted by the previous
forming ~40-70 repetitions 2-3 times training of the participants and what
per week (for a total of ~80-210 repe- type and how much training they were
titions), and then slowed when more previously acclimated to. It would also
volume was performed (on average, in a be interesting to see the effects of dif-
mixed group of studies primarily on un- ferent lengths and types of introductory
trained and recreationally trained lifters, microcycles designed to acclimate the
with only some well-trained lifters) (10). participants to the HV training proto-
While the subjects in the present study col to come. This would allow us to see
were actually quite well-trained (on av- how much the inflammation and mus-
erage, over two times bodyweight squat cle damage response could be mitigated,
with about six years in the gym), achiev- and if this results in a faster recovery of
ing the low end of the volume range performance.
presented in the aforementioned sys-
tematic review (~80 repetitions) in a sin-
gle session, from just a single exercise, is
probably overkill (even more so if it was
performed in addition to other exercis-
es for other multiple groups with similar
levels of volume). If you still remain un-
convinced, I’d also refer you back to our
review of the now infamous “German
volume training” study in which trained
(not well-trained, but trained nonethe-
less) lifters gained less muscle perform-
ing 10 sets per muscle group three times
per week compared to performing five
sets.

Next Steps
So much can be done in the area of
acute recovery from training. Most ob-
viously, different amounts of volume at
different intensities could be compared.
However, no matter how much of this
type of data is collected, the response

26
References
1. Bartolomei, S., et al., Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and high-volume
resistance exercise in trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2017. 117(7): p. 1287-1298.
2. Krieger, J.W., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
J Strength Cond Res, 2010. 24(4): p. 1150-9.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resis-
tance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
4. Krieger, J.W., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond
Res, 2009. 23(6): p. 1890-901.
5. Robbins, D.W., P.W. Marshall, and M. McEwen, The effect of training volume on lower-body
strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(1): p. 34-9.
6. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength
gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(3):
p. 689-97.
7. Zourdos, M.C., et al., Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces Greater Perfor-
mance Than a Traditional Configuration in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2016. 30(3): p. 784-
91.
8. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on
muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2014.
29(10): p. 2909-18.
9. Schoenfeld, B., Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J
Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(5): p. 1441-53.
10. Wernbom, M., J. Augustsson, and R. Thomee, The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and
mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med, 2007. 37(3):
p. 225-64.

27
 Study Reviewed: Comparison of Two Equated Resistance Training Weekly
Volume Routines Using Different Frequencies on Body Composition and
Performance in Trained Males. Yue et al. (2017)

More Frequency is
Not Always Better
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

We know that more volume is not always better. This study shows us
that, similarly, more frequency is not always better. But is it really that
simple? Sometimes a critical analysis of a study’s methods is necessary to
establish true takeaways from a single study.

28
 KEY POINTS
1. This study compared two equated volume programs but with different training
frequencies for performance and body composition. The study compared a frequency
of two versus four times per week for some muscle groups, and two versus one time
per week for other muscle groups.
2. The main results showed no differences between groups for any performance or
body composition measure. When volume is equated and there is a frequency of at
least two times per week, additional frequency may not matter too much.
3. Importantly, both groups in this study met the already-established recommendations
for weekly volume, which likely explains the lack of differences between groups.

W
ait a second. First, “More Volume
is Not Always Better” and now
“More Frequency is not Always
Better”? I know, we are calling everything
into question, but that’s a good thing, and
that’s how we move forward. Despite the
title of this article, meta-analyses have
concluded that a frequency of at least two
times per muscle group per week is better
than once per week for hypertrophy (2)
and strength (3). So how did this study
show that more frequency wasn’t better?
This study had two groups which were
volume-equated and trained for six weeks:
1) High frequency (n=9), which per-
formed four total sessions per week with
a frequency of twice per week on a mus-
cle group but with a low per-session vol-
ume, and 2) Low frequency (n=9), which
performed two total sessions per week
with a frequency of once per week on a
muscle group, but with a high per-session
volume. For clarity, volume was equated
between groups and across all six weeks.
Per-session volume was just higher in the
low frequency group. The main variables
assessed from pre- to post-study and
between groups were: squat and bench
one-repetition maximum (1RM); quad-
riceps, biceps, and deltoid hypertrophy;
body composition; and bench press pow-
er (power output at 50% of 1RM). There
were no statistically significant differenc-
es between groups for any measure, and
both groups experienced hypertrophy
and improved 1RM strength and power
output. However, there were some im-
portant meaningful differences. Specif-
ically, between-group effect sizes (ES)
revealed a large effect (0.89) in favor of
low frequency for bench press 1RM and a
moderate effect (0.53) also in favor of low
frequency for biceps hypertrophy. Also of
note was a small effect (0.45) again in fa-
vor of low frequency for improvement in
fat-free mass. At first glance, these ES re-
sults are a little jarring in that they point
to a huge win for lower frequency. How-

29
 Table 1 Subject Characteristics

Body Mass Training Age

Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) (kg) (yrs.)

High
21 ± 3 180.4 ± 4.8 76.63 ± 14.72 3.0 ± 0.5
Frequency

Low
28 ± 8 178.6 ± 6.7 79.38 ± 14.22 2.9 ± 0.4
Frequency

Data are Mean ± SD

Subjects characteristics from Yue et al. 2017 (1)

ever, there are some statistical questions
and methodology considerations, which I
believe explain, and – in some ways – call
into question the authors’ conclusions.
So, let’s not count it as a point in the col-
umn of low frequency yet. Let’s critically
analyze everything in play here.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to ex-
amine the effects of equated volume but
different weekly training frequencies on
maximal strength, hypertrophy, power,
and body composition over six weeks in
trained males.
Research Question
Does a frequency of twice per week
on a muscle group (four total sessions)
produce greater performance and better
body composition outcomes than train-
ing a muscle group once per week (two
total sessions)? Quick Note: Although the
actual paper pitches this study as a one ver-
sus two time per week frequency for each
muscle group, it’s more like a two versus
four time per week, as I’ll explicitly point
out in a bit.

30
 Hypotheses estimated via a BOD POD. The high
Although a hypothesis was not ex- frequency group trained Monday, Tues-
pressly stated, the introduction indicates day, Thursday, and Friday. Monday’s
that the authors expected the high fre- and Thursday’s sessions (Routine 1) di-
quency group to experience better re- rectly targeted the chest, shoulders, and
sults than the low frequency group. biceps. Tuesday’s and Friday’s sessions
(Routine 2) directly targeted the legs,
back, and triceps. The low frequency
Subjects and Methods group trained on only Mondays (Rou-
tine 1) and Thursdays (Routine 2). The
Subjects high frequency group performed two
sets per exercise, and the low frequency
This study had 18 men who had
group performed four sets per exercise.
trained 2-3 times per week using a
All sets were performed at approxi-
whole-body routine for 2-5 years prior
mately 75% of 1RM and were taken ei-
to the start of the study; however, there
ther to failure or to 12 reps, whichever
were no baseline strength criteria – just
was reached first. If 12 reps were per-
a training experience criteria. The de-
formed and subjects thought they could
scriptive statistics for each group can be
do additional reps, then 2.5kg was add-
seen in Table 1.
ed to the load for the next set. Table 2
shows the specific exercises completed
Study Protocol
for both groups.
This study spanned a total of seven
Importantly, this study is billed as a
weeks. The first week, subjects came to
comparison of training a muscle group
the lab three times for familiarization
two times versus one time per week (so
sessions to ensure proper exercise tech-
that’s how our purpose and research ques-
nique. The next six weeks served as the
tions were written); however, after review-
training program. In short, both the
ing Table 2, you can see that’s not really
high frequency group (n=9) and the low
the case. Most muscle groups were trained
frequency group (n=9) trained for six
more than that, at least indirectly. There-
weeks with pre- and post-study mea-
fore, I think it’s more accurate to say that
surements for performance and body
this study compared a training frequency of
composition. Strength was measured via
two versus four times per week on a mus-
1RM squat and bench, hypertrophy was
cle group. To illustrate this, I created Table
assessed via muscle thickness and limb
3, which breaks down how many times
circumference, power was assessed by
per week each muscle group was directly
testing power output (Watts) at 50% of
trained and indirectly trained to provide
bench 1RM, and body composition was

31
 Table 2 Training Protocol, Training Variables, and Outcome Measures

Routine 1 Routine 2

Bench Press Lat Pulldown

DB Fly DB Rear Delt

Chest Press Bar Pullover

Bar Curl Bar Triceps Ext.

Seated DB Curl Close Grip Bench

Bench Over Row Triceps Pushdowns

DB Lateral Raise Squat

Military Press Deadlift

Bar Front Raise Leg Curl

This table shows the specific exercises completed for each group.
Both “routines” were performed twice per week in the high frequen-
cy group and once per week in the low frequency group.
DB = Dumbbell, 1RM = One-Repetition Maximum

the truest comparison of weekly frequency.

It’s important to do this, because a recent
meta-analysis (2) – which recommends a
frequency of 2-3 times per week for mus-
cle growth – includes indirectly training
a muscle group (i.e. rows count indirectly
for biceps) in that recommendation.
Findings
There were no statistically significant
differences between groups, in terms
of p-values, for any outcome measure.
However, there were some instances
where an outcome measure statistically

32
 Table 3 Breakdown of Both Direct and Indirect Training Frequencies Per Muscle Group

Weekly Frequency Weekly Frequency What’s Included for Total Weekly Sets
Directly Trained What’s Included for Indirectly / Directly Indirectly / Directly Including All Indirect
Muscle Group LVHF / HVLF Directly Trained Trained LVHF / HVLF Trained Training

Chest 2/4 Bench Press, Chest Press, DB 2/4 Bench Press, Chest Press, DB 16
Fly, Close Grip Bench Press Fly, Close Grip Bench Press

Biceps 1/2 Bar Curl, Seated DB Curl 2/4 Bar Curl, Seated DB Curl, Bent 16
Over Row, Bar Pullover

Back 2/4 Lat Pulldown, Bent Over Row, 2/4 Lat Pulldown, Bent Over Row, 20
Bar Pullover, Deadlift Bar Pullover, Deadlift, DB Rear
Delt

Shoulders 2/4 Military Press, Bar Front Raise, 2/4 Military Press, Bar Front Raise, 16
DB Rear Delt DB Rear Delt, Close Grip Bench

Triceps 1/2 Bar Triceps Ext, Close Grip 2/4 Bar Triceps Ext, Close Grip 16
Bench, Triceps Pushdowns Bench, Triceps Pushdowns,
Bench Press

Legs 1/2 Squat, Deadlift, Leg Curl 1/2 Squat, Deadlift, Leg Curl 12

improved from pre- to post-study in the

low frequency group but not in the high
frequency group. Those measures were:
fat mass, fat-free mass, arm circumfer-
ence, and biceps hypertrophy. Further,
there were meaningful effect sizes in fa-
vor of the low frequency group for the
following variables: body mass (loss), fat
mass, fat-free mass, biceps hypertrophy,
1RM bench, 1RM squat, and bench
press power. In short, all of the mean-
ingful differences were in favor of the
low frequency group; therefore, these re-
sults suggest a possible benefit for low-
er frequency training for body compo-
sition, strength, and hypertrophy. Table
4 displays pre- to post-study means, the
mean change, the comparison p-value,
and the between-group ES for all vari-
ables.
Interpretation
Although Table 3 shows some effect
sizes in favor of the low frequency group,
I think it’s most important to point out
that there were no significant differenc-
es between groups in terms of p-val-
ues. Further, when you look closely at
Table 3, the effect sizes in favor of low
frequency become less convincing upon
critical analysis. For example, there is
what is considered a large ES (0.89) in
favor of low frequency for 1RM bench
press. However, there is a mean change
of 11kg for bench press in both groups.
The standard deviation is much tighter
for the low frequency group, which may
account for the ES, but the large standard
deviation in the high frequency group at
post-test (SD=30) also means the great-
est individual change may have occurred

33
 Table 4 Pre to Post-Study Changes and Between Group Effect Sizes for All Variables

LVHF (n=9) HVLF (n=9) Group Comparisons

Variable Pre Post Changes Pre Post Changes p-value ES

Body Mass (kg) 76.6 ± 14.72 77.2 ± 16.26 0.61 ± 14.22 79.4 ± 14.22 79.3 ± 13.3 -0.06 ± 2.18 0.054 1.08

Fat Mass (%) 18.1 ± 7.08 17.06 ± 7.6 -1.04 ± 1.29 21.84 ± 6.83 20.18 ± 6.85 -1.67 ± 1.5* 0.679 0.22

Fat mass (kg) 14.47 ± 8.88 13.9 ± 9.54 -0.58 ± 1.12 17.93 ± 8.63 16.52 ± 8.2 -2.41 ± 1.10 0.362 0.45

Fat-free mass (%) 81.9 ± 7.06 82.94 ± 7.6 1.04 ± 1.29 78.15 ± 6.83 79.83 ± 6.85 1.68 ± 1.5* 0.396 0.45

Fat-free mass (kg) 62.16 ± 8.74 63.35 ± 9.77 1.19 ± 1.94* 61.45 ± 7.84 62.8 ± 7.74 1.36 ± 1.06* 0.205 0.59

Arm Circumference (cm) 31.4 ± 5.54 32.1 ± 5.75 0.73 ± 1.24 31.8 ± 3.05 33.0 ± 3.15 1.08 ± 1.47* 0.586 0.30

Thigh Circumference (cm) 44.9 ± 4.78 45.6 ± 6.16 0.70 ± 2.09 46.5 ± 4.02 47.4 ± 4.12 0.87 ± 2.1 0.168 0.76

Vastus Medialis Thickness (mm) 41.1 ± 13 42.9 ± 13.65 1.8 ± 2.43* 35.9 ± 12.48 38.1 ± 13.37 2.18 ± 1.88* 0.798 0.07#

Elbow Flexors Thickness (mm) 40.5 ± 9.59 41.9 ± 10.58 1.4 ± 2.35 38.8 ± 7.41 41.0 ± 9.62 2.21 ± 2.81* 0.259 0.53

Ant. Deltoids Thickness (mm) 25.6 ± 7.48 26.7 ± 7.7 1.1 ± 1.66 20.9 ± 5.64 22.0 ± 5.99 1.08 ± 1.16 0.803 0.14#

1RM Bench Press (kg) 77 ± 27 88 ± 30 11.67 ± 4.33* 70 ± 17 81 ± 15 10.83 ± 3.95* 0.067 0.89

0.98 ± 0.23 1.13 ± 0.22 0.14 ± 0.01* 0.90 ± 0.23 1.04 ± 0.22 0.14 ± 0.01* 0.726 0.18#
1 RM Bench Press (kg body mass-1)

103 ± 27 115 ± 34 11.94 ± 7.68* 90 ± 9 103 ± 13 13.83 ± 6.35* 0.880 0.06#

1RM Squat (kg)

1 RM Squat (kg body mass-1) 1.35 ± 0.28 1.49 ± 0.32 0.14 ± 0.06* 1.14 ± 0.11 1.31 ± 0.13 0.17 ± 0.01* 0.396 0.43

Bench Press Power (watts) at 50% 1RM 305 ± 101 324 ± 104 18.72 ± 14.53* 249 ± 46 271 ± 53 21.72 ± 16.07* 0.661 0.23

Bench Press Power (watts body mass-1) 3.93 ± 0.93 4.15 ± 0.9 0.22 ± 0.25* 3.18 ± 0.58 3.46 ± 0.63 0.27 ± 0.22* 0.675 0.22

This table shows the pre and post-study means + SD, the mean change + SD, the between group p-values, and between group effect sizes (ES) for every outcome measure.
*, Significant change from pre-study; #, Effect size is >0.20 indicating at least a small effect in favor of HVLF; LVHF, Low Volume High Frequency; HVLF, High Volume Low Frequency; 1RM, One-Repetition Maximum

in that group. Ultimately, with only nine was an analysis of covariance (ANCO-
subjects in each group and similar mean VA), and then converted the effect sizes
changes, I think these effect sizes should to a between-group Cohen’s d (the lat-
be interpreted cautiously. ter is what you see in our interpreting
Continuing with the ES discussion, the research document). When you look
effect sizes in this study were calculated at the mean changes (i.e. bench press
in an unorthodox manner. The authors 1RM mean change is identical between
calculated partial eta squared effect sizes groups) in Table 3, it seems impossible
from their main statistical model, which that the meaningful effects in favor of

34
low frequency would show up as such if
a Cohen’s d was calculated directly. This
does not mean that the effect sizes are
invalid, nor does it mean that the au-
thors were wrong in their reporting, but
it does mean that it’s an unorthodox ap-
proach. So, when compiling everything
in play – lack of p-value differences be-
tween groups, similar mean changes,
a low sample size, and unorthodox ES
calculations – I think it’s prudent to
again stress a cautious interpretation of
the effect sizes and important to keep in
mind that there was no statistical differ-
ence between groups.
Now that the stats discussion is out of
the way, let’s break down the methodolo-
gy a little more. As previously stated, this
study is billed as a two versus four total
session frequency study and a one versus
two times per week muscle group study;
however, as you can see in Table 3, this
isn’t really the case. All muscle groups
(except for legs) were trained directly or
indirectly at least twice per week, which
means it was a two versus four time per
week per muscle group study. What do we
currently know about training frequency
for hypertrophy and strength? Well, the
aforementioned meta-analysis demon-
strates that a two time per week frequen-
cy promotes greater hypertrophy than a
one time per week frequency (2). Previous
data also have shown that hypertrophy
and strength adaptations are similar be-
tween groups when volume is equated (4).
Further, when accounting for all indirect
training in the present study, all muscle
groups met the 10+ sets per week recom-
mendation which we gave previously in
MASS. When all of these factors are tak-
en together: both groups in this study had
a frequency of >1 time per week, volume
was equated between groups, both groups
performed 10+ sets per muscle group, and
there was no statistical difference between
groups. So, although the abstract of the
paper suggests better results for the low
frequency group for some measures, I am
less convinced, and based upon the design,
I don’t find the lack of differences surpris-
ing. So, even though Table 3 shows effect
sizes in favor of low frequency for some
measures, take another look at how sim-
ilar the mean changes are; can we really
say with confidence that the low frequen-
cy protocol produced superior results? I
can’t say that with confidence. However,
despite my lack of confidence that those
effect sizes do exist, I could be wrong.
With that in mind, let’s now indulge the
possibility that there may be a difference
in some of these measures and speculate
as to why.
If we argue for a second that a mean-
ingful difference is present, I would pro-
pose three possible reasons: 1) The high
frequency group was under-recovered
throughout, 2) The higher frequency was
too much for the relatively low training
status, and 3) The possibility of greater
metabolic byproduct accumulation in the
low frequency group.
35
 1) The high frequency group was un-
der-recovered
In this study, all sets were taken to fail-
ure, and failure training causes greater fa-
tigue than non-failure training for 48-72
hours (More in Eric’s recent articles) (5).
While it is true that the high frequency
group did less volume per session than the
low frequency group in the present study
(1), the high frequency group trained two
days in a row at least once per week. Also,
we know from Table 3 that the subjects
in the high frequency group trained most
muscle groups on back-to-back days (at
least indirectly); therefore, training to fail-
ure could have placed the subjects in the
high frequency group in a high state of
fatigue on their second consecutive train-
ing day, compromising recoverability and
subsequent adaptation.
2) Training Status
In a way, this goes hand-in-hand with
the under-recovered hypothesis. Both
groups in this study had a starting 1RM
bench of <80kg, making them relative
novices (check out Figure 1 here) at this
exercise. Therefore, training to failure four
times per week in the high frequency
group may have simply been too much.
Also, even though volume was equated in
terms of working sets (Table 3), the high
frequency group had to warm-up each
day. Since the working sets were at 75%,
that means they likely had some warm-up
sets from 60-70% of 1RM. For someone
with a relatively low training status, that
could conceivably count as added volume.
Thus, this could be a case of simply too
much frequency or volume for the high
frequency group. Finally, even though we
know that a frequency of two times per
week produces larger strength gains than
once per week, we can’t conclude that
three is better than two (3). We shouldn’t
expect four times to have an added bene-
fit in a population not far past the novice
lifting phase.
3) Possibility of greater metabolic by-
products
Although metabolite build-up may not
play a huge role in hypertrophy (6), it may
play some role (7). In this study, the low
frequency group did more volume per ses-
sion, so it’s possible that the low frequency
group had a greater metabolite build-up,
which could possibly account for the ef-
fect sizes in its favor.
Before we present some next steps, let’s
have some last words to clarify our inter-
pretation. The results seem fairly straight-
forward to me: this study had a low sample
size and compared different frequencies
with equated volume and found no dif-
ferences between groups for any outcome
measure. However, despite the unortho-
dox ES calculation, we cannot discount
the possibility of a meaningful difference,
so we presented some theories as to why
these differences may have occurred. Ul-
timately, I wouldn’t take this as a win for
low frequency. I would take this as anoth-
er point in the column of equated vol-
36
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. When equating for training volume, training frequency doesn’t seem to be a huge
variable influencing adaptations as long as a frequency of at least two times per
week is met and muscle group volume is 10+ sets for the week.
2. We cannot yet say if greater than two times per week frequency is necessary to
maximize adaptations in highly trained lifters, but if it is, it should likely include
increased volume.
3. When counting sets per week on a muscle group, it is important to count when a
muscle group is both directly and indirectly trained.

ume leading to similar training outcomes.

Finally, if you do choose to take it as a
win for lower frequency, remember that
the training frequency for most muscle
groups was actually twice per week, which
is in line with previous recommendations.

Next Steps
We first need clarify whether a frequen-
cy of three times per week is better than
two times per week for hypertrophy and
strength. I theorize that in trained lifters,
three times per week may be better be-
cause it allows for more volume and also
allows that volume to be distributed in a
way that makes it is easier to achieve high
intensity work. I would like to see this
study carried out in a more highly trained
population and also with muscle groups
not being indirectly trained on days they
aren’t directly trained. This could be done
with a training setup of training legs, back,
and biceps together and chest, shoulders,
and triceps together.

37
References
1. Yue, F, Karsten, B, Larumbe-Zabala, Seijo, M, Naclerio, F. Comparison of two equated training
weekly volume routines using different frequencies on body composition and performance in trained
males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2017,ja.
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
3. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis
to determine the dose-response relationship. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2004 May 1;18(2):377-82.
4. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos MC. Volume-equated
high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and
strength adaptations. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
5. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodríguez R, de la Cruz-Sánchez E, González-Badillo JJ, Sán-
chez-Medina L, Pallarés JG. Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to
failure. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2017 Jan 1:1-3.
6. Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Do metabolites that
are produced during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy? European Journal of Applied
Physiology. 2017 Nov 1;117(11):2125-35.
7. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2010 Oct 1;24(10):2857-72.

38
 Study Reviewed: Effects of Mental Training on Muscular Force, Hormonal
and Physiological Changes in Kickboxers. Slimani et al. (2017)

Mind Over Matter: Mental

Training Increases Strength Gains
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Everyone focuses on physical training, but mental training is a

powerful, oft-overlooked tool that can boost your strength gains.

39
 KEY POINTS
1. Two groups of high-level kickboxers performed the same lifting program over 12
weeks. One of the groups did additional mental training, including motivational self-
talk and visualization.
2. While both groups experienced increased performance, the group doing additional
mental training made larger gains. For our purposes here, their additional strength
gains in the bench press and half squat are most relevant.
3. The group doing additional mental training also showed markers of decreased
stress, including an elevation in testosterone:cortisol ratio and larger decreases in
resting heart rate and blood pressure than the group not performing mental training.

W Purpose and Research

hen you talk to elite lifters,
you’ll notice that, in addition
to discussing their training
approach, a lot of them also talk about
their mental approach to training and
competing. This study set out to test the
degree to which mental training could
augment physical training.
Over 12 weeks, two groups of
high-level kickboxers followed the
same strength training program, but one
group also performed additional men-
tal training (self-talk and visualization).
While both groups got stronger in the
bench press and half squat, the group
doing additional mental training expe-
rienced larger strength increases, along
with decreases in heart rate and blood
pressure, and increases in testosterone:-
cortisol ratio. Therefore, purposefully
adding self-talk and visualization train-
ing to your lifting may help you make
faster strength gains without incurring
additional recovery demands.
Questions
The authors of this study had three hy-
potheses:
1. Physical training plus mental train-
ing would lead to larger strength
gains than physical training alone.
2. Physical training plus mental train-
ing would lead to larger increases in
testosterone and a larger increase in
testosterone:cortisol ratio than phys-
ical training alone.
3. Physical training plus mental train-
ing would lead to larger decreases in
cortisol, heart rate, and blood pres-
sure than physical training alone.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 53 male elite (n=9)

40
or sub-elite kickboxers (n=44), meaning
they competed in at least four national
or international competitions per year.
They were 24.2±4.4 years old, weighing
70.4±10.4kg, and all had at least one year
of resistance training experience.
To be included in the study, they had
to meet these criteria:
1. They’d never done any sort of dedi-
cated mental training with the goal
of improving sport performance.
2. They didn’t use any drugs or dietary
supplements.
3. They had no recent injuries.
4. They had no history of using drugs
or medications that could affect
the hypothalamic-adrenal-gonadal
axis.
5. They had no history of chronic dis-
ease.
6. They had regular eating patterns.
7. They had no depressive illnesses.
8. They had no severe cognitive im-
pairment.
9. They had to have at least moderate
mental imagery ability, according to
the Sport Imagery Ability Measure.
Testing
One week before the start of the study,
the participants all tested 1RM bench
press, 1RM half squat, max distance
medicine ball throw, and max height
countermovement jump to familiarize
themselves with the tests.
At the start of training, after 6 weeks of
training, and after 12 weeks of training,
all groups completed those same physi-
cal tests again. In addition, the research-
ers measured the subjects’ resting heart
rate and blood pressure and drew blood
to analyze testosterone and cortisol lev-
els. All tests, measurements, and blood
draws were performed at the same times
of day (7-8 a.m. for blood draws, blood
pressure, and heart rate and 5:30-7 p.m.
for physical tests) at all three time points
to minimize the effect of diurnal fluctua-
tions in hormone levels, heart rate, blood
pressure, and performance.
It’s worth noting that the half squats
used in this study were actually relatively
close to legal squats in powerlifting. The
participants were required to squat until
the greater trochanter of the femur was
parallel with the knee – probably ~2-3
inches above legal powerlifting depth,
depending on quad size.
Training Protocol
The participants were split into three
groups:
1. One group (n=20) performed only
physical training (PT).
2. One group (n=18) performed phys-
ical training plus mental training
(PT-MT).
3. One group (n=15) served as a control
group, doing no physical or mental
training.
41
Table 1 Training Program
15 minutes 30 minutes
Bench Press and Half
Physical Training
Squat (4 x 8 @ 70% 1RM)
General and Specific
Warm-up Medicine Ball Throws and
Counter Movement
Physical Plus Jumps
Motivational Self-Talk
Mental Training (4 x 10-12 each)
Training for the PT and PT-MT
groups took place three days per week
for 12 weeks, consisting of a 15-min-
ute warm-up, 4 sets of 8 half squat and
bench presses with 70% 1RM loads, and
4 sets of 10-12 medicine ball throws or
countermovement jumps. They rested
80 seconds between sets of all exercises.
Unfortunately, the authors don’t explic-
itly state how load was progressed for
the half squat and bench press.
In addition to the physical training,
the PT-MT group also performed mo-
tivational self-talk between sets and per-
formed mental imagery training at the
end of each workout.
The motivational self-talk was self-se-
lected, in accordance with self-determi-
nation theory. The athletes were told to
identify negative self-talk before, during,
or after training, write down the nega-
tive statement, and to restate that neg-
ative statement as a positive or motivat-
ing statement. For example, if an athlete
caught himself thinking “I’m not sure I
can lift this much weight,” they’d instead
be instructed to repeat something like,
“I could lift more weight” between sets.
The athletes were asked to change their
80 seconds 30 minutes 15 minutes
80 seconds of rest
Neural Cognitive Tasks
between sets
Cooldown (Jogging,
Stretching, Shadow
Boxing)
80 seconds of First-Person Motor Imagery for Bench
Press, Half Squat, Medicie Ball Throws,
(MST)between sets and Counter Movement Jump
motivational statements each time a new
piece of negative self-talk arose.
Mental imagery consisted of internal
kinesthetic imagery. This means that the
participants were instructed to imagine
themselves performing each exercise,
looking out through their own eyes (i.e.
a first-person view, instead of imagining
watching themselves performing the ex-
ercise), and maximally exerting them-
selves through the exercise. The study
also notes that they “urged the muscles
to contract maximally,” though it’s un-
clear whether the participants actually
maximally contracted their muscles, or
just imagined their muscles contracting.
While the PT-MT group performed
their mental training post-exercise, the
PT group performed neural cognitive
tasks. The study doesn’t make the nature
of those tasks clear, simply stating that
they “never involved the abilities needed
to form mental images.” I honestly have
no idea whatsoever what those tasks in-
volved.
Finally, the PT and PT-MT groups per-
formed two 90-minute sessions of kick-
boxing training per week, mostly focusing
on technique and sport-specific training.
42
 Figure 1 Relative Increases in Performance

Physical Plus Mental Training

Physical Training Only

30%
2.0 ** 0.74*
0.84**

20%
0.98**

10%

0%
CMJ (cm) MBT (m) Bench press (kg) Half squat (kg)

* = Medium between-group effect size; ** = Large between-group effect size

CMJ = Counter-movement jump; MBT = Medicine ball throw

tests reported didn’t check to see if gains

Findings
While the PT and PT-MT groups both
improved significantly (p<0.05) in all mea-
sures of performance, improvements were
larger in the PT-MT group across the
board. Performance decreased non-signifi-
cantly in the control group. The statistical
were significantly different, strangely (i.e.
they reported that relative bench press was
higher post-training for the PT-MT group
than the PT group, but I don’t think they
ran tests to see if the actual increase itself
was larger). However, between-group effect
sizes can be seen in Figure 1.

43
 Figure 2 Mean ± SD Values for Resting Testosterone, Cortisol Concentrations When looking at the hormonal
and T/C Ratio During 12-weeks of Mental Training in Male Trained Kickboxers data, I think the authors had report-
ing issues. For testosterone, the au-
Mental Group Physical Group Control Group thors report in the results section and
8
#
in their figure that testosterone con-
centrations increased in both the PT
Testosterone (ng/ml)

7
† and PT-MT groups, and they don’t
6
mention a significant change in the
5 control group. So far, so good.
4 For cortisol, the authors report in
3
the results section that cortisol was
0 6 12 higher post-training in the PT-MT
Training Period
group than the PT or control groups.
#
However, that doesn’t match their fig-
130
ure, which shows significant increases
120
†
in the PT and control groups and a
Cortisol (ng/ml)

110 non-significant decrease in the PT-

100 MT group. In the discussion section,
90
the authors report a decrease in corti-
sol in the PT-MT group.
80
Finally, for T:C ratio, the authors
70
0 6 12 report that T:C ratio was higher
Training Period post-training for the PT-MT group
than the PT and control groups.
0,1 That seems to indicate that the au-
# thors simply misstated the cortisol
0,08 data in their results section, but cor-
rectly reported it in on their graphs
T/C Ratio

0,06
and in their discussion (as a decrease
0,04
in cortisol would increase T:C ratio).
However, if we assume the graphs for
0,04 testosterone and cortisol are accurate,
0 6 12
Training Period
we run into another problem with
the T:C graph. Testosterone concen-
* = Significant difference at post-training compared with pre-training at p < 0.05; ** = Significant trations decreased non-significantly
difference at post-training compared with pre-training at p < 0.001; # = Higher values for the
mental group at post-training compared to physical and control groups at p < 0.05; † = Higher for the control group on the graphs,
values for the physical group at post-training compared to the control group at p < 0.05
while cortisol levels increased sig-

44
 Figure 3 Physical Plus Mental Training and Physical Training Only
0.0%
-2.5%
-5.0%
-7.5%
-1.75**
-10.0%
Resting Heart Rate
(beats/min)
** = Large between-group effect size (negative means a larger decrease in the PT-MT group)
nificantly. That would necessarily mean
that T:C ratio would decrease over the
course of the study. However, the T:C
graph shows unchanged T:C ratios for
the control group.
It’s impossible to square this circle giv-
en the data reported. We can make the
reported results for the PT and PT-MT
groups add up if we assume the authors
just made a typo in their results section,
but even if we do that, there’s no way we
can wind up with a coherent picture for
all three groups. As such, I’m not going
to pay too much attention to the hor-
monal data for the rest of this review, as
there seem to be unresolvable data re-
porting issues.
Physical Plus Mental Training
Physical Training Only
** = Large between-group
effect size (negative means a
larger decrease in the PT-MT
group)
-1.14**
Mean Arterial Pressure
(mmHg)
Lastly, resting heart rate and blood
pressure decreased in both the PT and
PT-MT groups, with larger decreases in
the PT-MT group.
All pre- and post-training perfor-
mance and physiological characteristics
of the PT and PT-MT groups can be
seen in Table 2.
Interpretation
The beauty of mental training is that
it can increase strength gains without
making it more challenging to recov-
er from training. In fact, if you take the
hormonal data reported in this study
45
 Table 2 Results For Both Training Groups

Physical Plus Mental Physical Training

Training Group Group

CMJ (cm)

Pre 32.6 ± 2.6 33 ± 2.5

Post 37.9 ± 2.8 25.8 ± 2.7

MBT (m)

Pre 4.3 ± 0.3 4.2 ± 0.3

Post 5.5 ± 0.3 4.8 ± 0.3

Bench Press (kg)

Pre 60.2 ± 7.8 60.3 ± 7.7

Post 76.2 ± 8.7 69.8 ± 8.7

Half Squat (kg)

Pre 89.2 ± 12.5 90.1 ± 13.4

Post 113.5 ± 14.1 104.8 ± 14.7

Resting HR (bpm)

Pre 69.6 ± 2.5 69.7 ± 2.4

Post 63.2 ± 3.3 67.6 ± 2.8

MAP (mmHg)

Pre 89.1 ± 2.3 90.2 ± 2.6

Post 81.5 ± 3.1 85.4 ± 3.5

at face value (which, again, may not be
prudent), the mental training performed
by the PT-MT group in this study may
have put them in a hormonal state in-
dicative of lower fatigue (increased T:C
ratio). That’s corroborated by the larger
decreases in resting heart rate and blood
pressure in the PT-MT group as well.
In this study, the PT-MT group per-
formed two different types of men-
tal training: motivational self-talk, and
mental imagery.
The way they used self-talk – during
rest periods to mentally prepare them-
selves for their next set – is something
we can all implement. At the very least,

46
it will keep you engaged and focused on
your training instead of wasting time
goofing off or checking Instagram. I THE BEAUTY OF MENTAL
think the way they determined the self-
talk to use was instructive as well: the TRAINING IS THAT IT CAN
participants identified negative self-talk
they already had and turned it around
INCREASE STRENGTH
to make it positive. That shifts the fo-
cus from your perceived shortcomings
GAINS WITHOUT MAKING
to your ability to overcome those short- IT MORE CHALLENGING TO
comings. For example, if your speed off
the floor is slow when deadlifting, you’ll RECOVER FROM TRAINING.
be in a much better mental space if you
focus more on overcoming that issue (“I
can pull these reps faster off the floor”)
press than people not performing vi-
rather than simply dwelling on it in a
sualization exercises between sets (2).
negative light (“well, my deadlifts are al-
ways slow, so I’m sure this next set will The most effective form of imagery
be slow too”). tends to be the first-person style used
in this study (looking through your
The way mental imagery was used
own eyes as you imagine the task, rath-
in this study, on the other hand (for
er than observing yourself performing
30 minutes post-training), may be less
the task from a third-person point of
convenient for most people to imple-
view) (3). Furthermore, the more de-
ment. I’d assume most people don’t
tails you can evoke from the experi-
want to hang around the gym for an-
ence – the bar digging into your hands,
other half hour when they’re done
the feeling of your muscles straining
training to do visualization exercises.
against the load, the music you listen
However, I doubt that the timing of
to when you train, etc. – the more ef-
your mental imagery is crucially im-
fective your mental imagery training
portant. Furthermore, if self-talk (es-
will be. If the details of using mental
pecially through the entire duration of
imagery to enhance performance in-
a rest period) feels hokey to you, you
terest you, I’d highly recommend this
could perform your mental imagery
review (4). The nitty gritty details are
between sets as well. In a prior study,
outside the purview of this article, but
for example, people doing visualiza-
the linked review is very well-written.
tion exercises between their training
sets gained more strength on the leg

47
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Adding mental training to your current program will likely boost your strength gains
and may even decrease markers of physiological stress. Positive self-talk and first
person kinesthetic mental imagery absolutely don’t replace slinging around heavy iron,
obviously, but they can help you get larger gains from your training program.

Next Steps
One drawback of this study was that
it was performed on people who were
prescreened to have at least moderate
mental imagery ability. It would be in-
teresting for future studies to address 1)
the degree to which that skill is trainable
and 2) the relationship between mental
imagery ability and the additive strength
benefits one can expect from mental
training.
Furthermore, while this study used
participants with some degree of train-
ing experience, they were far from elite
lifters. Future studies should determine
the degree to which high-level lifters
benefit from added mental training.

48
References
1. Slimani M, Taylor L, Baker JS, Elleuch A, Ayedi FM, Chamari K, Chéour F. Effects of mental
training on muscular force, hormonal and physiological changes in kickboxers. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness. 2017 Jul-Aug;57(7-8):1069-1079. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06421-5.
2. Lebon F, Collet C, Guillot A. Benefits of motor imagery training on muscle strength. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010 Jun;24(6):1680-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8e936.
3. Yao WX, Ranganathan VK, Allexandre D, Siemionow V, Yue GH. Kinesthetic imagery training of
forceful muscle contractions increases brain signal and muscle strength. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013
Sep 26;7:561. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00561.
4. Wakefield C, Smith D. Perfecting Practice: Applying the PETTLEP Model of Motor Imagery.
Journal of Sport Psychology in Action. 2012 Volume 3, Issue 1.

49
 Study Reviewed: Sleep Interventions Designed to Improve Athletic
Performance and Recovery: A Systematic Review of Current
Approaches. Bonnar et al. (2018)

Which Sleep Interventions Help the Most

With Recovery and Performance?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Everyone pays lip service to the importance of sleep, but what sorts
of interventions actually improve sleep and performance the most?

50
 KEY POINTS
1. Based on the available evidence, sleep extension (getting in bed for at least 9-10
hours per night) seems to most directly increase performance. The optimal amount
of sleep for athletes may be greater than the optimal amount of sleep for the general
population.
2. Sleep hygiene interventions have mixed results but may improve sleep and aid in
performance without requiring much time or energy, making them a safe bet.
3. Ultimately, you can’t really hack sleep, and sleeping enough will improve performance.
Make sure you have good sleeping conditions, and get yourself in bed for enough
hours each night.

S
leep is a pretty un-sexy subject.
While everyone loves geeking out
about the latest training or nutri-
tion fad, most people don’t pay as much
attention to sleep as they should. I think
there are a couple of reasons for that.
People who are into lifting tend to be the
type of people who actively try to make
positive changes in their life, and most
of the time, getting better involves doing
something. Sleep, on the other hand, in-
volves doing nothing for long periods of
time. I think a lot of people view time
spent sleeping as something bordering
on time wasted that could be spent do-
ing something more productive. Fur-
thermore, while there’s a lot of research
on the deleterious effects of insufficient
sleep, there’s not much research on the
potential for sleep interventions to im-
prove performance.
With that in mind, when I saw that a
systematic review came out this month
covering all of the studies aimed at
improving sleep and subsequent per-
formance in athletes, I jumped on the
chance to review it. While this review
covers a variety of sleep interventions,
the biggest takeaway is that sleep hy-
giene (everything related to your night
time routine and sleeping conditions)
and simply getting yourself in bed for 9+
hours per night will give you the most
bang for your buck.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The purpose of this systematic review
was to examine all of the research on spe-
cific sleep interventions in athletes and to
identify the interventions most effective
at improving performance or recovery.
A secondary aim was to outline possible
strategies for athletes, based on the results
of the systematic review.

51
Subjects and Methods
To be included in this systematic re-
view, a study had to meet several criteria:
1. It had to implement an interven-
tion aimed at improving both sleep
and either performance, recovery,
sleepiness, or fatigue.
2. Subjects in the study needed to be
competitive athletes (of any level)
and needed to be at least 18 years
old, on average.
3. Studies needed to be published in a
peer-reviewed journal and available
in English.
4. The studies needed to include group
interventions (i.e. review articles
and case studies were excluded).
5. The study could not focus on medi-
cation or sleep apnea.
Findings
Description of the included studies
Ten studies made the cut. Mean par-
ticipant ages in the studies ranged from
18-24 years old, and the studies includ-
ed between 6 and 84 subjects. Seven of
the ten studies used only male athletes,
two studies used only female athletes,
and one study used a mix of male and
female athletes. Eight of the ten studies
were rated as being of moderate quality,
one study was rated as high quality, and
one study was rated as low quality.
WHILE THERE’S A LOT OF
RESEARCH ON THE DELETERIOUS
EFFECTS OF INSUFFICIENT
SLEEP, THERE’S NOT MUCH
RESEARCH ON THE POTENTIAL
FOR SLEEP INTERVENTIONS
TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE.
Sleep Extension
Two studies examined the effects of
sleep extension. One study (2) had a
group of basketball players increase their
habitual time in bed each night from ~7
hours to 10+ hours for 5-7 weeks. Mean
time spent sleeping increased by nearly
two hours (6.6 to 8.4 hours), and self-re-
ported ratings of sleepiness decreased
by nearly two thirds. Performance on a
timed sprint improved from 16.2 sec-
onds to 15.5 seconds, on average (a
large effect; d>0.8), while free throw and
three-point shooting accuracy improved
by 9-9.2%. Additionally, reaction times
significantly decreased, subjective mood
state significantly improved, and subjec-
tive fatigue levels decreased by over 80%,
on average.
The other study (3) was performed on
52

NAPPING DID NOT INCREASE
PERFORMANCE, AND IT
INCREASED THE AMOUNT
OF TIME NEEDED TO FALL
ASLEEP THE NEXT NIGHT IN
SUBJECTS WHO WEREN’T
HABITUAL NAPPERS.
tennis players. The players were instruct-
ed to get at least 9 hours of sleep per
day for one week. Actual sleep time in-
creased from 7.14 to 8.85 hours (rough-
ly one sleep cycle). Subjective ratings of
sleepiness decreased, and serving accu-
racy increased by 14.3%, on average.
A weakness of both of these stud-
ies is that they used a within-subject,
non-counterbalanced design. This means
that all subjects slept normally initially
for baseline testing, and then increased
their sleep duration. Scores after sleep
extension were compared to scores be-
fore sleep extension. It’s possible that the
athletes would have still improved just
as much regardless of the intervention.
The magnitude of improvements sug-
gests otherwise (the improvements were
quite large, and the subjects were college
varsity athletes), but it’s still a weakness
in design.
Napping
Two studies examined the effects of
napping on recovery. One study (4)
found that 90-minute naps at 11:30 a.m.
resulted in more slow-wave sleep than
napping at 10:30 a.m. This study also
found that starting a nap two hours after
training increased subjective prepared-
ness to train in a later session, compared
to starting a nap one hour after training.
The other study (5) examined whether
a 20-minute nap after lunch would in-
crease performance on a bike sprint test,
using simulated jet lag conditions. In
this study, napping did not increase per-
formance, and it increased the amount of
time needed to fall asleep the next night
in subjects who weren’t habitual nappers.
Sleep Hygiene
Four studies investigated the effects
of various sleep hygiene strategies. One
study (6) compared a one-night sleep
hygiene strategy (lights out at 12:00
a.m. with no electronics for at least 15-
30 minutes prior to sleep) to a normal
routine (lights out after 2:00 a.m.) in
amateur soccer players following a late-
night match. The athletes going to bed
at midnight slept longer, but woke up
more times throughout the night. Fur-
thermore, there were no differences in
time required to fall asleep or sleep ef-
ficiency. There were no differences be-
53
tween groups the next day on a variety
of performance and perceived recovery
tests, and there were no differences in
various markers of muscle damage and
inflammation.
Two other studies (7, 8) used lon-
ger sleep hygiene interventions, lasting
four and six weeks. These interventions
were education-based (the players were
taught strategies aimed to improve
sleep). In the first study, participants re-
ported that they had implemented more
sleep hygiene strategies at the end of
the month, they reported higher sleep
quality, and they reported subjective im-
provements in soccer performance. The
subjective increases in performance were
most pronounced three months later in
the subjects who reported shifting to an
earlier chronotype (i.e. early to bed, early
to rise). In the second study, there were
no objective improvements in sleep, and
subjective assessments of daytime sleepi-
ness, sleep quality, and chronotype didn’t
change. However, subjective feelings of
fatigue decreased, and subjective feelings
of vigor increased from pre- to post-in-
tervention.
Finally, one study (9) examined wheth-
er a combination of sleep hygiene strate-
gies and bright light therapy could help
athletes after simulated international air
travel (I’ll spare you the details of how
they attempted to simulate internation-
al air travel, but I will tell you that you
would have needed to pay me a lot of
money to be a participant in this study).
NOTHING BEATS MAKING
SURE YOUR HEAD IS ON YOUR
PILLOW FOR ENOUGH HOURS
EACH NIGHT. BOTH STUDIES
EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF
SLEEP EXTENSION (INCREASING
TIME IN BED TO 9-10+ HOURS
PER NIGHT) FOUND MARKED
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTS
IN HIGH-LEVEL ATHLETES IN
A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME
The subjects receiving the intervention
didn’t increase sleep duration compared
to a control group during the three days
this intervention took place. Howev-
er, subjective sleep quality was high-
er one day after the simulated travel in
the sleep hygiene and bright light ther-
apy group, and fewer jet lag symptoms
were reported. In spite of increased sleep
quality and decreased jet lag symptoms,
performance in variety of physical tests
was the same between groups after sim-
ulated travel.
54
 Effects of recovery strategies on sleep
Two studied the effects of post-train-
ing recovery strategies intended to im-
prove sleep and subsequent performance.
One study (10) examined the effects of
whole-body cryotherapy during a period
of increased training stress, using a cross-
over design. Sleep duration, onset, and ef-
ficiency were sustained when the subjects
received cryotherapy, but decreased during
the control condition when they didn’t re-
ceive cryotherapy. However, sleep quality
didn’t differ between conditions. Further-
more, heart rate and blood lactate respons-
es to exercise indicated less physical fatigue
with the cryotherapy condition.
The other study (11) examined the effects
of two weeks of night time red light thera-
py. Participants receiving red light therapy
reported improvement in subjective sleep
quality compared to a placebo treatment
(non-red light exposure). Morning mela-
tonin levels were also higher with red light
therapy, however, potentially indicating
a shift in circadian rhythm. Participants
tended to increase their performance on
a distance running test during their two
weeks of red light therapy, while there were
no performance changes with the placebo
therapy.
Interpretation
In the interest of not letting this snow-
ball into a 50 page novella, I’ll take a cue
from this review and only discuss the as-
pects of sleep that are directly relevant for
performance. There are so many interest-
ing things about sleep – for example, do
you know why you feel tired after your first
night of sleep in a new place? Only half
of your brain is fully asleep! (12) – but I
have to draw the line somewhere. I’ll try
to keep this discussion focused on the stuff
covered in the systematic review.
The biggest takeaway from all of these
studies is that nothing beats making sure
your head is on your pillow for enough
hours each night. Both studies examin-
ing the effects of sleep extension (increas-
ing time in bed to 9-10+ hours per night)
found marked performance improvements
in high-level athletes in a short period of
time, while all other interventions had
mixed results. An additional conference
abstract examining the effects of sleep ex-
tension in elite swimmers had similarly
eye-popping findings. Furthermore, an-
other recent study found that more suc-
cessful netball teams tend to sleep more
during multi-day competitions than less
successful teams (13). In spite of these find-
ings, and in spite of the fact that sufficient
sleep decreases injury risk and improves
body composition (14), most athletes av-
erage fewer than 8 hours of sleep per night
(15). It’s likely that the sleep requirements
for athletes to perform and adapt optimal-
ly are greater than the sleep needs of the
general population: 9-10 hours per night
instead of the commonly-recommended
7-8 hours per night.
The strategy with the second most sup-
port was improving sleep hygiene. Good
55
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
To improve your sleep quality, focus on keeping a consistent sleep/wake cycle and
proper sleep hygiene. To really reap the benefits of sleep for athletic performance, aim
to spend at least 9-10 hours per night in bed. If you’re training hard but still having
trouble sleeping, it’s worth dialing back your training and eating more for a couple of
weeks, since poor sleep in spite of intense training is a leading indicator of overtraining.

sleep hygiene habits include: ensuring that
your bedroom is dark (blackout curtains
can help immensely), quiet, and cool but
comfortable; avoiding light from electron-
ic devices for at least 30 minutes before
bed; using your bedroom only for sleep
and sex (not for work or TV); and having
a consistent bedtime schedule to help you
wind down. While sleep hygiene isn’t the
most exciting topic, it may decrease time
required to fall asleep and improve sleep
quality. Sleep hygiene won’t trump sleep
duration, but sleep hygiene strategies are
generally free/cheap and easy to imple-
ment.
Overall, the evidence regarding nap-
ping and the various recovery strategies is
pretty lackluster. While the cryotherapy
intervention seems promising, it’s not fea-
sible for most people, and it may actual-
ly hamper training adaptations, assuming
it affects muscles post-exercise the same
way cold water immersion does (16). I can
see the acute efficacy of napping if you’re
training twice per day, but since it has the
potential to hinder night time sleep, and
since we know that getting more night
time sleep increases performance more re-
liably than napping does, I’d recommend
using the time you’d otherwise spend nap-
ping to get more sleep at night.
One other strategy not discussed in this
systematic review worth paying attention
to is keeping a consistent circadian rhythm.
This means you go to sleep and wake up at
roughly the same time each day. Keeping
a consistent sleep/wake schedule can also
increase sleep duration and quality (17).
It’s worth keeping in mind that poor
sleep is both a cause and a symptom of
overtraining. If you find yourself feeling
worn down and you have issues sleeping
in spite of feeling exhausted (inability to
fall asleep, waking up a lot throughout the
night, etc.), it may be wise to dial back your
training and increase calorie intake for a
couple of weeks to see if your sleep issues
are being caused by excessive accumulated
training stress.
Next Steps
You may have noticed a glaring lack of
studies on strength athletes in the pres-
ent systematic review. While we know

56
that one night of poor sleep doesn’t seem
to affect maximal strength much (18), I’d
love to see a chronic sleep extension study
in strength athletes. My anecdotal experi-
ence indicates that sleeping 9-10+ hours
per night massively aids in strength gains,
but I’d love to see some solid evidence on
the topic.

57
References
1. Bonnar D, Bartel K, Kakoschke N, Lang C. Sleep Interventions Designed to Improve Athlet-
ic Performance and Recovery: A Systematic Review of Current Approaches. Sports Med. 2018
Mar;48(3):683-703.
2. Mah CD, Mah KE, Kezirian EJ, Dement WC. The effects of sleep extension on the athletic perfor-
mance of collegiate basketball players. Sleep. 2011 Jul 1;34(7):943-50.
3. Schwartz J, Simon RD Jr. Sleep extension improves serving accuracy: A study with college varsity
tennis players. Physiol Behav. 2015 Nov 1;151:541-4.
4. Davies DJ, Graham KS, Chow CM. The effect of prior endurance training on nap sleep patterns. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010 Mar;5(1):87-97.
5. Petit E, Mougin F, Bourdin H, Tio G, Haffen E. A 20-min nap in athletes changes subsequent sleep
architecture but does not alter physical performances after normal sleep or 5-h phase-advance con-
ditions. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014 Feb;114(2):305-15.
6. Fullagar H, Skorski S, Duffield R, Meyer T. The effect of an acute sleep hygiene strategy following a
late-night soccer match on recovery of players. Chronobiol Int. 2016;33(5):490-505.
7. Harada, T., Wada, K., Tsuji, F. et al. Intervention study using a leaflet entitled ‘three benefits of “go to
bed early! get up early! and intake nutritionally rich breakfast!” a message for athletes’ to improve the
soccer performance of university soccer team. Sleep Biol. Rhythms (2016) 14(Suppl 1): 65.
8. Van Ryswyk E, Weeks R, Bandick L, O’Keefe M, Vakulin A, Catcheside P, Barger L, Potter A, Pou-
los N, Wallace J, Antic NA. A novel sleep optimisation programme to improve athletes’ well-being
and performance. Eur J Sport Sci. 2017 Mar;17(2):144-151.
9. Fowler PM, Duffield R, Morrow I, Roach G, Vaile J. Effects of sleep hygiene and artificial bright
light interventions on recovery from simulated international air travel. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015
Mar;115(3):541-53.
10. Schaal K, LE Meur Y, Louis J, Filliard JR, Hellard P, Casazza G, Hausswirth C. Whole-Body Cryo-
stimulation Limits Overreaching in Elite Synchronized Swimmers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015
Jul;47(7):1416-25.
11. Zhao J, Tian Y, Nie J, Xu J, Liu D. Red light and the sleep quality and endurance performance of
Chinese female basketball players. J Athl Train. 2012 Nov-Dec;47(6):673-8.
12. Tamaki M, Bang JW, Watanabe T, Sasaki Y. Night Watch in One Brain Hemisphere during Sleep
Associated with the First-Night Effect in Humans. Curr Biol. 2016 May 9;26(9):1190-4.
13. Juliff LE, Halson SL, Hebert JJ, Forsyth PL, Peiffer JJ. Longer Sleep Durations Are Positively As-
sociated With Finishing Place During a National Multiday Netball Competition. J Strength Cond
Res. 2018 Jan;32(1):189-194.
14. Nedeltcheva AV, Kilkus JM, Imperial J, Schoeller DA, Penev PD. Insufficient sleep undermines
dietary efforts to reduce adiposity. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Oct 5;153(7):435-41.
15. Fullagar HH, Skorski S, Duffield R, Hammes D, Coutts AJ, Meyer T. Sleep and athletic perfor-
mance: the effects of sleep loss on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to
exercise. Sports Med. 2015 Feb;45(2):161-86.

58
1. Roberts LA, Raastad T, Markworth JF, Figueiredo VC, Egner IM, Shield A, Cameron-Smith D,
Coombes JS, Peake JM. Post-exercise cold water immersion attenuates acute anabolic signalling and
long-term adaptations in muscle to strength training. J Physiol. 2015 Sep 15;593(18):4285-301.
2. Kang JH, Chen SC. Effects of an irregular bedtime schedule on sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and
fatigue among university students in Taiwan. BMC Public Health. 2009 Jul 19;9:248.
3. Fullagar HH, Skorski S, Duffield R, Hammes D, Coutts AJ, Meyer T. Sleep and athletic perfor-
mance: the effects of sleep loss on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to
exercise. Sports Med. 2015 Feb;45(2):161-86.

59
 Study Reviewed: Endurance Training Intensity Does Not Mediate
Interference To Maximal Lower-Body Strength Gain During Short-Term
Concurrent Training. Fyfe et al. (2016)

Is It Better to Combine Lifting

With High Intensity or Traditional
Cardio?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

If you need to add cardio to your lifting, is it better to stick

with high intensity intervals (which some have called “anabolic
cardio”), or to opt for traditional moderate intensity cardio? This
was the first study designed to actually answer that question.

60
 KEY POINTS
1. The interference effect describes the relatively smaller gains in strength and
hypertrophy seen when combining strength and endurance training versus
performing strength training in isolation.
2. This study set out to see whether high intensity intervals or moderate intensity
steady state cardio interfered more with hypertrophy and strength gains when
combined with strength training.
3. High and moderate intensity cardio interfered with strength gains and hypertrophy
to a similar degree – the subjects made gains, but smaller gains than the folks
only doing strength training.
4. When looking at both results and effort invested, moderate intensity cardio came
out on top. The participants consistently rated high intensity interval training as
consistently more challenging than moderate intensity cardio, even though time
and workload were equated.

C
oncurrent training is the simul-
taneous inclusion of both resis-
tance and endurance training
within the same training program. Pre-
vious research (1) suggests that concur-
rent training leads to somewhat small-
er gains in strength and muscle mass
than resistance training alone. However,
to this point, no studies had compared
concurrent training utilizing high inten-
sity endurance training (intervals) versus
moderate intensity endurance training.
In this study, both concurrent train-
ing groups gained a similar amount
of strength in the bench press and leg
press, but less strength in the leg press
than the group only performing strength
training. Measures of explosive strength
(peak force and peak power in the count-
er-movement jump) favored the group
only performing resistance training, and
unsurprisingly, measures of endurance
(VO2 peak, and peak aerobic power)
favored the concurrent training groups.
The concurrent training group doing
moderate intensity endurance train-
ing gained roughly the same amount of
lower body lean mass compared to the
group only performing resistance train-
ing, while the concurrent training group
doing high intensity endurance training
gained slightly less lower body lean mass.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Numerous studies have compared con-
current training with resistance training.
However, the endurance training aspect
of concurrent training can take many

61
 Table 1 Progression of resistance training prescription

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

MON./FRI. PROGRAM: leg press, bench press, seated row, leg extension, and leg curl
Sets × repetitions 3×12 3×10 3×8 3×6 4×6 4×6 4×4 5×4
RM load 14 12 9 7 7 7 4 4
Rest period (min) 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
% 1RM load 65 70 77.5 82.5 82.5 87.5 90 90
WED. PROGRAM: leg press, DB bench press, lat pulldown, DB lunges, and leg curl
Sets × repetitions 3×12 3×12 3×10 3×10 3×8 3×8 4×6 3×6
RM load 14 14 12 12 9 9 7 7
Rest period (min) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
% 1RM load 65 65 70 70 77.5 77.5 87.5 87.5

RM = repetition maximum | 1RM=one-repetition maximum

forms, running the gamut from very low

intensity cardio to very high intensity
intervals. To this point, no studies had
directly compared concurrent training
programs utilizing two different ap-
proaches to endurance training.
The authors hypothesized that high
intensity endurance training (HIT)
would compromise gains in strength
more so than moderate intensity endur-
ance training (MOD), since HIT tends
to be more fatiguing and lead to larger
acute decreases in strength when com-
pared to MOD with similar volumes.
Alternately, various prominent writers
and coaches have proposed that MOD
will cause muscle atrophy and strength
losses, while HIT will help one build
muscle and strength.
Subjects and Methods
The subjects were males, mostly 25-35
years old, who participated in some form
of resistance or aerobic exercise at least
twice per week.
At the outset of the study, they were
DXA scanned, tested their 1RM bench
presses and leg presses, took a graded ex-
ercise test on a cycle ergometer, and per-
formed a counter-movement jump test.
All of these tests were repeated at the
end of the study, and the exercise tests
were also performed again at the mid-
point of the training intervention.
The participants were assigned to one
of three training programs: resistance
training only, resistance training plus
HIT, and resistance training plus MOD.
All groups carried out the same resis-

62
tance training program three days per
week, which utilized a basic linear peri- Table 2
odization design, starting with 3 sets of
12 with 65% of 1RM, and progressing HIT MOD
to 5 sets of 4 with 90% of 1RM over 8 No. of Training Duration of Training
2-min intensity continuous intensity
weeks. intervals (% LT) training (min) (% LT)
1 5 120 15 80

WEEK 1

SESSION
The endurance training was performed 2 6 120 18 80
3 7 120 21 80
directly before the strength training (lift-
1 6 120 18 80
ing started 10 minutes after the endur- 2 8 120 24 80

2
ance training session finished). HIT and 3 7 120 21 80

MOD were matched for both time and 1

2
8
9
130
130
24
27
86.7
86.7

3
total training volume. HIT consisted of 3 8 130 24 86.7

cycling intervals consisting of 2 minutes 1 7 130 21 86.7

2 6 130 18 86.7
of high exertion and 1 minute of rest.

4
3 5 130 15 86.7
Volume and intensity increased over the 1 7 140 21 93.3
course of the study, from 5 intervals at 5
2
3
8
9
140
140
24
27
93.3
93.3
120% of lactate threshold (roughly 70-
1 8 140 24 93.3
75% of VO2 peak) to a max of 11 inter- 2 9 140 27 93.3
6

3 10 140 30 93.3
vals at 150% of lactate threshold (rough-
ly 90% of VO2 peak). MOD consisted 1
2
9
11
150
150
27
33
100
100
7

of steady-state cycling, starting with 3 10 150 30 100

15 minutes at 80% of lactate threshold 1 9 150 27 100

8

2 7 150 21 100
(roughly 50% of VO2 peak) and peak-
ing at 33 minutes at lactate threshold
(roughly 60% of VO2 peak).
more challenging than resistance train-
The researchers also monitored diet and ing alone, unsurprisingly.
per-session rating of perceived exertion.
Nutrition

Findings All three groups had similar caloric in-

Perceived difficulty
The participants gave HIT a higher
rating of perceived exertion, indicat-
ing that they found it more challenging
than MOD. Both concurrent training
conditions were rated as substantially
take and macronutrient profiles. Most
important for our purposes here, protein
intake was similar, at 1.1-1.3g/kg, which
is below or at the very bottom end of the
1.3-1.8g/kg range (2) proposed to max-
imize muscular adaptations to resistance
training.

63
 Figure 1 Strength gains

38.5% RT = Resistance Training

50 ± 8.5% RT + HIT = Resistance Training with High Intensity Intervals
RT + MOD = Resistance Training with Moderate Intensity Cardio
PERCENT STRENGTH GAINED

40
28.7
± 5.3% 27.5
± 4.6%

30 20.5%
± 6.2%

15.9
14.8
20 ± 2.6%
± 2.3%

10

RT RT+HIT RT+MOD RT RT+HIT RT+MOD

LEG PRESS BENCH PRESS

Strength current training group and 14.8 ± 2.3%

The resistance training group gained for the MOD concurrent training group.
more strength in both the leg press
and the bench press than either of the Counter-movement jump
concurrent training groups. However, The improvements in all measures
there were only meaningful effect size (peak force, peak power, peak velocity,
differences for the leg press. The resis- and peak displacement) tended to favor
tance training group gained 38.5 ± 8.5% the resistance training group over either
on the leg press, versus 28.7 ± 5.3% for concurrent training group, but there
the HIT concurrent training group, and were no statistically significant differ-
27.5 ± 4.6% for the MOD concurrent ences between groups.
training group. For the bench press, the
resistance training group gained 20.5 ± Hypertrophy and body composition
6.2%, vs. 15.9 ± 2.6% for the HIT con- Lower body lean mass increased slight-

64
ly more in the resistance training group
(4.1 ± 2.0%) and MOD concurrent
group (3.6 ± 2.4%) versus the HIT con-
current group (1.8 ± 1.6%), but the dif-
ference wasn’t significant.
Upper body lean mass and total lean
mass didn’t increase to a meaningful de-
gree in any of the groups (only 0.4-1.8%
and 1.6-2.4%, respectively). None of the
groups had a significant change in body
fat percentages, with decreases ranging
from 0.2-0.9%.
Aerobic fitness
Both concurrent training groups expe-
rienced similar increases in VO2 peak
(5.3 ± 2.7% for HIT, and 6.1 ± 5.0% for
MOD). The MOD concurrent training
group had the largest increase in lactate
threshold (12.6 ± 8.0%), with similar
gains seen in the resistance training (7.4
± 9.4%) and HIT concurrent training
(8.3 ± 6.5%) groups. There were no sig-
nificant between-group differences.
The HIT concurrent training group
was the only one that experienced an in-
crease in peak aerobic power (8.8 ± 4.1%).
The gains seen in the MOD concurrent
training group (4.9 ± 4.8%) weren’t sig-
nificant. There was a small, non-signifi-
cant decrease in the resistance training
group (−2.2 ± 6.5%).
Interpretation
If you want to maximize rates of
strength gains, your best bet is to lim-
it cardio. The magnitude of interference
effects seems to depend on the frequen-
cy (3), volume, and mode of the cardio
you do (1), with lower frequencies, low-
er volumes, and lower impact forms of
cardio (i.e. cycling instead of jogging or
running) leading to a smaller interfer-
ence effect. However, these measures do
not negate the effect entirely.
The main finding of this study was that
intensity of endurance training doesn’t
seem to influence the interference effect
if volume is matched; both moderate
and high intensity cardio led to simi-
lar decrements in strength gains. Since
the changes in body composition in this
study were small, and between-group
differences were small and non-signifi-
cant, it’s hard to say whether cardio in-
tensity would have a meaningful impact
on hypertrophy, muscle maintenance in
a calorie deficit, or overall body compo-
sition in a longer-term concurrent train-
ing program.
One could contend that moderate in-
tensity cardio came out ahead in this
study for hypertrophy since the MOD
concurrent training group gained twice
as much lower body lean mass as the
HIT concurrent training group, but
the changes were small in both groups
(which makes it easier to see larger per-
cent differences), and the difference be-
tween groups wasn’t particularly close
to statistical significance (the p-value
for this particular relationship wasn’t
reported, but it can be inferred to be
65
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. If your goal is to maximize gains in strength and muscle mass, your best bet is to
limit any sort of endurance training to a bare minimum (or exclude it entirely).
2. If you need to perform endurance training, both high intensity intervals and moderate
intensity aerobic exercise seem to elicit the interference effect to roughly the same
degree.
3. As moderate intensity cardio was rated to be easier than high intensity intervals per
unit of workload, it may be the better choice. However, feel free to use whichever
mode of cardio you find to be the most enjoyable and easiest to stick with, assuming
you need to do it in the first place.

substantially higher than 0.05 based on
what was reported). Before reaching that
conclusion, I’d need to see a longer study
with a larger sample size.
One other important takeaway from
this study was that moderate intensity
cardio seemed to be more effective per
unit of effort invested. Training vol-
ume (total time and workload) of en-
durance training was matched between
the two concurrent training groups, but
the per-session RPE was higher for the
group doing HIT. However, both groups
experienced very similar adaptations.
Finally, it’s important to keep timing in
mind. In this study, the strength training
took place directly after the endurance
training. The effects may have been dif-
ferent if the participants did the strength
training first, if they separated their
strength training and endurance train-
ing sessions by several hours, or if they
performed strength training and endur-
ance training on different days. Doing so
would likely help mitigate the interfer-
ence effect on a molecular level (4), and
also, on a more practical level, allow for
resistance training to take place with less
acute fatigue from cardiovascular train-
ing (which would be a bigger issue with
HIT than MOD).
The major takeaway of this study is
that if you want to maximize your rate
of strength gains, you should try to avoid
cardio or limit the amount you do. If
you undertake concurrent training, the
intensity of the endurance training you
do doesn’t seem to meaningfully affect
the magnitude of the interference effect.
However, moderate intensity endurance
training is less difficult per unit of train-
ing volume.
Next Steps
To further elucidate the impact of en-
durance training intensity on the in-
terference effect, future studies should

66
include a low intensity group, test dif-
ferent populations (such as athletes with
more strength training experience), and
experiment with the impact of timing of
the endurance exercise training.

67
References
1. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SM, Loenneke JP, Anderson JC. Concurrent training:
a meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2012
Aug;26(8):2293-307. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823a3e2d.
2. Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. Dietary protein for athletes: from requirements to optimum adaptation. J
Sports Sci. 2011;29 Suppl 1:S29-38. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.619204.
3. Jones TW, Howatson G, Russell M, French DN. Performance and Endocrine Responses to Differing
Ratios of Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Mar;30(3):693-
702. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001135.
4. Baar K. Using Molecular Biology to Maximize Concurrent Training. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z).
2014;44(Suppl 2):117-125. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0252-0.

68
Thanks for reading this special
sample issue of MASS.

Subscribe to MASS now to get a new

issue every month.

Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.

69