MASS Vol 2 Issue 11-drkbn

V O L U ME 2 , ISS U E 11 NOVEMBER 2 0 1 8
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, has specializations 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. 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
Letter from
the Reviewers
W
elcome to Volume 2, Issue 11 of Monthly Applications in Strength Sport.
This month, we had the pleasure of Dr. Hayden Pritchard writing us a guest article on
tapering for strength sport. It’s a great blend of theory, practice, and personal experience.
Hayden literally has a Ph.D. on tapering for powerlifters, so when we say he’s the world’s leading expert
in this area, we aren’t kidding. Fun fact, he graduated alongside our very own Dr. Eric Helms from AUT
last year.
Greg reviewed three articles this month, all on very cool topics. One eye-catching study looked at how
blood flow restriction was integrated into Norwegian powerlifters’ training with some impressive results.
In Greg’s second article, he looked at an EMG and kinetic comparison between a “powerlifting”style
deadlift setup and an “Olympic clean” style setup. We’d like to thank both Lars Samnøy, an author on the
blood flow restriction study, and Scotty Butcher, an author on the deadlift setup study, for their valuable
input, helping us provide complete and accurate reviews. Finally, Greg reviewed a paper on fatigability in
young compared to middle aged men; this is one that lifters with a little more experience will likely read
with a sense of relief.
Mike reviewed two studies this month, one which showed that RPE can not only improve estimations
of strength when combined with velocity, but that in some cases, it might even provide a more accurate
prediction. In Mike’s second article, he examined a paper that tackles the question “does powerlifting
training degrade joint range of motion?” Finally, in Mike’s video for the month, he covers the ins and outs
of iron supplementation in strength and power athletes, a topic most of us don’t think about much but
that can be quite important in some cases.
In Eric’s video this month, he takes a trip down memory lane to his videos in our first two issues, adding
part three to his flexible dieting series. Lastly, Eric reviewed an article that followed elite female sprinters
through their season, tracking signs and symptoms of low energy availability. Many of our readers might
be comfortable with the concept of being in a net energy deficit or surplus, but this is the first time we’ve
tackled the concept of an energy deficiency, which can occur even when you are not in a deficit.
As a small note, for those watching our videos, you may have noticed that we’ve added close caption
English subtitles. If you click on the “CC” button on the bottom right, you can toggle them on and off.
We hope that this helps subscribers who might not speak English as a first language follow along, as we
know we tend to talk quickly while addressing some pretty nuanced topics.
Have a pleasant read, and we’ll see you next month in our final issue of 2018!
The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike
3
Table of Contents
6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Blood Flow Restriction Training Causes Type I Fiber Hypertrophy in

Powerlifters
A recent study found that just two weeks of low-load blood flow restriction training
caused substantial quad growth in high-level powerlifters. If you’re aiming to
maximize growth, should you bust out some knee wraps and get your pump on?
Well ... maybe.
22
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
Track RPE With Velocity to Improve Your Estimate of Intensity

Velocity seems to be the standard for tracking intensity. Many deem RPE beneficial
but are reluctant to jump on board due to its subjective nature. This study shows
that RPE improves the ability of velocity to predict intensity, and may be even better
than velocity in some cases.
31
BY E RI C HEL MS
Energy Availability in Strength and Power Athletes

We sometimes view body fat simply as tissue to lose to improve the ratio of fat
to lean mass and subsequently improve performance. But we forget that the
process of losing fat, and sometimes maintaining a lean physique, can harm
performance.
42
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Hip Height in the Deadlift Doesn’t Affect Force off the Floor
You’ll find plenty of fanatics arguing that everyone should set up for the conventional
deadlift with high hips, while other folks argue that low hips are the way to go. A
recent study found that, on average, it doesn’t really matter, at least in terms of
force development off the floor, or forces placed on the lumbar spine. However,
setup position could make a notable difference on an individual level.
4
53
Does Lifting Heavy Harm Your Range of Motion?

Powerlifting gets you stronger, but when squat, bench press, and deadlift comprise
most of your training, what does that do to your joint range of motion? A new study,
which included some powerlifters with 500+ raw Wilks scores, has the answers.
62
BY H AY DEN PR I T CHAR D
Tapering To Maximize Strength: How Should We Peak For Competition?

As the final stage in a training cycle, a taper can make or break months of prior
training. How then should a strength athlete undertake this important phase of
training? We’ll consider that question in this concept review.
80
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Do Middle-Aged Lifters Fatigue Faster than the Young Guys?

Most people expect that they’ll fatigue faster during training once they leave their
30s behind. A new study found that older lifters can still keep up.
90
VIDEO: Iron Supplementation in Strength Sport

Many supplements have equivocal findings, but when it comes to endurance
exercise performance, iron supplementation is actually recommended by multiple
organizations. Do the benefits of iron supplementation translate to strength
performance?
92
BY E RI C HEL MS
VIDEO: The Structure of Flexible Dieting, Part 3

Eric returns to his first video series in MASS to discuss how “intuitive eating” fits
into the world of weight class-based strength sport and physique competition.
He also takes a look at the potential downside to weighing and tracking and
discusses alternative approaches to nutritional management.
5
Study Reviewed: Type I Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy after Blood Flow-Restricted
Training in Powerlifters. Bjørnsen et al. (2018)
Blood Flow Restriction Training

Causes Type I Fiber Hypertrophy
in Powerlifters
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
A recent study found that just two weeks of low-load blood flow
restriction training caused substantial quad growth in high-level
powerlifters. If you’re aiming to maximize growth, should you bust out
some knee wraps and get your pump on? Well ... maybe.
6
KEY POINTS
1. In a sample of high-level powerlifters, 6.5 weeks of “normal” training failed
to cause significant lower body hypertrophy, while a 6.5 week cycle with two
concentrated one-week blocks of low-load blood flow restriction training caused
significant quad growth.
2. In the group doing blood flow restriction training, type I (“slow-twitch”) muscle
fibers increased in size by roughly 12%, while type II (“fast-twitch”) muscle fibers
didn’t grow, providing us with clear evidence of fiber type-specific hypertrophy.
3. Strength gains didn’t significantly differ between groups.
L
ow-load blood flow restriction front squat training, while the other group
training involves using a knee wrap did only low-load blood flow restriction
(or some other device that functions training during those front squat blocks.
as a tourniquet) to cut off venous blood The group doing low-load blood flow re-
flow out of a muscle, while maintaining ar- striction training experienced significant
terial blood flow into the muscle. The the- quad hypertrophy, including preferential
ory behind blood flow restriction training type I fiber growth, while the group doing
is that venous occlusion will enhance me- traditional, heavier training failed to grow.
tabolite build-up in the exercising muscle, However, strength gains were similar (and
thus (hopefully) enhancing training adap- negligible) in both groups. The unique ap-
tations. A couple of years ago, I wrote an proach of having concentrated, non-con-
article arguing that powerlifters should use secutive blocks of blood flow restriction
low-load blood flow restriction training for training may explain why the results of this
a lot of their accessory work. The research study differ from prior research.
at the time indicated that adding low-load
blood flow restriction training to a “nor-
mal,” heavier training program enhanced Purpose and Research
strength gains without making sessions
much harder to recover from, but it didn’t
Questions
seem to cause additional hypertrophy.
Purpose
Well, a recent study (1) on high-level
The purpose of this study was to examine
powerlifters had the exact opposite findings.
the effects of two one-week microcycles of
Two groups of lifters trained for 6.5 weeks,
low-load front squats with blood flow re-
including two one-week blocks of front
striction, compared to traditional, heavier
squats. One group did “normal,” heavier
front squats.
7
Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the participants
Conventional group
restriction group
Age (years) 24 (3) 26 (8)
Height (cm) 176 (5) 177 (9)
Weight (kg) 89 (14) 102 (18)

Powerlifting
4 (2) 6 (4)
experience (years)
Muscle strength
1RM in front squat (kg) 141 (25) 151 (26)
Personal record in squat (kg) 186.7 (42) 207 (40)
Personal record in deadlift (kg) 227 (44) 244 (36)
Personal record in bench press (kg) 135 (28) 154 (32)
The values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). No statistically

significant differences were seen between the two groups at baseline.
Research Questions changes in molecular mechanisms

1. Would low-load front squats with associated with hypertrophy (myo-
blood flow restriction lead to more nuclei, satellite cells, RNA expression,
quad hypertrophy than heavier front etc.) than heavier front squats without
squats without blood flow restriction blood flow restriction?
in well-trained powerlifters?
Hypotheses
2. Would low-load front squats with
blood flow restriction lead to larger The authors hypothesized that the low-
strength increases than heavier front load front squats with blood flow restric-
squats without blood flow restriction tion would lead to more hypertrophy and
in well-trained powerlifters? larger strength gains and that changes in
strength and muscle size would be related
3. Would low-load front squats with to the molecular mechanisms associated
blood flow restriction lead to larger with hypertrophy.
8
Figure 1 Schematic Illustration of the Study Design
Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
1x 1x
Muscle biopsy sample Muscle biopsy sample
1x 1x
Strength measurements Strength measurements
and ultrasonography and ultrasonography
The conventional group performed front squat at 60-85% of 1RM whereas Traditional strength training Traditional strength training Traditional strength training
the BFRRE group performed front squat with BFR at ~30% of 1RM sessions for bench sessions for squat sessions for deadlift
Subjects and Methods some deadlift variation twice per week.

During weeks 1 and 3, the subjects in
both groups performed front squats for
Subjects all five squatting sessions. The subjects
The subjects were 19 Norwegian pow- in one group (n=9) performed low-load
erlifters – 16 men and 3 women – who front squats with blood flow restriction,
were at least strong enough to qualify and the subjects in the other group (n=8)
for the national championship in Nor- performed heavier front squats without
way’s IPF affiliate. The average Wilks blood flow restriction.
score was 369, and six of the participants The group doing front squats with
(three in each group) regularly partici- blood flow restriction used approxi-
pated in international competitions for mately 24% of 1RM for week 1, and
the Norwegian team (16). Two partic- approximately 31% of 1RM for week 3.
ipants dropped out (one quit the study, They performed four sets with 30 sec-
and one didn’t show up to post testing), onds between sets in each low-load BFR
and there were measurement issues for a session, with the first and last sets tak-
couple of other participants, so either 16 en to voluntary failure, and rep targets
or 17 subjects were included in all analy- of 15 and 12 reps for sets 2 and 3. The
ses. Details about the participants can be blood flow restriction wraps remained
seen in Table 1. on between sets (i.e. they didn’t release
the pressure and re-wrap between sets).
Experimental design
The group doing heavier front squats
Details of the training program can be
performed 6-7 sets of 1-6 reps with
seen in Figure 1. Briefly, the participants
60-85% of 1RM. Details of each ses-
completed a 6.5-week training block
sion weren’t provided, but the training
with some squat variation and some
programs were designed by the nation-
bench variation five days per week, and
al team coaches and were part of the
9
lifters’ annual periodized plan. Overall, 60º/sec.
this group performed more sets of front Hypertrophy was assessed three dif-
squats in each session, but it doesn’t seem ferent ways. Mean fiber area of type I
that they were taking any sets to failure. and type II muscle fibers was assessed
For the group training with blood via biopsy, muscle thickness of all quad
flow restriction, venous occlusion was muscles was assessed via ultrasound, and
accomplished using elastic knee wraps. cross-sectional area (CSA) of the vastus
The lifters were first trained so that they lateralis and rectus femoris was also as-
could apply the correct amount of pres- sessed using ultrasound.
sure (~120 mmHg). The researchers Muscle capillarization, myonuclear
would put a lightly inflated pressure cuff number, and satellite cell content were
around the lifters’ thighs, and the lifters also assessed from the biopsy samples.
would apply the knee wraps; the pres- The biopsies were also used to test for
sure reading on the cuff would tell the cellular markers associated with hyper-
lifters and researchers about the actual trophy signaling and ribosome biogen-
pressure applied. The lifters practiced esis.
applying the wraps until they could reli-
Finally, vastus lateralis EMG was as-
ably achieve a pressure of approximately
sessed in a sub-sample of six partici-
120 mmHg. During weeks 1 and 3, the
pants. These participants performed 2
powerlifting coaches randomly checked
sets of 3 front squats at 80% of 1RM,
the lifters’ wrapping jobs to ensure that
and 4 sets of front squats with 30% of
they were still applying their wraps with
1RM with blood flow restriction (using
the correct amount of pressure. At 120
the same protocol as was used in the rest
mmHg of pressure, venous blood flow
of the study).
(blood flow out of the limb) should be
almost entirely occluded, while arterial
blood flow should only be partially oc-
cluded (so blood is still allowed into the
Findings
limb). Front squat volume load didn’t differ
between groups in week 1, but the blood
Measures flow restriction group had a significantly
Measurements were taken 2-3 days be- greater volume load in week 3. Howev-
fore the start of the training program and er, I’m not sure how much that actually
2-3 days after the end of the training pro- matters, since volume load tends to be
gram in both groups. higher with low-load training anyways,
and I don’t think volume load is a par-
Strength was assessed via a 1RM front ticularly useful metric in the first place.
squat and maximum isokinetic torque at
10
Measures of hypertrophy
Figure 2
Type I muscle fiber CSA, vastus lateralis
CSA, rectus femoris thickness, vastus lat- A Rectus
Femoris
Vastus
Lateralis
eralis thickness, and vastus medialis thick-
# #
ness increased significantly more in the 20
Muscle cross sectional area

blood flow restriction group.
(% change from baseline)

Rectus femoris CSA increased signifi- 10
cantly pre- to post-training in the blood

flow restriction group but not the tradi- 0
tional group, but the difference between
groups wasn’t quite significant (p=0.09).
-10
Type II muscle fiber CSA and vastus BFR Con BFR Con
intermedius thickness didn’t significantly

increase in either group.
B
In the blood flow restriction group, Rectus
Femoris
Vastus
Lateralis
Vastus
Intermedius
Vastus
Medialis
changes in type I fiber CSA were strongly 20
and positively associated with changes in # # #

vastus lateralis CSA (r=0.81).

Muscle thickness
10
Strength
0
There were no significant be-
tween-group differences for changes in
front squat 1RM or changes in maxi- -10
mum isometric contraction force of the BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con
knee extensors. BFR = blood flow restriction; * = significant difference between groups; # = significant within-group
change from pre- to post-training
However, isometric knee extension

strength significantly increased pre- to
post-training in the blood flow restric-
tion group, but not the traditional group. changes in isometric knee extension
The opposite was true with the front force were correlated with changes in
squat – a significant pre- to post-training summed rectus femoris and vastus later-
increase in the traditional group, but not alis CSA (r=0.68) and changes in type I
the blood flow restriction group (though fiber CSA (r=0.79).
the increase was nearly significant in the
blood flow restriction group: p=0.08). Myonuclei and satellite cells
In the blood flow restriction group, The number of myonuclei in type I fi-
11
Figure 3
A B
Isokinetic peak torque 1RM
15
# #
10
Maximal strength
-5
-10
BFR Con BFR Con

-15
BFR = blood flow restriction; # = significant within-group change from pre- to post-training
bers increased more in the blood flow Capillarization

restriction group than the traditional Neither group saw increased capillar-
group, while no significant myonuclear ization (capillaries around each fiber)
accretion was observed in type II fibers pre- to post-training for type II fibers.
in either group. The average myonuclear Capillaries per type I fiber increased
domain size did not significantly change pre- to post-training in the blood flow
in either fiber type in either group. There restriction group, but not the control
also weren’t significant changes in the group. However, the between-group dif-
number of satellite cells per fiber in ei- ference wasn’t quite significant (p=0.07).
ther group.
12
Figure 4
A Type I Type II B Type I Type II
# 40
#
20 30

Myonuclei per fiber
Muscle fiber area
20
10
10
0
0
-10
-10 -20
BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con
-30
C D
Type I Type II Type I Type II
40 200
Muscle fiber area per myonuclei

Satellite cells per fiber
20 100
0 0
-20 -100

-40 -200
E F
Type I Type II
Type I Type II
30 30
#
Capillaries per muscle fiber area
20 20
Capillaries per fiber
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
BFR = blood flow restriction; * = significant difference between groups; # = significant within-group change from pre- to post-training
13
RNA
The specifics here wouldn’t really be of
use for athletes or coaches, so to briefly
THIS WAS A REALLY
summarize the results: RNA for some SURPRISING STUDY, AS IT
regulators of satellite cell differentiation
and fusion, and RNA for some markers of PROVIDED THE FIRST STRONG
ribosomal capacity (ribosomes are what
synthesize proteins), increased more in EVIDENCE FOR FIBER TYPE-
the blood flow restriction group than
the traditional group. Overall, however,
SPECIFIC HYPERTROPHY.
the RNA findings were a bit muddled,
and probably aren’t directly relevant for
the vast majority of MASS readers. strength athletes believe that type II fi-
bers are substantially better for strength
EMG sports than type I fibers, and that selec-
Vastus lateralis EMG was higher tive type I hypertrophy may even be det-
during heavy (80% 1RM) front squats rimental (adding mass without much of
without blood flow restriction than low- an increase in performance). This belief
load (30% 1RM) front squats with blood is based on the fact that type II fibers
flow restriction. have a higher shortening velocity than
type I fibers, and thus produce more
power. However, type I and type II fi-
Interpretation bers produce about the same amount of
This was a really surprising study, as force per unit of cross-sectional area (3).
it provided the first strong evidence for In other words, type II fibers are almost
fiber type-specific hypertrophy. That’s a certainly beneficial for tasks like sprint-
topic we’ve covered before in MASS (2), ing or jumping and may be beneficial
and the prior evidence was … opaque at for power-based strength sports (like
best. However, the results of this study weightlifting or highland games), but
are both clear and striking: An increase fiber type proportions probably don’t
in type I fiber CSA of 12%, without any impact performance in a sport like pow-
type II fiber hypertrophy, after just two erlifting or in most strongman events.
weeks (10 sessions) of front squats with In fact, previous research (4) has shown
blood flow restriction. that powerlifters have roughly the same
proportion of type I and type II fibers
Before digging deeper into these re- as people in the general population, in-
sults, I first want to address a common dicating that the sport doesn’t seem to
misconception about fiber types. Many
14
tional group, so it seems that the growth
is almost entirely attributable to the two
I WAS SURPRISED BY THE weeks of blood flow restriction train-
ing. And honestly, I’m having a hard
AMOUNT OF HYPERTROPHY time coming up with a clear explanation
OBSERVED IN SUCH A SHORT for this result. Low-load training with
blood flow restriction doesn’t seem to be
PERIOD OF TIME IN THE any better for hypertrophy than heavier
training without blood flow restriction
BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION (5), so one would assume that subbing
out heavier front squat training for low-
GROUP. MUSCLE CSAS BARELY load training with blood flow restriction
CHANGED IN THE TRADITIONAL wouldn’t lead to any additional growth.
The two most likely explanations seem
GROUP, SO IT SEEMS THAT to be a) training to failure or b) novel-
ty. The details of the traditional, heavier
THE GROWTH IS ALMOST training weren’t provided (beyond a very
ENTIRELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO rudimentary description), but it doesn’t
seem that the traditional group trained
THE TWO WEEKS OF BLOOD to failure. Some research indicates that
training to failure may be better than
FLOW RESTRICTION TRAINING. non-failure training for hypertrophy
(6), while other studies find no signifi-
cant differences (7, 8), so I’m not sold on
failure as the differentiating factor. I’m
preferentially select for people with a even less sold on novelty as the differ-
specific fiber type profile. entiating factor; people constantly posit
So, with that out of the way, let’s dig in “novelty” as a reason for hypertrophy in
to some of these findings. response to a non-traditional training
I was surprised by the amount of hy- stimulus, but I’m not aware of any re-
pertrophy observed in such a short peri- search actually indicating that novelty
od of time in the blood flow restriction makes much of a difference. If it did,
group. The fiber type-specific findings you’d expect low-load training (i.e. 30+
may seem a bit esoteric, but whole-mus- reps per set with <50% of 1RM) to pro-
cle CSA of the rectus femoris and vastus duce substantially greater hypertrophy
lateralis increased by 7-8% as well. Mus- than heavier, “normal” training (since
cle CSAs barely changed in the tradi- most people don’t do that many reps
15
“
So, to this point, prior research suggested
that adding low-load blood flow restriction
training to normal, heavier training may enhance
strength gains but not promote additional
hypertrophy. The results of the present study
run the opposite direction – no strength
benefits, but a sizeable hypertrophy benefit.
with that light of a load during “normal” to the offseason strength training pro-
training), but that’s largely not what you gram of Division I football players. That
see in the research (9, 10). However, the study found larger strength gains in the
population may make a difference. In a group using blood flow restriction, but
sample of well-trained powerlifters, low- the only major hypertrophy difference
load training with blood-flow restriction was in chest girth (which you wouldn’t
may have been such a large departure expect to be affected by blood flow re-
from their normal training (presumably striction applied to the arms); changes in
quite heavy, and not to failure) that there thigh girth were similar between groups,
was some sort of novelty effect (exploit- changes in right arm girth were similar
ing an untapped avenue of adaptation), between groups, and changes in left arm
whereas the typical gym-goers used as girth were significantly different, but
subjects in most studies may still train the mean difference was tiny (0.7cm).
light enough and close enough to failure A study by Luebbers et al (12) used a
that low-load training with blood flow similar design and had similar findings:
restriction isn’t novel enough to have a no differences in hypertrophy, but larger
big additive effect. I don’t personally find strength gains in the squat for the group
that to be an intellectually satisfying ex- using blood flow restriction. Finally, a
planation, but it’s the best I can come up Masters Thesis by O’halloran (13) com-
with. pared heavy training (>70% of 1RM)
The results of this study are even more to a program consisting of about two-
surprising when stacked up against pri- thirds heavy training and one-third low-
or research. A study by Yamanaka et load training with blood flow restric-
al (11) looked at the effects of adding tion. It found no significant differences
low-load squat and bench press training, in strength gains or hypertrophy. So, to
with or without blood flow restriction, this point, prior research suggested that
16
adding low-load blood flow restriction thought the intervention seemed some-
training to normal, heavier training may what bizarre. During a 6.5-week train-
enhance strength gains but not promote ing program, low-load front squats with
additional hypertrophy. The results of blood flow restriction were only per-
the present study run the opposite di- formed for two nonconsecutive weeks.
rection – no strength benefits, but a size- However, the authors’ rationale was
able hypertrophy benefit. based on prior work (14), which sug-
I can see three possible explanations gested that the positive impact of low-
for the difference. The present study used load blood flow restriction training on
well-trained powerlifters, while prior hypertrophy and satellite cell prolifera-
research had used football players (Ya- tion reached a plateau after eight days.
manaka and Luebbers) or just generally The authors thought that two noncon-
trained subjects (O’halloran). As previ- secutive weeks of low-load training with
ously mentioned, if there is a “novelty blood flow restriction would allow for
effect,” it may only apply to populations, two small growth spurts, whereas the
such as powerlifters, who typically carry benefits of continuous low-load training
out ultra-specialized training. Further- with blood flow restriction may plateau
more, the present study assessed hyper- after the first week. In other words, one
trophy via direct measures (fiber CSA, week of low-load training with blood
muscle CSA, and muscle thickness), flow restriction may be just as good as
while two of the prior studies (Yamana- multiple consecutive weeks, but multiple
ka and Luebbers) just assessed limb cir- nonconsecutive weeks may offer an ad-
cumferences. The study by O’halloran ditional benefit, by allowing a wash-out
measured limb circumferences and mus- period to re-sensitize the lifters to the
cle CSAs and demonstrates how those stimulus. That’s certainly an interesting
two methods of assessment can arrive at idea that I’d love to see explored in fu-
different conclusions: muscle CSAs in ture research.
both groups decreased non-significantly Moving on to the strength findings,
(by about 7mm2), while thigh circumfer- the authors note that some of the ath-
ences increased significantly (by about letes weren’t well-familiarized with front
1.5cm). So, it’s possible that the Lueb- squats, which may have muddied the
bers and Yamanaka studies would have water. They state that the members of
found hypertrophy differences if they the traditional group (which performed
directly assessed hypertrophy. 16 heavy front squat sessions, versus
The third possible explanation deals just 6 heavy sessions in the group doing
with the training protocol itself. When I low-load blood flow restriction train-
first skimmed the abstract of this study, I ing) seemed to improve their technique
17
and core strength more. In spite of this,
mean strength gains in the front squat
were similar between groups (~4% for
the traditional group versus ~3% for the
IT MAY BE BEST TO USE
blood flow restriction group). It would BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION
have been nice if they also tested back
squat 1RM to see how well both groups’ TRAINING EITHER
training transferred to the athletes’ com-
petition lift. EVERY OTHER WEEK, OR
Most of the other findings were either EVERY THIRD WEEK.
unsurprising (EMG) or not incredibly
useful for MASS readers (markers of ri-
bosome biogenesis). However, it’s worth
speculating about why this study found these lifters regularly did accessory lifts
clear preferential type I fiber-specific in moderate rep ranges, so it’s unlikely
hypertrophy, while prior research did that they were completely neglecting
not. The authors speculate that using a their type I fibers during their normal
bilateral compound exercise involving training. Finally, it’s possible that the in-
a large amount of muscle mass induced creased capillarization allowed for type
a lot of central fatigue, hindering re- I fiber growth in the blood flow restric-
cruitment of type II fibers. While that’s tion group. Capillary density has been
certainly possible, prior research using found to be predictive of hypertrophy
compound lower-body exercises hasn’t in elderly subjects (15), so it’s possible
found fiber-type specific hypertrophy that insufficient capillarization places
(9). It’s also possible that the power- a cap on type I fiber size, and thus in-
lifters in this study had accrued type II creased capillarization allows for type I
fiber-specific hypertrophy over years of fiber hypertrophy. I feel like this expla-
heavy, non-failure training, leading to nation would raise more questions than
“catch-up growth” of type I fibers when answers (What’s the mechanism? Why
exposed to a metabolically stressful didn’t capillarization of type II fibers in-
stimulus. However, I find that unlikely, crease as well?), but we can’t rule it out
as these lifters’ type I fibers weren’t dis- as a possibility.
proportionately small, compared to their In terms of application, if the hypertro-
type II fibers (they were 10-15% small- phy responses in this study were due to
er, which is pretty typical). Lars Samnøy, the fact that the blood-flow restriction
one of the Norwegian powerlifting training took place on non-consecutive
coaches, also informed us that many of weeks, it may be best to use blood flow
18
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If you’ve been struggling to grow, concentrated one-week (non-consecutive) blocks of
blood flow restriction training may help you make some quick progress. However, the
results of this study are at odds with previous research, so they should be viewed with
some caution.
restriction training either every other mulling over this study for quite some
week, or every third week. You could use time.
a compound exercise (as this study did)
or use blood flow restriction on acces-
sory lifts. A wider wrap doesn’t require Next Steps
as much pressure to occlude blood flow First and foremost, I’d like to see the
(which is beneficial for both comfort results of this study replicated and ex-
and safety), so use knee wraps instead of tended. If the “trick” was having blood
exercise bands, and aim for a pressure of flow restriction training on non-consec-
tight-but-not-painful. If you get an in- utive weeks, I’d like to see another lon-
sane pump, you wrapped to the appro- ger duration study in powerlifters, with
priate pressure. If your limbs start turn- blood flow restriction training once per
ing purple and you don’t get an insane three weeks, over a 12-week span (four
pump, you wrapped too tight and you’re three-week blocks, with one week of
cutting off too much arterial blood flow. blood flow restriction training and two
Use a weight between 20-40% of 1RM, weeks of normal, heavier training). In
knock out 3-4 sets with 15-45 seconds that study, it would be good for one-third
between sets, and enjoy the burn. of the training in the control group to be
I really enjoyed this study because it taken to failure in order to rule out the
gave me a lot to stew on. Were the hy- possibility that the results of this study
pertrophy differences due to novelty? were simply due to failure training. I’d
Were they the result of training to fail- also like to see this finding replicated in
ure? Why did the results of this study another population (such as recreation-
differ from those of previous low-load ally trained lifters) who don’t have a
blood flow restriction studies in athletes? background of specialized training. That
Why did this study find very clear type would help rule out the possibility that
I-specific fiber hypertrophy when other the results of this study were attributable
studies failed to? Those are questions for to novelty.
future research to expand on, but I’ll be
19
References
1. Bjørnsen T, Wernbom M, Kirketeig A, Paulsen G, Samnøy L, Bækken L, Cameron-Smith D, Ber-
ntsen S, Raastad T. Type 1 Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy after Blood Flow-restricted Training in Pow-
erlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Sep 4.
2. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ. Are the Hypertrophic Adaptations to High and Low-Load Resistance
Training Muscle Fiber Type Specific? Front Physiol. 2018 Apr 18;9:402.
3. Krivickas LS, Dorer DJ, Ochala J, Frontera WR. Relationship between force and size in human
single muscle fibres. Exp Physiol. 2011 May;96(5):539-47.
4. Fry AC, Webber JM, Weiss LW, Harber MP, Vaczi M, Pattison NA. Muscle fiber characteristics of
competitive power lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):402-10.
5. Lixandrão ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Berton R, Vechin FC, Conceição MS, Damas F, Libardi CA, Ro-
schel H. Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance
Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Sys-
tematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2018 Feb;48(2):361-378.
6. Martorelli S, Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Celes R, Martorelli A, Cleto VA, Alvarenga JG, Bottaro M.
Strength Training with Repetitions to Failure does not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle
Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. Eur J Transl Myol. 2017 Jun 27;27(2):6339.
7. Nóbrega SR, Ugrinowitsch C, Pintanel L, Barcelos C, Libardi CA. Effect of Resistance Training
to Muscle Failure vs. Volitional Interruption at High- and Low-Intensities on Muscle Mass and
Strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jan;32(1):162-169.
8. Sampson JA, Groeller H. Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and
strength? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016 Apr;26(4):375-83.
9. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL, Bak-
er SK, Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated
hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Jul
1;121(1):129-38.
10. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- vs. High-Load
Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015 Oct;29(1)
11. Yamanaka T, Farley RS, Caputo JL.Occlusion training increases muscular strength in division IA
football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Sep;26(9):2523-9.
12. Luebbers PE, Fry AC, Kriley LM, Butler MS. The effects of a 7-week practical blood flow restriction
program on well-trained collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Aug;28(8):2270-80.
13. O’halloran JF. The Hypertrophic Effects of Practical Vascular Blood Flow Restriction Training. The-
sis. University of South Florida. 2014.
14. Nielsen JL, Aagaard P, Bech RD, Nygaard T, Hvid LG, Wernbom M, Suetta C, Frandsen U. Prolif-
eration of myogenic stem cells in human skeletal muscle in response to low-load resistance training
with blood flow restriction. J Physiol. 2012 Sep 1;590(17):4351-61.
15. Snijders T, Nederveen JP, Joanisse S, Leenders M, Verdijk LB, van Loon LJ, Parise G. Muscle fibre
20
capillarization is a critical factor in muscle fibre hypertrophy during resistance exercise training in
older men. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2017 Apr;8(2):267-276.
16. Thanks to Lars Samnøy, one of the authors of this study, for filling in these details.
21
Study Reviewed: Repetitions in Reserve and Rate of Perceived Exertion Increase the
Prediction Capabilities of the Load-Velocity Relationship. Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (2018)
Track RPE with Velocity to Improve

Your Estimate of Intensity
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S
Velocity seems to be the standard for tracking intensity. Many deem RPE
beneficial but are reluctant to jump on board due to its subjective nature.
This study shows that RPE improves the ability of velocity to predict
intensity, and may be even better than velocity in some cases.
22
KEY POINTS
1. This paper found that a lifter’s movement velocity predicts load pretty well, but
when RPE and RIR are tracked along with velocity, all three variables together
provide a better prediction of load compared to velocity alone in the squat, bench
press, and hip thrust.
2. Interestingly, RPE is actually a better predictor of load in the hip thrust than velocity.
3. Ultimately, since RIR-based RPE is a strong predictor of load, these data help
to solidify the idea that RPE should be tracked along with velocity. If velocity
measurements are not possible, then RPE is a suitable replacement at high
intensities.
W
e’ve discussed the utility of variables to examine how well all three
velocity-based training (one, of them together can predict load. The
two, three, four) and auto- authors also examined the relationships
regulation (one, two) based upon rating between load and velocity, RPE, and
of perceived exertion (RPE) and repe- RIR in terms of general relationships
titions in reserve (RIR) at length. It is (across all subjects) and individual rela-
well-established that there is an inverse tionships (within each individual lifter).
relationship between load and velocity To do this, 10 powerlifters (6 men and 4
(as load goes up, velocity goes down), women) performed 2 reps at each 10%
but since load-velocity profiles are indi- increment between 50-100% of 1RM in
vidual, we should look for ways to im- the squat, hip thrust, and bench press.
prove the capability of velocity to predict The data clearly showed that when all
load. One way to possibly improve this variables are used to predict load, the
prediction is to use RPE and RIR along predictions were very strong and were
with velocity. The aforementioned in- better than velocity alone. Further, the
verse relationship between velocity and authors concluded that the individual-
load is typically examined with a linear ized regressions were better at predicting
regression; the present study (1) exam- load than the generalized predictions.
ined this via linear regressions between Practically, if velocity-based training is
each individual variable (velocity, RPE, employed, then RIR-based RPE should
and RIR) and load, and it also employed also be collected and cross-referenced
a multiple linear regression including all with an individual’s velocity to most ac-
three variables. This means that RPE, curately gauge the intensity. This find-
RIR, and velocity were entered into a ing is important not only for the indi-
regression analysis together as predictor vidual, but also for the coach. If you’re
23
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Subjects Age (years) Relative squat Relative bench Relative hip-thrust

strength (kg·kg-1) strength (kg·kg-1) strength (kg·kg-1)
10 powerlifters
Men (n=6) 26.1 ± 3.9 1.93 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.5 2.9 ± 0.7
Women (n=4)
Data are mean ± SD

Subject characteristics from Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. 2018 (1).
a coach and your client tracks velocity, 2. Are individualized equations with
you should also have them track RPE RPE, RIR, and velocity better at
(or RIR), as this will allow you to more predicting load compared to gener-
precisely gauge intensity on a given day. alized (i.e. across all subjects) equa-
This will allow the athlete to make more tions?
informed intra-session autoregulatory
decisions and will allow the coach to Hypotheses
make more informed progression de- The authors hypothesized that using
cisions. This article lays out specifics of RPE and RIR along with velocity would
how to use RIR-based RPE in conjunc- improve load predictions, versus using
tion with velocity in light of the present velocity alone. Furthermore, the authors
results. hypothesized that individualized equa-
tions to predict load would be more ac-
curate than the generalized (across all
Purpose and Research subjects) equations.
Questions
Purpose Subjects and Methods
The purpose of this study was to de-
Subjects
termine if a combination of RPE, RIR,
and velocity can predict load better than Six male and four female powerlifters
velocity alone. completed this study. Subjects had com-
peted in national-level competitions for
Research Question at least two years. Presumably, the com-
petitions were in Spain, as this is where
1. Do RPE and RIR used in conjunc-
the lead author of the study is located. The
tion with velocity improve the pre-
available details of the subjects, including
diction of load lifted versus velocity
relative strength levels, are in Table 1.
alone?
24
Protocol Figure 1 Individual and general regression results for each lift
The protocol took place over six lab vis-
its with 48 hours between visits. The first Squat
three sessions were 1RM tests for the 1.00
bench press, squat, and hip thrust (in that
Pearson’s coefficient of determination (R2)

0.95
order). For the next three sessions, sub-
jects performed two reps at 50, 60, 70, 80, 0.90
and 90% of 1RM, and one rep at 100%

of 1RM on the bench press (session 4), 0.85
squat (session 5), and hip thrust (session 0.80

6). On each set, average concentric veloc-
ity, RPE, and RIR were recorded. There 0.75
Velocity RIR RPE
were two minutes between all sets. The
researchers then analyzed how accurate-
Hip thrust
ly all three variables together predicted 1.00
load using a general equation (across all

0.95
subjects) and individualized equations for
each lifter. 0.90
0.85
Findings
0.80
0.75
In Figure 1 there are “R2” values. An
R2 is derived from a regression equation. 0.70
Velocity RIR RPE
You can read more about this in our in-

terpreting research guide; however, so that
we all have a handle on this: an R2 tells us Bench press
1.00
how much of the variance in the outcome
0.98
variable(s) (i.e. dependent variable) is pre-
0.96
dicted or explained by the predictor(s)
0.94
(independent variable(s)). For this article, 0.92
average concentric velocity, RPE, and RIR 0.90
are the predictors, and load is the outcome.
0.88
Linear regressions (a relationship between 0.86
two variables such as velocity and load or
0.84
RPE and load) and multiple regressions (a Velocity RIR RPE
relationship between all three predictors Open circles = Individual linear regression with velocity, RIR (repetitions in reserve), and RPE
and an outcome) were examined. (rating of perceived exertion). The horizontal black line is the median R2 values obtained from
the individual linear regressions (i.e. from the open circles). The black circle represents the
generalized (across all subjects) R2 from regressions with just velocity and load. The black
circle is the R2 of the multiple regression with all three variables as predictors.
25
Main Finding
Interpretation
A quick look at Figure 1 reveals that
all three variables together were bet- In brief, RPE and RIR clearly improve
ter at predicting load than velocity the ability of a lifter to know what inten-
alone. In this figure, higher points on sity they are working at compared to just
the y-axis indicate higher R2 values. using velocity alone. Therefore, it makes
The black diamond, which represents sense to collect all three variables if pos-
the R2 with all three variables as pre- sible. However, this study is important:
dictors, is much higher than the black It seems to show that if velocity is not
circle, which represents the R2 with available, then RPE/RIR make statis-
velocity only being used to predict tically similar replacements, and for the
load. Thus, RPE and RIR improve the hip thrust, RPE may even be better than
ability to gauge intensity compared to velocity at gauging intensity.
velocity as the sole predictor of load. We’ve said in MASS before that RPE
This makes sense. should be tracked along with velocity,
so it’s really good to see this data. Why
Generalized (Across all Subjects) vs. wouldn’t you track RPE/RIR? It comes
Individualized Results at no cost, and even individuals with a
Interestingly, RPE and RIR were low training age can still predict RIR
statistically similar to velocity in terms pretty accurately (within one rep) when
of predicting load on their own, and within three reps of failure (2). Sure, you
RPE was actually significantly better can use RPE to adjust intra-session load
than velocity at predicting load in the (3) or volume (4) or adjust weekly load
hip thrust (not the squat and bench). (3), which is “typical” autoregulatory
function. However, since RPE seems to
Most multiple regressions at the in-
be a really good proxy for intensity, it can
dividual level predicted load better
be tracked simply to determine intensi-
than multiple regressions on all sub-
ty, gauge progress, or predict a 1RM. In
jects, and every linear regression per-
short, you can just use it as a monitoring
formed at the individual level pro-
tool. You don’t have to use RPE to au-
duced a higher R2 (i.e. was a better
toregulate. In fact, in the present study
predictor) than linear regressions per-
(1) when RPE was correlated as a sole
formed on all subjects. In other words,
variable with load, there were R2 val-
these variables are better at predicting
ues of 0.908-0.933 across the three lifts,
load within an individual compared to
which were actually higher than veloci-
across all subjects. Again, this makes
ty R2 values (0.857-0.928). Therefore,
sense.
since RPE is so highly correlated with
26
Table 2 Summary of uses for RPE / RIR as monitoring tool other than typical
autoregulatory practices
Method Training example Application Outcome
1 rep @ 9 RPE is about

Predicting intensity or 150kg squat for 1 rep 157.5kg can be concluded as
95%. Thus, divided 150
a daily 1RM @ 9 RPE the daily 1RM
/ 0.95
We can conclude progress
After 8 weeks of train- and projected 1RM went from
Gauging progress 150kg squat for 1 rep
ing, 150kg is squatted 157.5kg to 172.5kg using the
over time @ 9 RPE
for 1 rep @ 7 RPE numbers in the table provided
in reference #5
1RM = one-repetition maximum
load, simply using RPE or RIR to mea- factors mentioned above, in addition to
sure progress is easy. If you previously the typical autoregulation techniques. A
squatted 150kg for 1 rep at a 9RPE and summary of these uses for RPE/RIR is
now squat it at a 7RPE, you can bet that in Table 2.
your 1RM increased. That may not work We covered at length in MASS (one,
as well on higher rep sets, such as go- two, three) that velocity profiles are in-
ing from 100kg for 12 reps at an 8RPE dividual, which further highlights the
to a 6RPE, but the results of this study importance of these data. Specifically, if
show pretty clearly that the former ex- an individual’s velocity profile is not yet
ample is appropriate. Further, because known, RPEs (at least at a high intensi-
RPE and load have a high R2, you can ty) can easily be used to replace veloci-
also pretty easily calculate a projected ty, or they can at least be obtained along
1RM from a low-rep set at a fairly high with velocity. As a coach, this is quite
RPE (i.e. RPE ≥7). For example, using useful. For example, if a coach doesn’t yet
Table 2 in this review paper (5), the data know the individual’s load-velocity pro-
show that about three reps can be per- file, they may consider 0.55 m.s-1 to be
formed at 90% of 1RM, so performing a velocity corresponding to 80% based
a single rep and recording an 8RPE is a upon mean velocity values (6). However,
pretty good proxy for 90%. Thus, if you those velocity values aren’t universal and
perform 150kg for 1 rep @8RPE then may actually correspond to 85% in this
simply divide 150/0.90, you have an ap- individual. For many, the RPE after one
proximate 1RM. This isn’t a fancy way rep at 80% might be 4 or 5, and the RPE
to predict 1RM, but it is pretty accurate after one rep at 85% should be closer to
and useful since strength can fluctuate 6 or 7; thus, if the lifter records an RPE
daily. In short, we can use RPE for the
27
of 7, then the coach can conclude that one tracking velocity with a hip-thrust,
the lifter is probably working above 80% so RPE should suffice in this movement.
of 1RM. Now, appropriate intra-ses- Sure, not everyone accurately gaug-
sion or inter-session adjustments can be es RPE, but in low-rep sets when close
made rather than just working off mean to failure, most people are pretty good.
velocity values that aren’t individual- Above, we recommended that coaches
ized. Finally, RPE has additional util- should track RPE to gauge daily inten-
ity compared to velocity, in that veloc- sity and aid in progression; however, if
ity is almost too objective. I realize that you’re worried that your client may not
doesn’t make sense on the surface, but be particularly good at gauging RPE, you
velocity cannot account for a technique can ask for video feedback. For instance,
error that causes a rep or set to be poor- ask your client to record RPE, and when
er than it should have been. So, if 0.35 they send you a video with their weekly
m.s-1 is typically 90% for a lifter and cor- check-in, you can record your own RPE
responds to an 8RPE, but at 90% this of the lift and see if the RPEs match up.
lifter records a velocity of 0.27 m.s-1 at If the RPEs are pretty far apart, then
an 8RPE, then it’s possible that one of don’t use their RPE quite yet to pro-
the values is practically wrong. The veloc- gram anything, but still have the lifter
ity is what it is, but if the lifter is sure record it so that they can get better with
that they could do two more reps and it. Of course, the previously proposed
there was visible technique error, then strategy is best used if you have seen the
the RPE should override velocity in this lifter go to failure a few times and you
case as a monitoring tool. are familiar with what a particular RPE
Interestingly, the linear regression for might look like for them. Additionally,
the load-velocity relationship was the you could ask a lifter to record an RPE
worst for the hip thrust. The standard mid-set and then continue to failure to
error of the estimate was statistically estimate if their RIR prediction was ac-
lower (better) for the RPE-load relation- curate.
ship (3.13 ± 1.60%) than for the veloc- This study was pretty simple, so there
ity-load relationship (4.98 ± 2.07%) for aren’t many limitations. But the main
the hip thrust. The standard error of the limitation is the small sample size
estimate is a statistic gauging the accura- (n=10). It is possible that with a larger
cy of a predictions. Lower numbers indi- sample there would be more variability
cate greater accuracy and less error. This in RPE accuracy (i.e. lower R2 values).
is probably a finding that coincides well However, on the plus side, this study in-
with what most people are currently do- cluded both men and women, and the
ing, as it’s unlikely that you’d see some- subjects were competitive powerlifters.
28
1. Tracking RPE along with velocity should improve your ability to predict what intensity
you are working at on a given day.
2. RPE comes at no cost and is easy to track. We generally think of RPE as a way to
autoregulate in the moment, but we can also simply use it to track progress over
time. We don’t have to use RPE to autoregulate in the moment.
3. It is true that some lifters are not great at using RPE/RIR; therefore, as a coach,
you can gauge this ability through video feedback and then only use RPE for
programming purposes once that lifter’s RPEs are accurate.
In a world with few studies on a mixed-

sex powerlifter population, this is quite
applicable to MASS readers.
Next Steps
It would be great to replicate this in
other lifts, such as the deadlift and an
overhead press variation. Furthermore, a
larger sample with various training ages
would be helpful. In this way, we can see
if this finding holds true in those who
are not as accustomed to heavy loads as
powerlifters. If these findings don’t hold
true in individuals who don’t consistent-
ly train heavy, then some of the recom-
mendations in the interpretation would
need to be adjusted for those individu-
als, as RPE may have less utility in other
populations.
29
References
1. Balsalobre-Fernandez, CA, Lopez MM, Marchante D, Garcia-Ramos, AM. Repetitions in Reserve
and Rate of Perceived Exertion Increase the Prediction Capabilities of the Load-Velocity Relation-
ship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. ePub Ahead of Print. 2018.
2. Hackett DA, Cobley SP, Davies TB, Michael SW, Halaki M. Accuracy in estimating repetitions
to failure during resistance exercise. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2017 Aug
1;31(8):2162-8.
3. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR, Cronin JB,
Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for
Sets and Repetitions. Frontiers in physiology. 2018 Mar 21;9:247.
4. Helms ER, Cross MR, Brown SR, Storey A, Cronin J, Zourdos MC. Rating of perceived exertion as
a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. The Journal of Strength & Condi-
tioning Research. 2018 Jun 1;32(6):1627-36.
5. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rat-
ing of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and conditioning journal. 2016
Aug;38(4):42.
6. Cooke DM. Relationship Between Anthropometric Measurements and Average Concentric Veloc-
ity in the Back Squat. Florida Atlantic University; 2017.
30
Study Reviewed: Prevalence of Indicators of Low Energy Availability in
Elite Female Sprinters. Sygo et al. (2018)
Energy Availability in
Strength and Power Athletes
BY E RI C HE LMS
We sometimes view body fat simply as tissue to lose to improve the ratio
of fat to lean mass and subsequently improve performance. But, we forget
that the process of losing fat, and sometimes maintaining a lean physique,
can harm performance.
31
KEY POINTS
1. The term “energy availability” refers to whether or not you have adequate energy
to maintain not only the energy demands of exercise or sport, but also of normal
physiological function.
2. You can be at energy balance, maintaining a stable body mass, but be in a state
of “relative energy deficiency” where reproductive and metabolic function are
downregulated to maintain energy balance. Prolonged low energy availability can
have long-term negative health consequences.
3. In this study, elite female sprinters and hurdlers had their energy availability
assessed at the start of a season after a break and after five months of training
and competing. Surprisingly, three athletes began the season exhibiting signs of
low energy availability, and after five months, this number increased to more than
half of the cohort.
E
nergy availability in sport refers to hurdlers were assessed at the start of the
the “left over” caloric intake for an season and five months into the season via
athlete after training is subtracted DXA scans, questionnaires, blood samples,
for physiological function. This easily cal- metabolic testing, and blood pressure tests.
culated value is expressed relative to lean Three athletes already displayed signs of
mass but has limitations that I’ll discuss in low energy availability at pre-testing de-
this article. As an example, a 10% body fat, spite coming out of off-season rest. Five
100kg athlete (90kg of lean mass) consum- months into the in-season, this increased
ing 3000kcal and expending 400kcals on to 7 out of the 13 (54%). In this article, I
average in training (2600kcal “left over”) will discuss the implications of these find-
has an energy availability of 28.9kcal/kg ings and their broader relevance to phy-
(2600kcal divided by 90kg). The present sique and strength athletes.
study (1) is one of the only studies to assess
energy availability in female power ath-
letes, though previous studies have linked Purpose and Research
low energy availability to negative health,
performance, and psychological outcomes
Questions
in athletes with very high energy expen-
Purpose
ditures or those who restrict their energy
intake (aesthetic athletes like gymnasts). The purpose of this study was to assess
Symptoms of low energy availability in the prevalence of signs and symptoms
13 national-level female sprinters and of low energy availability in a group of
32
elite (world class and top national-level) Table 1 Baseline subject characteristics
sprinters and hurdlers during the first five for female elite sprint athletes
months of the competitive season. n=13
Age 21 ± 3
Hypothesis
Height (m) 1.67 ± 0.06
The authors provided no hypotheses,
Weight (kg) 60.4 ± 4.3
which is understandable given that this
was an observational study on a variable BMI (kg/m2) 21.6 ± 1.4
rarely assessed in this population. Years training (years) 8±4
Training (hours/week) 15 ± 6.2
Subjects and Methods Previous stress fractures (n) 5
Black or mixed/white (n) 8/5
Subjects and Study Design

Data are mean ± SD
Thirteen athletes competing in the 100-
400m sprint or 100m hurdles completed
this observational study. Subject charac- The goal of testing was to assess various
teristics are shown in Table 1. known primary and secondary signs and
symptoms of low energy availability and
Shortly after commencing training fol- also to assess anthropometric and self-re-
lowing an offseason recuperation period ported data to see if there were any cor-
(i.e. the beginning of the season), pre-test- relations between variables. Table 2 dis-
ing occurred. Then five months later, in plays the primary and secondary signs and
their competitive season, post-testing was symptoms of low energy availability, the
carried out. testing method, and a description of each.
Outcome Testing
Both pre- and post-testing occurred af- Findings
ter an overnight fast at least 18 hours after
In Table 3, the mean changes from
the athletes’ last training session. Athletes
pre- to post-testing are displayed. At
were instructed to not consume caffeine
the group level, most variables remained
the morning of testing or calcium sup-
unchanged, although there was a slight
plements within 48 hours of their DXA
decrease in blood pressure and increases
scans, as acute calcium supplementation
in IGF-1 and cholesterol.
can artificially augment bone density re-
sults derived from DXA. Hydration sta- Individual outcomes for the primary
tus was also controlled prior to the DXA and secondary signs and symptoms of
scans. low energy availability are shown in all
13 athletes in Figure 1.
33
Table 2 Primary and secondary signs and symptoms of low energy availability
Primary Method Description
LEAF-Q score Questionnaire
Bone mineral density DXA Low bone density
Resting metabolic rate Indirect calorimetry Low resting energy expenditure
Absence of menstrual cycle longer than 3

Amenorrhea Self-report
months
Estradiol Blood test Low for phase of menstrual cycle
Luteinizing hormone Blood test Low for phase of menstrual cycle
Follicle stimulating hormone Blood test Low for phase of menstrual cycle
Secondary Method Description
Iron status Blood test Low serum Fe
Fasting glucose Blood test Low fasting glucose levels
Fasting insulin Blood test Low fasting insulin levels
LDL cholesterol Blood test High LDL levels
Free T3 Blood test Low thyroid levels
IGF-1 Blood test Low IGF-1 levels
Systolic blood pressure Low systolic blood pressure
Diastolic blood pressure Low diastolic blood pressure
Researchers considered low ener- dicator of low energy availability had a

gy availability present when an athlete higher fat mass, assessed via DXA (13.0
showed primary and secondary signs of ± 2.3kg vs. 11.2 ± 1.6kg, p = 0.03) com-
low energy availability. Specifically, four pared to athletes who did not.
(31%) and seven (54%) of 13 athletes 5 out of 13 (39%) participants report-
showed at least one primary and one sec- ed previous stress fractures that were not
ondary sign of low energy availability at explained by energy availability or eth-
pre- and post-testing, respectively. Three nicity, but the number of previous stress
athletes (23%) displayed these signs at fractures was related to BMI, lean mass,
both pre and post. Athletes who had at and RMR (r = 0.63-0.73, p = 0.005-
least one primary and one secondary in- 0.02).
34
Table 3 Changes in elite sprinters from pre- to post-testing
Body composition PRE POST
BMI (kg/m2) 21.6 ± 1.4 21.8 ± 1.7
Body fat (%) 20 ± 2.9 20 ± 3
Fat mass (kg) 11.9 ± 2 12.1 ± 2.2

Lean mass (kg) 45.4 ± 3.7 45.9 ± 3.9
Sum of 8 skinfolds (mm) 76.7 ± 18.7 73.3 ± 16.9
Lean mass index 31 ± 2.7 31.3 ± 2.8
Metabolism
REE (kcal) 1566 ± 162 1568 ± 150
REE/kg FFM (kcal) 33 ± 4.2 32.1 ± 2.5
RMR (% predicted) 104.7 ± 11.8 104.7 ± 6.4
RER 0.8 ± 0.05 0.81 ± 0.1
LEAF-Q
LEAF-Q (score) 5.2 ± 3.6 6.8 ± 3.6
Blood work
Hb (g/L) 128 ± 9 131 ± 7
sFe (μg/L) 66.5 ± 55.3 54.8 ± 41.7
Fasting glucose (mmol/L) 4.5 ± 0.5 4.5 ± 0.4
Fasting insulin (pmol/L) 45.5 ± 19.3 65.9 ± 53.5

Cholesterol (mmol/L) 4.05 ± 0.68 4.33 ± 0.68*
LDL (mmol/L) 1.94 ± 0.44 2.12 ± 0.42
HDL (mmol/L) 1.78 ± 0.45 1.88 ± 0.44
Free T3 (pmol/L) 4.44 ± 0.39 4.47 ± 0.36
IGF-1 (μg/L) 294 ± 61 328 ± 67*
Bone mineral density

BMD (g/cm2) 1.17 ± 0.08 1.16 ± 0.08
Z-score# 0.23 ± 1.3 0.18 ± 1.2
Blood pressure
Systolic (mm Hg) 105 ± 9* 110 ± 7*

Diastolic (mm Hg) 63 ± 6* 73 ± 10*
Data are mean ± SD

* = p < 0.05 ; # = relative to normative data on female sprinters (Mudd et al., 2004)
35
Figure 1 Prevalence of primary and secondary low energy availability indicators in female sprint
athletes (n=13) at pre-season (Pre), and after five months of indoor training (Post)
Pre Post
4 4
Number of indicators (n)
Number of indicators (n)

Primary
3 3 Secondary
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Athlete Athlete
Finally, 6 out of 10 (60%) athletes not gy availability; rather, they just screened
using hormonal contraception presented for the symptoms of low energy avail-
with low sex hormones (LH, FSH, and/ ability. While some might see this as a
or estradiol) at post-testing. problem, I think it’s more appropriate,
as a hard-line cut off at 30kcal/kg is sci-
entifically problematic. Conceptually,
Interpretation there is no reason the body “sees” energy
In the introduction, I defined energy expended from exercise any different-
availability mathematically as energy in- ly than non-exercise activity. The origi-
take minus energy expended for exercise, nal research establishing the 30kcal/kg
divided by lean body mass. This concept threshold was done in a homogeneous
of energy availability was created by sedentary group, so the threshold likely
Dr. Anne Loucks, a pioneer in Female applies in many cases, but in those with
Athlete Triad research (if you’re not fa- higher (or perhaps lower) non-exer-
miliar with the term, I’ll discuss it later cise activity levels, it doesn’t. For many,
in this review), approximately 25 years symptoms of low energy availability may
ago. A large body of her work address- or may not occur to various levels of se-
es the concept of an energy availability verity within the range of 30-45kcal/
threshold of 30kcal/kg. When ener- kg (or perhaps lower). For all of these
gy availability drops below this point, reasons, it might be more appropriate to
signs and symptoms of metabolic and assess not only the mathematical rela-
reproductive (in women) downregula- tionship, but more importantly, the signs
tion occur. However, the researchers in and symptoms associated with low ener-
the present study did not calculate energy availability (2).
36
Table 4 Athletes displaying signs and symptoms at all time points
Number of athletes at Number of athletes at Athletes with repeated
Primary indicators
PRE n (%) POST n (%) episodes (n)
LEAF-Q (> 8) 3 (23) 5 (39) 3
BMD (< 1.09 g/cm2) 1 (8) 2 (15) 1

RMR (<29 kcal/kg FFM) 2 (15) 1 (8) 1
Amenorrhea (self-report) 0 0 0
Estradiol# (pmol/L) 0 4 (31) 0

LH# (IU/L) 0 3 (23) 0
FSH# (IU/L) 2 (15) 3 (23) 0
Secondary indicators
sFe (< 25 μg/L) 2 (15) 2 (15) 1
Fasting glucose (< 4.0 mmol/L) 2 (15) 1 (8) 1
Fasting insulin (< 20pmol / L) 1 (8) 1 (8) 1

LDL cholesterol (> 3.0mmol/L) 1 (8) 0 0
Free T3 (< 3.5 pmol/L) 0 0 0
IGF-1 (< 114 μg/L) 0 0 0
Systolic BP (<90mm Hg) 0 0 0
Diastolic BP (<60mm Hg) 4 (31) 2 (15) 2
# = Cut-off values for Estradiol, FSH, & LH according to follicular phase (F), mid-cycle peak (P), and luteal phase (L).
Estradiol: (F<77, P<139, L<77 pmol/L). FSH: (F<3, P<3, L<1.5 IU/L), LH (F<2, P<8, L<1 IU/L).
With that said, let’s discuss what en- can cause downregulation of reproduc-
ergy availability is all about. The origi- tive and metabolic hormones.” That’s
nal work on energy availability showed correct; an energy deficit does result in
that when energy intake was main- decreased production of metabolic and
tained while exercise energy expenditure sex hormones in both men and wom-
was increased, metabolic and reproduc- en, but what is critical to understand
tive function were negatively affected. is this downregulation can occur at en-
Subsequently, when energy intake was ergy balance as well. For example, you
raised, the negative effects were reversed might remember my review of the giant
(3). In reading this, it may just seem (relative to other bodybuilding studies)
like energy availability is another term Finnish study of physique competitors
for energy balance. You might be think- where at 3-4 months post-competition,
ing “I already know an energy deficit not all competitors had regained their
37
menstrual cycle despite regaining body
weight. A more extreme example is the
case study of a 26-27 year old drug-free A HARD-LINE CUT OFF AT
figure competitor whose menstrual cycle
did not return until 71 weeks after com- 30KCAL/KG IS SCIENTIFICALLY
petition, despite a regain of her body
weight a year prior (4). Likewise, in the PROBLEMATIC. CONCEPTUALLY,
present study, the body mass and compo-
sition of the athletes didn’t change much
THERE IS NO REASON
during the season, but the percentage of THE BODY “SEES” ENERGY
the cohort displaying signs of low en-
ergy availability increased. Furthermore, EXPENDED FROM EXERCISE
those displaying signs and symptoms
of low energy availability were higher in
ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN
body fat than those not showing signs
and symptoms. So what is going on here?
NON-EXERCISE ACTIVITY.
What we are seeing in this study and
others, and what I see anecdotally as a sprinters naturally settle at a low body
coach far more often than I’d like, is the fat level and don’t do long or hard diets
result of maintaining or attempting to or experience much metabolic adapta-
maintain a leaner body than is healthy. tion in the process of reaching their con-
By systems we are still attempting to dition. However, there are surely some
fully elucidate, we know that energy who have traits that allow them to be
expenditure is decreased (often dispro- incredibly fast, but don’t have the same
portionately) in response to both ener- level of natural leanness. Thus, they have
gy deficits and significant reductions in to do more dieting and regulate their
body mass (5). However, the magnitude body fat more assertively, spending more
of this decrease in response to an energy of the season in an energetically down-
deficit and the degree of body mass loss regulated state. They chronically eat less,
that causes further decreases in energy and to reach energy balance, their bodies
expenditure is highly individual. Elite expend fewer calories. However, despite
athletes need specific genetic traits in or- being at energy balance while maintain-
der to be as good as they are, and it is no ing a reduced bodyweight, they exhib-
accident that all elite sprinters are lean. it symptoms of low energy availability,
Purely from a physics standpoint, elite because part of this reduction in ener-
performance in sprinting requires such gy expenditure occurs via downregulat-
a body composition. I suspect many elite ing metabolic and endocrine function.
38
always coincide with disordered eating
or a negative body image, they often do.
THE REASON THE SPRINTERS The behaviors and self-regulation neces-
sary to maintain low body fat and ener-
HIGHER IN BODY FAT SHOW gy intake can lead to psychological stress
MORE SYMPTOMS OF LOW due to the push and pull of the opposing
desires to both maintain and relinquish
ENERGY AVAILABILITY control, as personal and athletic goals
come into conflict with biologically
IS BECAUSE THEY ARE driven desires. Low energy availability,
menstrual dysfunction, and bone loss are
SHOWING THE SIGNS OF known as The Female Athlete Triad, and
the broader dysfunctions that can occur
DIETING OR HAVING DIETED. as a result of low energy availability (in
men or women in sport) are collectively
termed Relative Energy Deficiency in
Therefore, the reason the sprinters high- Sport or RED-S (6).
er in body fat show more symptoms of
low energy availability is because they In power and strength athletes, there
are showing the signs of dieting or hav- is traditionally less concern regarding
ing dieted. A lean individual will often The Female Athlete Triad or RED-S.
be in a state of low energy availability For mechanistic reasons, high force ac-
when in a caloric deficit, but the state of tivities are thought to be protective of
being at energy balance while exhibiting bone health, and in support of that no-
these signs and symptoms is known as tion, fractures were not related to symp-
“relative energy deficiency” (6). toms of energy availability in the present
study. Rather, they were related to BMI,
Now, this wouldn’t be a big deal if RMR, and lean mass (which really just
there weren’t potential long-term health means they were related to lean mass;
consequences to being in this state. more lean mass means a higher RMR
Athletes who remain in a state of low and BMI). Thus, athletes who produce
energy availability can experience: neg- higher ground contact forces are more
ative effects on performance; negative likely to get stress fractures, which is
effects on the endocrine, cardiovascu- not at all surprising. Another reason
lar, immune, metabolic, reproductive, strength and power athletes are not as
and gastrointestinal systems; the loss well-researched in this area is their low
of menstrual function; and a reduction energy expenditure compared to endur-
in bone health in women specifically. ance sport. Additionally, clinicians unfa-
While these detrimental effects don’t
39
If maintaining a certain level of leanness or body mass – and subsequently a restricted
energy intake – results in the loss of menses or an irregular menstrual cycle, persistent
food focus, more frequent illness, poorer mood state, an inability to increase
performance, loss of libido, or metabolic or reproductive hormone panels outside
of the reference ranges, increase your calories and consider that it may prove more
optimal in the long run to maintain a higher body mass.
miliar with the nuances of strength sport builders who stay on the leaner side in
often have a stereotyped perception of the off-season. I think there are clearly
strength and power athletes as being big, potential performance benefits to both:
bulky, and unafraid of consuming plenty a higher strength to mass ratio in the
of food. However, for weight class-re- former, and a potentially less stressful
stricted strength athletes and track and diet in the latter. However, the level of
field athletes who have to propel their leanness that provides the optimal bal-
own bodies (rather than an implement), ance between minimizing the potential
nutritional manipulation and restriction negative effects and maximizing the po-
are incredibly common. The takeaway tential positive effects is likely individ-
from this study is that even if you don’t ual. It might also differ by the type of
expend a ton of calories in training, if desired performance – strength, speed
you maintain a leaner physique than strength, or aesthetic – which would be
your body “wants,” there can be health clarified by similar studies in powerlift-
and performance consequences. Some- ers, weightlifters, and physique competi-
times, as was shown by the sprinters tors. Finally, I’d like to see more research
who started with symptoms, these con- in the area of hormonal contraceptive
sequences can even bleed over after an use in female athletes who restrict their
off-season recovery period. body fat, considering 6 in 10 athletes in
this study who weren’t taking them had
reduced sex hormone concentrations.
Next Steps Are hormonal contraceptives helpful at
I would love to see more research keeping some of the negative effects of
looking at the same symptomology in energy deficiency at bay, or are they cov-
strength athletes who hold a potential- ering up a bigger problem (or both)?
ly leaner than “normal” physique to stay
in their weight class, and also body-
40
References
1. Sygo, J., et al., Prevalence of Indicators of Low Energy Availability in Elite Female Sprinters. Inter-
national journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 2018: p. 1-22.
2. Burke, L.M., et al., Pitfalls of Conducting and Interpreting Estimates of Energy Availability in
Free-Living Athletes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2018.
28(4): p. 350-363.
3. Loucks, A.B. and R. Callister, Induction and prevention of low-T3 syndrome in exercising women.
Am J Physiol, 1993. 264(5 Pt 2): p. R924-30.
4. Halliday, T.M., J.P. Loenneke, and B.M. Davy, Dietary Intake, Body Composition, and Menstrual
Cycle Changes during Competition Preparation and Recovery in a Drug-Free Figure Competitor:
A Case Study. Nutrients, 2016. 8(11).
5. Müller, M.J., et al., Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans. F1000Re-
search, 2018. 7: p. F1000 Faculty Rev-1025.
6. Mountjoy, M., et al., International Olympic Committee (IOC) Consensus Statement on Relative
Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S): 2018 Update. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2018. 28(4): p.
316-331.
41
Study Reviewed: The Effect of Set Up Position on EMG Amplitude, Lumbar Spine
Kinetics, and Total Force Output during Maximal Isometric Conventional-Stance
Deadlifts. Edington et al. (2018)
Hip Height in the Deadlift Doesn’t

Affect Force off the Floor
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
You’ll find plenty of fanatics arguing that everyone should set up for the
conventional deadlift with high hips, while other folks argue that low hips are the
way to go. A recent study found that, on average, it doesn’t really matter, at least
in terms of force development off the floor, or forces placed on the lumbar spine.
However, setup position could make a notable difference on an individual level.
42
KEY POINTS
1. On average, setup position (how far the bar is from your shins, and how low you
set your hips) doesn’t seem to affect isometric force output off the floor during
conventional deadlifts. It also doesn’t seem to affect the forces placed on the
lumbar spine.
2. Setup position did significantly impact EMG amplitude, however. A low-hipped,
weightlifting-style pull led to higher quad EMG and lower hamstrings EMG than
a higher-hipped, powerlifting-style pull.
3. While force output didn’t differ on average, individual differences are probably
large enough to make a meaningful impact. You should find the optimal deadlift
setup for yourself based on experimentation, instead of taking a one-size-fits-all
approach to your deadlift setup.
D
eadlifts may be the simplest of forces on the spine didn’t differ between
the three powerlifts, but the suc- the two setups, though quad EMG and
cess or failure of a heavy pull is knee extension moments were higher
often decided when the bar breaks the with the weightlifting-style pull, and
floor. If you can stay in a good position hamstrings EMG was higher with the
and produce enough force to build de- powerlifting-style pull. However, while
cent speed, the lift should go up without there weren’t average differences in force
too much trouble. If you find yourself in output, the individual differences were
a bad starting position and start grind- likely large enough to meaningfully im-
ing from the instant the bar breaks the pact deadlift performance. There’s not
floor, you’re probably in trouble. There- a one-size-fits-all approach to deadlift
fore, setup position is crucially import- setups, so you should experiment with
ant for a big deadlift. bar and hip position to find out what’s
A recent study (1) examined the effect strongest and most comfortable for you.
of setup position on isometric force out-
put, electromyography (EMG), joint po-
sitioning, and forces on the lumbar spine. Purpose and Research
It compared powerlifting-style (bar close Questions
to the shins, and relatively high hips) and
weightlifting-style (bar over the balls Purpose
of the feet, with lower hips) isometric
The purpose of the study was to com-
deadlifts. On average, force output and
pare EMG, internal joint loads, and
43
Table 1 Participant demographic data
Characteristic Mean (Standard deviation)
Years of experience (years) 6.05 (3.35)
Mass (kg) 88.73 (22.16)
Standing height (cm) 172.48 (10.87)
Arm length (cm) 52.34 (3.57)
Femur length (cm) 38.42 (4.22)
Tibia length (cm) 40.99 (3.06)
Torso length (cm) 42.67 (2.90)
Reported deadlift 1RM (kg) 179.85 (63.06)
force output during isometric conven- to differences in knee, hip, or L5-S1

tional deadlifts with either a high hip joint moments, L5-S1 shear force,
position (and the bar close to the shin) or L5-S1 compressive force?
or a low hip position (and the bar over
the balls of the feet). Hypotheses
No hypotheses were directly stated,
Research Questions but the wording of the introduction
1. Would the different deadlift setups makes it seem like the authors expect-
lead to differences in force output ed lower lumbar compressive and shear
at the start of the lift? forces, but higher force output with the
2. Would the different deadlift setups high-hip deadlift.
lead to different EMG amplitudes
in the thoracic spinal erectors, lats,
upper or lower lumbar spinal erec- Subjects and Methods
tors, glutes, biceps femoris (a ham-
strings muscle), or vastus lateralis (a Subjects
quad muscle)? The subjects were 10 lifters (5 male
3. Would different deadlift setups lead and 5 female) with an average of 6.05
44
Figure 1 Demonstration of the powerlifting-style pull and
weightlifting-style pull
Powerlifting-style pull Weightlifting-style pull
years of training experience. All subjects Methods

competed in either weightlifting (n=4) All testing took place during a single
or powerlifting (n=6) and had compet- session. When subjects arrived at the lab,
ed at least once at either the provincial reflective markers were placed on their
or national level. Their average reported major joints in order to calculate joint
deadlift 1RM was almost 180kg. Keep- kinetics and kinematics and to estimate
ing in mind that half of the lifters were compressive and shear forces on the
female, that’s a very solid average dead- spine. After this, the subjects warmed up
lift max. by deadlifting submaximal loads. Fol-
lowing warm-ups, the bar was loaded to
45
Figure 2.1
a weight far beyond the subjects’ 1RMs,
and the participants performed isomet- Knee moment
ric deadlifts with two different deadlift-
100
ing styles. In the style the authors call 90
the “far bar deadlift,” the bar was lined 80
Newton-meters
up over the lifters’ third metatarsopha- 70
60
langeal joint (the base of the middle toe), 50
leading to a weightlifting-style starting 40
position with lower hips and more for- 30

20
ward knee travel. In the style the authors 10
refer to as the “close bar deadlift,” the 0

Weightlifting-style Powerlifting-style
bar was lined up over the lifters’ navic-
ular bone (maybe 1-2 inches in front of
the shin, if you’re standing up straight), Hip moment
300
leading to a powerlifting-style starting
position with higher hips and minimal Newton-meters
250
forward knee travel. I’ll be referring to 200
these as “weightlifting-style” and “pow- 150
erlifting-style” pulls. 100
All subjects performed both styles of 50
isometric pulls, and the pull they started

0
with was randomized. They performed Weightlifting-style Powerlifting-style
three isometric pulls with each style and

performed all three pulls with one style
before moving on to the other style.
Stance width for each lifter was the L5-S1 moment
same for all six pulls (i.e. stance width 800
could vary between lifters, but each lifter 700
had to keep a consistent stance width), 600

Newton-meters
and the bar was locked in place so it 500
couldn’t roll. Each isometric pull was 400
three seconds long, with a rest period 300
of two minutes between pulls. The pulls 200
were performed on a force plate, and the 100
lifters were outfitted with electrodes to 0

take EMG readings in order to estimate

muscle activation. Mean ± standard deviation
* = significant difference between groups
46
Findings Figure 2.2
L5-S1 compression force

Positioning
20000
As expected, the weightlifting-style
18000
deadlift led to a more forward-knee po-
16000
sition, greater knee flexion (~69 degrees
14000
vs. 51 degrees), and a more upright torso
12000
position (by about 8.5 degrees). 10000
Newton
80000
EMG
60000
EMG readings for the upper lumbar 40000
erectors and biceps femoris were signifi- 20000
cantly greater for the powerlifting-style 0
pull, while EMG readings for the vas- Weightlifting-style Powerlifting-style
tus lateralis were significantly greater for

the weightlifting-style pull. L5-S1 shear force
3500
Joint moments and spinal forces
3000
The knee joint moment was signifi-
2500
cantly larger for the weightlifting-style
deadlift, while there weren’t any signif- 2000
Newton
icant differences in the hip moment or 1500
L5-S1 spinal extension moment. Es- 1000
timated L5-S1 shear and compressive 500
forces were also similar between deadlift 0

styles. Weightlifting-style Powerlifting-style
Mean ± standard deviation

Force output
Isometric force output wasn’t signifi-
lift styles. I think this may surprise a lot
cantly different between pulling styles.
of powerlifting purists, since a dispro-
portionate amount of great convention-
Interpretation al deadlifters set up with relatively high
hips. However, I think that observation
For MASS readers, I think the most may be driven more by individual an-
important finding of this study was the thropometrics than generalizable biome-
similarity in force output between dead- chanics. In other words, great deadlifters
47
Figure 3
Isometric force output

2750 Subject 2
Subject 3
2500 Subject 5
Subject 6
2250 Subject 8
Subject 9
Newtons
Subject 10
2000
Subject 11
1750
1500
1250
tend to be lanky, and lanky people tend to any elite deadlifters who start with the
wind up pulling with high hips. Howev- bar over their third metatarsophalangeal
er, several elite deadlifters, including Mi- joint. However, there are several exam-
sha Koklyaev and Eddie Hall, have had ples of great deadlifters who start with
great success setting up for the deadlift the bar noticeably farther forward than
with low hips. Now, regardless of how is typical. For example, Pete Rubish and
you set up to deadlift, the bar isn’t going Tom Martin both initiate the pull with
to break the ground until your hips raise quite a bit of forward knee travel and
up high enough that the bar is under or a bar position somewhere between the
slightly behind your shoulder joint, but a two positions used in this study.
variety of different setup approaches can I think the individual data are more
eventually land you in a strong position interesting than the group averages,
for the bar to break the floor. however. While isometric force output
It did surprise me a bit that position- didn’t differ between the two deadlift
ing of the bar didn’t impact isometric setups on average, this study reported
force output. I couldn’t find examples of individual data, which allows us to see
48
Figure 4
Relative strength differences between

stronger and weaker pull
10.00% Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 5
7.50% Subject 6
Subject 8
Subject 9
5.00% Subject 10
Subject 11
Average
2.50%
0.00%
that, on average, the mean difference Previous research (2) has found that
between stances for the individuals in the “powerlifting-style” setup leads to a
this study was 4.23%. In other words, if more linear bar path than the “weight-
you pull 500lb, setup position could af- lifting-style” setup. However, I’m not
fect the amount of weight you can break sure that such a distinction matters very
from the floor by 20lb or possibly more much. Much like the bench press, the
– the largest individual difference in this force applied by the bar due to gravity is
study was 9.37%. That’s certainly a large purely vertical, so as long as the vertical
enough difference to matter for most range of motion is the same, total work
lifters. required to complete the pull shouldn’t
49
I think the authors of the present study did a great job summing up their findings:
“These findings suggest that a lifter should use a deadlifting position that complements
their anatomical characteristics and/or training goals, as shear force and performance
are both maintained similarly during each position at the start of the lift.”
differ. If the bar gets so far in front of pulls. Vastus lateralis EMG amplitude
you that it throws you off balance, that’s was significantly higher with the weight-
obviously a problem. However, if more lifting-style pull, while biceps femoris
of your body is behind the system’s cen- EMG amplitude was significantly high-
ter of mass, the bar can start a bit farther er with the powerlifting-style pull. Does
in front of the system’s center of mass that mean that weightlifting-style pulls
without compromising your ability to train your quads way harder, while ne-
produce force and maintain balance, as glecting your hamstrings? Not necessar-
long as the system’s center of mass stays ily. Isometric pulls give you a snapshot
located over mid-foot. So, as long as bar of one time point in the lift. Once the
path deviations aren’t extreme, I don’t bar starts moving, all bets are off, since
think you need to worry about bar path changes in joint positioning throughout
very much. the lift can vary substantially between
Now, it’s clearly worth noting that iso- lifters. However, I do think that this
metric force output isn’t the exact same study provides some rationale for “play-
thing as a deadlift 1RM. However, since ing to your strengths” in your deadlift
this study examined isometric force out- setup. If you have really strong quads,
put at the position where the bar would starting with the bar slightly further in
be at the start of the deadlift, these re- front of your shins and setting up with
sults should be generalizable to the ini- slightly lower hips may allow you to
tiation of the deadlift, and how much use your quads a bit more to get the bar
weight you can break off the floor. Past moving. On the flip side, if you have re-
that point, differences in setup position- ally strong hamstrings, setting up with
ing may end up causing larger average higher hips and the bar closer to your
differences in force output and dynamic shins could help you take greater advan-
strength. tage of your hamstrings’ strength.
I think it’s worth taking note of the Finally, the spinal shear and compres-
EMG results, in light of the fact that sive forces are worth noting. A lot of
this study was just looking at isometric people think that any technique that al-
50
lows for a more vertical torso will auto- also be interesting to see if any anthro-
matically decrease spinal loading. That’s pometric characteristics predict whether
not a bad heuristic, since a more vertical a lifter would be better off pulling with a
torso position will tend to decrease the high or low hip position.
spinal flexion moment imposed by the
weight, and will thus require a less force-
ful contraction of the spinal erectors (the
majority of the forces “felt” by the inter-
vertebral joints are the result of muscu-
lar contraction). However, in this study,
a more vertical torso position didn’t de-
crease the spinal flexion moment im-
posed by the bar, because the bar was
positioned further forward during the
“weightlifting-style” pull. Remember –
heuristics are useful, but they’re not al-
ways true in all cases.
At the end of the day, I think the major
takeaway of this study is that you should
experiment with your deadlift setup to
see what feels the most comfortable for
you. You may be able to break heavier
weights off the floor with a high hip
position and the bar flush against your
shins, or you may be stronger with lower
hips and a little space between the bar
and your shins. As with most things,
there’s not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Next Steps
The obvious next step is to see if a sim-
ilar study on dynamic deadlifts would
yield different results. This study tells us
about the forces you can exert to break
the bar off the floor, but can’t tell us
much about the rest of the lift. It would
51
References
1. Edington C, Greening C, Kmet N, Philipenko N, Purves L, Stevens J, Lanovaz J, Butcher S. The
Effect of Set Up Position on EMG Amplitude, Lumbar Spine Kinetics, and Total Force Output
During Maximal Isometric Conventional-Stance Deadlifts. Sports (Basel). 2018 Aug 31;6(3).
2. Hancock S, Wyatt F, Kilgore L. Variation in Barbell Position Relative to Shoulder and Foot Ana-
tomical Landmarks Alters Movement Efficiency. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2012; 5(3) 183–195.
52
Study Reviewed: Range of Motion Adaptations in Powerlifters.
Gadomski et al. (2018)
Does Lifting Heavy Harm

Your Range of Motion?
Powerlifting gets you stronger, but when squat, bench press, and
deadlift comprise most of your training, what does that do to your joint
range of motion? A new study, which included some powerlifters with
500+ raw Wilks scores, has the answers.
53
KEY POINTS
1. This study compared range of motion of the shoulder, knee, and hip joints in
powerlifters versus non-lifters.
2. Shoulder joint range of motion was lower in powerlifters, while knee extension
capabilities were greater in powerlifters, which suggests greater hamstring flexibility.
3. Overall, it does seem that lower shoulder mobility is a concern with chronic
powerlifting. Therefore, upper body flexibility training should be incorporated by
experienced powerlifters to maintain range of motion and possibly prevent injury.
L
ifting weights gets you stronger, ROM. Moreover, diminished glenohu-
but how does it affect other fac- meral joint ROM is a causative factor in
tors, such as joint range of motion shoulder injuries, albeit in baseball play-
(ROM)? I’m sure most of us are familiar ers (4). While we cannot be sure that di-
with ROM, but just for clarity, it is de- minished shoulder joint ROM is related
fined as the degree to which a joint can to injuries in powerlifting, shoulder inju-
be moved. For example, if you are sitting ries are quite common in powerlifters (5),
down with your shin perpendicular to so it’s worth pointing out. It’s important
the floor and your thigh parallel to the to examine whether chronic powerlift-
floor, that is 90 degrees of knee flexion. ing training may decrease shoulder joint
A knee can typically be flexed (i.e. leg ROM, so that we can know if it would
curl) to around 130 degrees and extend- be wise to take precautions to maintain
ed (i.e. leg extension) to about 0 degrees. ROM. Further, Chang’s study was way
Importantly, upper body joint ROM back in 1988 and only had 10 powerlift-
has been shown to be lower within re- ers, so an update and greater sample size
sistance trained individuals compared to is warranted. This study (1) had 15 male
control subjects who did not train (2), powerlifters around 35 years old with
and Chang et al observed powerlifters an average unequipped (i.e. raw) Wilks
to have lower total shoulder ROM than Score greater than 400 and 15 aged-
controls (3). However, the analysis from matched non-lifters. Powerlifters had
Chang and colleagues was not isolated lower glenohumeral (shoulder) joint ex-
to just the glenohumeral joint (shoulder tension ROM and less shoulder internal
joint). It also included the surrounding and external rotation. Further, powerlift-
clavicular joints; thus, it looked at total ers had lower ROM in the Apley scratch
shoulder ROM and not shoulder joint test (a test where you try to touch your
54
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Overall training
Subjects Age (years) Body mass (kg) Body fat (%) Wilks score
age (years)
Powerlifters (n=15) 35.3 ± 13.7 98.8 ± 19.1 21.7 ± 9.7 17.9 ± 12.8 416.3 ±86.9
Non-lifters (n=15) 34.9 ± 9.8 96.7 ± 19.1 24.2 ± 9.4 <6 months None to report
Data are mean ± SD

Subject characteristics from Gadomski et al. 2018 (1).
hands behind your back) compared to 2. Are there any relationships be-
controls. However, powerlifters were tween training patterns (i.e. vol-
able to achieve a greater height of knee ume, intensity, frequency, and ex-
extension, which demonstrates greater ercise selection) and joint ROM in
hamstring flexibility. Therefore, chron- powerlifters?
ically lower ROM in the upper body
and greater ROM in the lower body Hypothesis
were present in powerlifters versus con- A formal hypothesis was not given;
trol subjects. This article will discuss however, from reading the introduction,
why powerlifting may limit upper body it seems the authors expected ROM in
ROM and what you can do to counter- the upper body joints to be lower in
act it. powerlifters but weren’t sure about low-
er body joint ROM.
Purpose and Research

Questions Subjects and Methods
Purpose Subjects
The purpose was to determine if pow- 15 powerlifters and 15 non-lifters
erlifters have lower upper and lower (control subjects) of the same age par-
body ROM compared to control sub- ticipated. The powerlifters in this study
jects. were uniquely well-trained for the scien-
tific literature, with an average of almost
Research Questions 18 years of lifting experience and an av-
erage unequipped (i.e. raw) Wilks Score
1. Do powerlifters with many years
greater than 400. Five lifters even had
of experience have lower ROM
a Wilks score greater than 500. Lifters
compared to non-lifters?
were also classified as: low Wilks lifters
55
Table 2 Powerlifter’s training frequency
Total training days Bench press Squat sessions Deadlift sessions Flexibility sessions
per week sessions per week per week per week per week
4.29 ± 1.33 2.07 ± 1.06 1.67 ± 1.08 1.40 ± 0.71 1.87 ± 0.54
Data are mean ± SD

Subject characteristics from Gadomski et al. 2018 (1).
(n=6, Wilks<400), intermediate Wilks by using a protractor-type device. The

lifters (n=5, Wilks=400-500), and high measurement started with the joint at
Wilks lifters (n=4, Wilks>500). Further its resting position, then it was passively
subject details are in Table 1. moved as far as possible. This was done
in the shoulder, hip, and knee joints and
Basic Protocol is referred to as passive ROM.
Testing for each subject took only Apley Scratch Test: This examined
one day. Various ROM assessments multi-joint ROM (shoulder and el-
were used and are described below. bow) in the upper body. In short, you
Further, all powerlifters completed a reach one arm over your shoulder and
32-item questionnaire regarding their the other up your back and try to touch
typical training frequency, amount of your fingertips. In this study, the dis-
volume, exercise selection, and amount tance between the fingertips was calcu-
of flexibility training (i.e. chronic static lated, with a farther distance represent-
stretching) to examine if these factors ing poorer ROM.
would be related to any ROM out- Modified Thomas Test: This test ex-
comes. amines hip and knee angles. First, the
subjects sat at the edge of an athletic
ROM Techniques Used training table and then were rolled back
Goniometry, the Apley scratch test, supine (i.e. laid down on their backs) by
and the modified Thomas test were used the investigator and flexed both knees
to assess ROM. Below, I’ve included a to their chest. The dominant limb was
definition of each technique and a hy- then lowered by the researcher to its
perlink with a video example. The vid- normal resting position and hip and
eos supplement the description well, so knee angles of the lower leg were mea-
make sure to click the hyperlinks. sured with a goniometer.
Goniometry: This was done manually
56
Table 3 ROM as assessed by Goniometry
Controls (n=15) Powerlifters (n=15) p-value
101.2 ± 13.4 94.8 ± 18 0.285

GH extension 20.6 ± 6.4 10.5 ± 10.8 0.004*
GH internal rotation 50.1 ± 8.2 43.1 ± 12.1 0.040*
GH external rotation 92.6 ± 17.1 78.2 ± 12.6 0.024*

GH horizontal abduction 16.4 ± 7.9 14.3 ± 8.6 0.488
GH horizontal adduction -0.73 ± 5.3 0.53 ± 10.2 0.673
124 ± 7.8 120 ± 9.3 0.171

Hip extension 15.1 ± 6.7 14.1 ± 6 0.671
Hip abduction 35.1 ± 5.4 36 ± 4.3 0.631

Hip adduction 14 ± 4.1 13.9 ± 3.9 0.962
Knee extension angle 29.9 ± 6.2 20.3 ± 7.3 <0.001#

48.3 ± 6.5 55.9 ± 8.6 0.060
14.8 ± 7.7 14.1 ± 8.9 0.812
ROM = Range of Motion. GH = Glenohumeral (shoulder) joint. * = Significantly lower ROM in powerlifters.
# = Significantly greater ROM in powerlifters.
Findings worse in powerlifters in the single-joint

goniometry and in the Apley scratch
test. Also, powerlifters with high Wilks
Training Questionnaire scores tended to have lower upper body
Training frequency and volume were ROM than lifters with lower Wilks
not significantly different between the scores in most measures, including in the
cohorts of powerlifters (high, moderate, Apley scratch test. Goniometry mea-
and low Wilks). The bench press made sures for each joint are listed in Table 3,
up 74.8% of all upper body training (i.e. and results of the Apley scratch test are
assistance work made up 25.2% of upper in Figure 1.
body training), and the squat and dead-
lift combined comprised 79.7% of all Lower Body ROM
lower body training. Further details of In contrast with the upper body, lower
the powerlifters’ training are in Table 2. body ROM was partly greater in power-
lifters (Table 3). Specifically, goniometry
Upper Body ROM showed 32.1% greater knee extension
In general, upper body ROM was capability in powerlifters versus control
57
Figure 1 Apley scratch test between all powerlifters and control subjects
Dominant arm Non-dominant arm

60 60
P = 0.015
50 50
P = 0.025
Distance between fingertips (cm)

Distance between fingertips (cm)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
Controls Powerlifters Controls Powerlifters
This figure shows the distance between fingertips for the Apley scratch test. Dots are individual subjects and the horizontal lines represent means for each group.
subjects, suggesting better hamstring to non-lifters. Though these studies all

flexibility. There was no difference be- report some measures of lower shoulder
tween groups in the modified Thomas ROM in lifters, the facets of shoulder
test. ROM that are lower differ between the
studies. For example, the present study
(1) reported lower shoulder extension,
Interpretation internal rotation, and external rotation
The fact that powerlifters had lower in powerlifters, while Kolber et al (2) ac-
shoulder joint ROM than the control tually reported greater shoulder external
subjects isn’t surprising, as Chang et al rotation in recreational lifters compared
(3) previously found lower total shoul- to non-lifters. The authors of the current
der (not the isolated shoulder joint) study attribute that difference to pow-
mobility in powerlifters versus control erlifters’ disproportionate focus on the
subjects. Also, Barlow et al (6) observed bench press, while recreational lifters
lower shoulder rotation in bodybuilders in Kolber et al employed exercises such
versus control subjects, and Kolber and as lat pulldowns and shoulder presses,
colleagues (2) reported lower shoulder which result in external rotation at the
mobility in recreational lifters compared end ROM. Ultimately, the shoulder
joint is relatively fixed in the bench press,
58
which limits shoulder ROM compared tension and internal and external rota-
to overhead movements. Importantly, tion may be beneficial. While stretching
Morton et al (7) did observe improved and assistance work are time consuming,
shoulder mobility in novice lifters over they’re really not that difficult to incor-
five weeks who used the bench press; porate. Stretching can be done while
however, a myriad of other exercises you’re watching television, before you go
were also incorporated, and the bench to sleep at night, or when you wake up
press only comprised 11% of the upper in the morning. Simple internal and ex-
body training in Morton’s study. In the ternal rotation exercises with dumbbells
present study, the bench press comprised or a band can be added at the end of a
74.8% (Table 2) of all upper body train- workout, supersetted with an antago-
ing for the powerlifters, so the expla- nist muscle group, or can even be done
nation of “too much bench-only train- at home with minimal equipment. Sure,
ing inhibited shoulder mobility” seems these “extras” can be boring, but the little
plausible. things can go a long way toward stay-
Importantly, 43.3% of 245 powerlifting healthy in the long term. To be clear,
ers who were surveyed had some type of we can’t say that chronic stretching or
injury – with shoulder joint injuries be- assistance exercises can prevent or pro-
ing the most common (5). Reduced pas- tect against injury, but it is likely these
sive shoulder mobility (exactly what was activities can help to avoid any negative
measured presently) has been suggested effects of powerlifting on ROM.
as a causative factor in shoulder inju- Despite the lower shoulder ROM
ries when the shoulder repeatedly un- in powerlifters, hamstrings flexibility
dergoes stress (i.e. throwing a baseball) (knee extension angle) was greater in
(4). While we can’t draw the conclusion these powerlifters. Previously, Chang
from this study that lower shoulder joint et al reported greater sit-and-reach test
ROM from powerlifting is related to scores in powerlifters versus control sub-
shoulder injuries, it is also worth stating jects (3) and Morton et al (7) not only
that benching clearly imposes repeated found increases in hamstring flexibili-
stress on the shoulder joint; thus, pow- ty with lifting, but also increases in hip
erlifters should be cognizant that it is extension and flexion. Speculatively, I’d
possible that diminished shoulder ROM be willing to bet that most people who
could contribute to the commonali- perform chronic stretching and flexi-
ty of shoulder injuries in powerlifters. bility training spend more time on the
To counteract lower shoulder ROM, lower body. I have no evidence of this,
chronic stretching and the use of assis- but when someone says “stretch,” the
tance exercises that target shoulder ex- first thing that most people do is bend
59
1. Powerlifters whose upper body training was comprised of mostly the bench press
had lower shoulder ROM than non-lifters. However, hamstring flexibility may actually
be greater when lower body training is comprised of mostly the squat and deadlift.
2. Importantly, lower shoulder ROM has been associated with shoulder injuries;
therefore, powerlifters should incorporate flexibility training, internal/external
rotation exercises, and possibly overhead exercises that extend through the end
ROM to avoid a potential decline in ROM.
3. The lower shoulder ROM tended to be more pronounced in those with >400 Wilks
than those with a <400 Wilks, indicating that as training experience and strength
levels increase, shoulder ROM may become even worse. Perhaps flexibility training
becomes even more important.
down and touch their toes or sit on the ± 18.1 cm distance between fingertips)
ground and touch their toes. Again, I’m than lifters with a 400-500 Wilks (18.1
speculating, but I’d guess that most lift- ± 11.7 cm distance between fingertips).
ers spend more time stretching their Granted, the sample size for each Wilks
hamstrings than their upper body, which classification was small; nonetheless,
could also play a role in the outcomes this suggests that as training experience
showing lower upper body ROM and increases, upper body ROM takes even
greater lower body ROM. more of a hit. Therefore, it may be in-
It’s pretty cool how well-trained the creasingly important to implement the
population is in this study. All lifters had flexibility strategies mentioned above as
a Wilks score over 300, with six lifters training status improves.
between 300-400, five lifters between
400-500, and four with a Wilks great-
er than 500. Also, they had an average Next Steps
training experience of almost 18 years – Going forward, it would be great to
that’s awesome, as we rarely see this in have a large sample size of well-trained
the scientific literature. The classification lifters (i.e. greater than 400 Wilks) who
of lifters by Wilks also seemed to be im- perform about 80% of their upper body
portant, as upper body ROM tended to training with the bench press. Compare
be lower in the lifters with higher Wilks these lifters to a control cohort at base-
scores. For example, on the Apley scratch line to demonstrate that they have lower
test, subjects with a Wilks score greater shoulder joint ROM (that should occur
than 500 performed 25% worse (24.0
60
based on these results). Then, run the
subjects through a long-term training
program that adds in 3-4 days per week
of flexibility training (i.e. static stretch-
ing not in conjunction with training)
and internal/external shoulder rotation
exercises. The goal of this study would
be to examine shoulder ROM improve-
ments as strength continues to improve.
61
References
1. Gadomski SJ, Ratamess NA, Cutrufello PT. Range of Motion Adaptations in Powerlifters. Journal
of strength and conditioning research. 2018 Sep.
2. Kolber MJ, Beekhuizen KS, Cheng MS, Hellman MA. Shoulder joint and muscle characteristics in
the recreational weight training population. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2009
Jan 1;23(1):148-57.
3. Chang DE, Buschbacher LP, Edlich RF. Limited joint mobility in power lifters. The American jour-
nal of sports medicine. 1988 May;16(3):280-4.
4. Shanley E, Rauh MJ, Michener LA, Ellenbecker TS, Garrison JC, Thigpen CA. Shoulder range of
motion measures as risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in high school softball and baseball
players. The American journal of sports medicine. 2011 Sep;39(9):1997-2006.
5. Siewe J, Rudat J, Röllinghoff M, Schlegel UJ, Eysel P, Michael JP. Injuries and overuse syndromes in
powerlifting. International journal of sports medicine. 2011 Sep;32(09):703-11.
6. Barlow JC, Benjamin BW, Birt PJ, Hughes CJ. Shoulder strength and range-of-motion characteris-
tics in bodybuilders. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2002 Aug 1;16(3):367-72.
7. Morton SK, Whitehead JR, Brinkert RH, Caine DJ. Resistance training vs. static stretching: ef-
fects on flexibility and strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2011 Dec
1;25(12):3391-8.
62
Concept Review
Tapering To Maximize Strength:

How Should We Peak For
Competition?
BY HAYD E N PRI T C HARD
As the final stage in a training cycle, a taper can make or break months of
prior training. How then should a strength athlete undertake this important
phase of training? We’ll consider that question in this concept review.
63
KEY POINTS
1. A taper is a period of training that is performed by an athlete near an important
event or testing session to reduce fatigue and, thus, maximize performance.
2. When tapering to maximize strength, it is important that athletes focus primarily on
substantial reductions in training volume, while making smaller alterations (if any)
to the intensity of training.
3. If an athlete has undertaken more demanding training immediately prior to a taper,
they may require greater reductions in training load or a longer tapering period.
This should be considered by athletes and coaches when planning the taper.
A
taper is a period of training sue 7 of MASS, Dr. Zourdos reviewed a
performed prior to important study that looked at the tapering prac-
competitions or events when tices of Croatian powerlifters and ex-
an athlete wishes to perform at his or her plained some of the different styles of
peak. It has been defined as “a progres- tapering. In this article, we will briefly
sive nonlinear reduction of the training review the fitness-fatigue model, explore
load during a variable period of time, in a case study, and then investigate the
an attempt to reduce the physiological available literature surrounding tapering
and psychological stress of daily training and peaking for maximal strength.
and optimize sports performance” (11).
From this definition, it should be clear
that the taper is not designed to achieve Fitness-Fatigue Model:
further training-induced adaptations,
but rather to improve an athlete’s ability
A Brief Review
to express their current level of fitness The fitness-fatigue model provides a
by minimizing fatigue. In Volume 1, Is- theoretical basis to understand tapering.
Guest Reviewer: Hayden Pritchard, Ph.D.

Dr. Pritchard was awarded his Ph.D. in strength and conditioning from the Auckland University of
Technology in 2017. He is a senior lecturer at UCOL in Palmerston North, New Zealand, teaching
on the Bachelor of Exercise and Sports Science. He holds Australian Strength and Conditioning
Association (ASCA) Level 2 and Australian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) Level 1 Coaching
Accreditations, is the head coach of the UCOL Weightlifting Club, a strength and conditioning
coach for local track athletes, and an online strength coach. As a competitive powerlifter, he
lifted at two IPF World Championships for New Zealand and currently competes at a national
level in the sport of weightlifting. Dr. Pritchard’s current research involvement has continued to
investigate tapering, as well as competition day preparation strategies, in various strength sports.
64
Figure 1 The fitness-fatigue model
Fitness after-effect
Change in performance
Fatigue after-effect
-
This model gives a visual representation only in relation to a single training ses-
of two after-effects of training: fitness sion (although that could be the case) but
and fatigue. Fitness is a positive after-ef- also in response to a period of training;
fect and fatigue is a negative after-effect. consider the accumulated fatigue of a
The product of the two represents the period of overreaching which must sub-
influence of training on performance side before performance improvements
(2). See Figure 1. are realized (2). The objective during
The model shows that fatigue after-ef- the taper is to provide an athlete with
fects rise swiftly following training but the ability to recover from the fatigue of
dissipate relatively quickly. Following training while ensuring that the fitness
strength training, fatigue could encom- gained from training is preserved. Since
pass factors such as damage to muscu- the fitness after-effect is longer lasting,
lar tissue, build-up of metabolic wastes, we can take advantage of this during the
etc. In contrast, the fitness after-effects taper by providing enough recovery to
increase slowly, peaking later than the ensure that fitness is maximized, while
fatigue after-effects, before displaying a fatigue is minimized. However, if too
more gradual decline. Fitness after-ef- much recovery from training is provid-
fects resulting from strength training ed, then fitness will be lost; if too little
could be muscular hypertrophy, en- recovery is allowed, then the athlete may
hanced neuromuscular activation, etc. still be experiencing fatigue. It is a bal-
This model should not be thought of ancing act.
65
Figure 2 Deload week training data
Kapiti novice taper - 2014
30000
I = 80.5%
25000
Training volume (kg)
20000
15000
10000
I = 92.0%
5000
Training week Taper week
A Case Study tensity – deload weeks to test this hy-

pothesis, essentially treating myself as a
When I began reviewing literature in guinea pig.
the initial stages of my doctoral stud- During these deload weeks, I would
ies, I became aware of a trend in the work up to a single top set on each major
research that volume-reduced, higher exercise for the day, and that was it. For
intensity tapers tended to be more ef- example, I may squat up to two reps at 9
fective (10). However, these results were RPE, then move on to the next exercise.
primarily found in relation to endurance I would also do minimal (if any) accesso-
and team-based activities, rather than ry exercises. I had performed a couple of
pure strength sports. The literature on these tapers when, on a Thursday during
strength sports was sparse. In any case, such a deload week, I decided to enter
this made me curious, and I began to a meet that Saturday. That’s not typical-
experiment within my own training by ly the way to enter a meet; however, my
performing low volume – but high in- unplanned taper was effective.
66
Figure 3 Raw powerlifting total progress
750
725
Competition total (kg)
700
675
650
625
600
575
11/02/12
10/06/12
08/10/12
05/02/13
05/06/13
03/10/13
31/01/14
31/05/14
28/09/14
Date
In Figure 2, we see the data of all work- through a little stagnation in my results.
ing sets from the training week prior to The results of this meet are shown as the
the deload and the week of the deload. red dot in Figure 3. However, it should
Training volume fell dramatically, for a be noted that I got injured in August of
drop of approximately 80%, while the 2013, so some of the stagnation in re-
average intensity utilized on major ex- sults was due to recovering from injury.
ercises was more than 10% higher. This I had seen data that had suggested that
was a true example of a low-volume, this approach to tapering could be ef-
high-intensity taper week before a meet. fective, and now I had experimented on
My results, as mentioned above, showed myself and had seen positive results. At
that this taper was effective. I achieved this stage, the literature and my own ex-
personal bests in the squat (+5kg, periences were pointing toward reduced
1.9%), deadlift (+2.5kg, 0.9%), and total volume and higher intensities as being
(+7.5kg, 1.1%). These were lifetime per- an effective tapering strategy for maxi-
sonal bests during an unplanned meet in mal strength. But what did the data say?
the middle of a training cycle that broke And given this was in 2014, what have
67
the data shown since? this study was analyzed in detail by Dr.
We will now investigate the research. Zourdos in an earlier issue of MASS
First, we will examine what strength (Volume 1, Issue 7). Both studies includ-
athletes have been found to do. Second, ed both male and female participants, al-
we will look at what the experimental though more males were utilized in both
data has shown. studies (eight vs. three, and six vs. four,
respectively). Thankfully, much of the
qualitative data was obtained in a similar
What Strength Athletes manner in both studies, and some of this
data is compared in Table 1 and Table 2.
Do In Table 1, we see several similarities in
I thought it would be prudent to start the data. Athletes usually train four to five
our review of the literature by analyzing days per week with their highest training
what we know about the tapering prac- volumes occurring about five weeks out
tices of strength athletes. To the best of and highest training intensities around
my knowledge, we only have two stud- one to two weeks out from a competi-
ies investigating what powerlifters do (5, tion. Tapers are around two and a half
15) and one study looking into the prac- weeks long, during which time volume
tices of strongmen (19). is reduced by more than 50%, and the
In the earliest of these studies (15), my final training session is performed three
research team investigated the tapering to four days out from a competition. The
practices of raw IPF powerlifters from reductions in training frequency, how-
New Zealand that were classified – ac- ever, vary considerably between the two
cording to our national classifications studies. Not shown above, but indicat-
– as “elite.” In our study, we conducted in both studies, is that the training
ed semi-structured interviews with 11 intensity usually remains relatively high
lifters (28.4 ± 7.0 years old, with Wilks and is even increased by some lifters in
scores of 431.9 ± 43.9). These interviews the Grgic and Mikulic study.
were structured in a manner such that The data in Table 2 also show us some
both quantitative data (e.g. how many trends within the studies. We see that
days is a taper?) and qualitative data (e.g. out of the three competition lifts, the
why do you taper?) could be obtained. In heavy deadlift session was performed
a similar manner, Grgic and Mikulic (5) the furthest out from a competition in
conducted semi-structured interviews both studies, and the heavy bench press
with 10 Croatian open-class powerlift- session was performed the closest to
ing champions (29.2 ± 3.2 years old, competition. The percentages utilized in
with best Wilks scores of 355.1 ± 54.8); these final heavy sessions are also quite
68
Table 1 Powerlifting interviews general tapering results
Training or tapering characteristic Pritchard et al Grgic and Mikulic
Usual training frequency

2.07 ± 1.06 1.67 ± 1.08
(days per week)
Highest average training volume
5.2 ± 1.7 4.5 ± 1.8
(weeks out)
Highest average training intensity
1.9 ± 0.8 1.1 ± 0.4
(weeks out)
Usual length of taper (weeks) 2.4 ± 0.9 2.6 ± 1.1
Decrease in training volume during

58.9 ± 8.4% 50.5 ± 11.7%
the taper
Decrease in training frequency during
34.7 ± 14.2% 47.9 ± 17.5%
Final training session (days out) 3.7 ± 1.6 3±1
similar, all approaching or exceeding other recovery strategies (e.g. nutrition,

90% of 1RM and all occurring within foam rolling, etc.). While we found lift-
the tapering period. We also see consid- ers often gained information on training
erable variation (as shown in the SD) for strategies through trial and error or by
both studies in terms of the percentage feel, Grgic and Mikulic found their lift-
of 1RM utilized during the final train- ers often tapered based on recommen-
ing session on all lifts – meaning this fi- dations from their coaches; in both cas-
nal session may have been quite heavy es, a reliance on the literature was not a
for some lifters, or extremely light for common information source.
others. One aspect that Grgic and Mikulic
There are also similarities in the qual- investigated that our study did not was
itative data. Tapering is usually under- the type of tapering employed by the
taken to reduce fatigue (or recover), ac- athletes. For more details around what
cessory (or assistance) exercises are often these types of tapers represent, please see
removed from the program, lifters train Dr. Zourdos’ earlier MASS article. They
with the same equipment they will utilize found that most lifters they interviewed
in competition, and they often employ (60%) employed an exponential taper
69
Table 2 Powerlifting interviews quantitative results
Days out from competition Top set(s) percentage of 1RM

Final training
session type
Pritchard et al Grgic and Mikulic Pritchard et al Grgic and Mikulic
Final heavy squat

8.0 ± 2.9 7±1 90.0 ± 5.4 93.4 ± 3.2
session
Final squat session 4.0 ± 1.8 4±2 66.0 ± 15.7 65.9 ± 19.9
Final heavy bench

7.3 ± 2.7 6±2 92.2 ± 5.7 93.2 ± 2.8
press session
Final bench press
4.0 ± 1.8 3±1 67.3 ± 18.1 65.2 ± 20.3
session
Final heavy deadlift
10.9 ± 4.0 8±2 88.9 ± 6.1 93.8 ± 3.6
session
Final deadlift
7.4 ± 4.1 4±3 72.6 ± 18.5 65.8 ± 19.7
session
“Heavy” means a training session where a weight above 85% of 1RM was used.
with a fast decay, while the remainder of those who didn’t taper ceased training
(40%) performed a step taper. They hy- prior to the competition, while others
pothesized that these types may be used sometimes trained through the events
because they allow a large initial drop or didn’t know how to taper. During the
in volume, while slow decay and linear taper, most athletes (55%) tended to re-
tapers would require a longer tapering duce their training intensity. Athletes
period that could potentially negatively also stated that tapers were primarily
impact performance. performed to recover and/or attain peak
I was recently involved in a further performance.
study led by Dr. Winwood in which In the survey, the professional strong-
our research team investigated the ta- man athletes surveyed (n=45) stated that
pering practices of strongmen using a training volume peaked 5.0 ± 2.7 weeks
survey (19). 454 athletes from 42 differ- out from competition, while training
ent countries completed the survey (353 intensity peaked 2.6 ± 0.9 weeks out.
males and 101 females, 33.2 ± 8.0 years Tapering was generally 1.1 ± 0.6 weeks
old, with 12.6 ± 8.9 years of resistance long, the final heavy session (>85% of
training experience, and 4.6 ± 4.4 years 1RM) was performed 8.7 ± 3.1 days out
competing in strongman). That survey from competition, and all training ceased
found that 87% of all athletes undertook 4.3 ± 2.0 days before competition. In-
tapering, while 13% didn’t. Nearly half terestingly, most professional strongman
70
athletes (n=85) who tapered performed
a step taper (42%), with similar numbers
performing linear (19%), exponential SOME INTERESTING
(19%), or other tapers (21%). Note that
the difference in sample sizes indicated SIMILARITIES WERE
above is due to some athletes not com- OBSERVED ACROSS THE
pleting all sections within the survey.
It should be noted that each of the STUDIES, SPECIFICALLY THAT
studies above has simply explored the TRAINING IS CEASED 3-4
current practices of strength athletes.
Therefore, although these studies pro- DAYS PRIOR TO COMPETITION,
vide insights into common practices,
they are not strategies proven to be ef-
TRAINING INTENSITY PEAKS
fective through controlled experimen- APPROXIMATELY 1-2 WEEKS
tation. However, some interesting simi-
larities were observed across the studies, PRIOR TO COMPETITION, AND
specifically that training is ceased 3-4 STEP OR EXPONENTIAL TAPERS
days prior to competition, training in-
tensity peaks approximately 1-2 weeks ARE MOST COMMONLY USED
prior to competition, and step or expo-
nential tapers are most commonly used
BY STRENGTH ATHLETES.
by strength athletes. Let’s now move
on to some experimental research that
has investigated tapering for maximal IPF Classic World Championships, a
strength. difference of only 2.3 ± 1.4% was the dif-
ference between finishing third or miss-
ing the podium (12), while McGuigan
The Tapering Studies and Kane (9) found changes as little as
Before we discuss the tapering studies, 1.2% to be considered meaningful in
it is worth noting that changes in taper- elite Olympic weightlifters. This high-
ing are not large. It has been reported lights the importance of small changes
that changes from tapering may range in studies related to tapering, especial-
from 0.5-6.0% (7). This is not surprising, ly at the higher levels, and results from
given a taper is usually only a period of studies should be interpreted with this
weeks. However, in competition, small in mind.
changes are meaningful. For example, in Some initial studies on tapering
powerlifting we found that at the 2016 showed it to be effective in strength ath-
71
letes but didn’t compare different types tioning – with a one-week step taper
of tapering. Hakkinen et al (6) per- of reduced volume (≈30-40%) and in-
formed one of the earliest studies and tensity (≈35%). Improvements in isoki-
utilized a step taper. In Hakkinen’s study, netic torque of the knee extensors and
10 male strength athletes (powerlifters flexors at a low velocity were seen in
and bodybuilders) performed two weeks comparison to pre-taper values (45.6%
of normal training followed by a one- and 15.6%, respectively), while non-sig-
week step taper of a 50% decrease in vol- nificant increases were observed com-
ume with maintained intensity. The five pared to pre-taper for 3RM bench press
higher level athletes – Finnish national (5.2%) and squat (7.2%). No significant
powerlifting competitors – significant- changes were observed in performance
ly increased leg extensor force during compared to pre-training values, per-
an isometric contraction (8.3%), while haps indicating a one-week taper was an
the weaker five athletes did not (-3.6%). insufficient time frame to fully recover
Gibala et al (4) had a less-trained cohort from the six weeks of training. Marri-
(resistance trained for >1 year) and em- er et al (8) followed a four-week train-
ployed a linear taper. Specifically, 10 male ing camp with a three-week step taper,
participants performed a 10-day taper where strength training volume was
following three weeks of biceps training. reduced by ≈50%, running volume by
During the taper, the number of sets was ≈30%, and training frequency by ≈20%.
reduced each training day (reducing the Training intensity remained unchanged.
volume by 72% overall), but intensity re- Ten elite male rugby sevens players com-
mained unchanged. Following the taper, pleted the study. Isometric mid-thigh
significant improvements were observed pull (IMTP) force showed small im-
in peak torque in an isometric contrac- provements (qualitative difference very
tion of the elbow flexors (6.8%) com- likely with a small increase, effect size =
pared to pre-training; however, other 0.43), from pre-training values to peak
significant strength improvements were values during the taper. These studies
also observed at two, four, six, and eight point toward improvements in strength
days into the taper. measures following volume-reduced
Further studies have utilized athletes strength tapers (from 30-70%) in vari-
in the sport of rugby league and rugby ous cohorts of strength trained athletes.
sevens – not pure strength sports, but Limited studies have directly com-
well-trained strength athletes. Coutts et pared different tapering strategies, with
al (3) had seven male, state-level rugby only the work of Zaras et al (20) and our
league players who followed six weeks recently published study (13) directly
of training – both strength and condi- comparing strength tapers of different
72
“
While general recommendations can be
provided, it is imperative that the individual
is considered. Specifically, how have they
tapered previously? And how much training
load have they been under prior to this taper?
intensities. and basic shot throws. However, there

Zaras et al (20) had 13 throwers (seven were no differences between tapering
males and six females) train for 12-15 approaches for enhancing sport-specific
weeks and then perform either a light throwing performance.
(30% of 1RM) or heavy (85% of 1RM) In our recent study, we had 11 strength
two-week step taper. During each ta- trained (relative deadlift 1RM of 1.9
per, athletes were instructed to “perform ± 0.2 times body weight) males per-
each repetition with maximum inten- form four weeks of powerlifting-spe-
tional speed” or “project the loads as far cific strength training followed by one
as possible or jump as high as possible.” of two one-week step tapers. During
Each participant performed both tapers both tapers, volume was reduced by
in a randomized crossover fashion, with ≈70%, while intensity was either higher
the number of training weeks prior to (+5.9%) or lower (-8.5%) in comparison
the taper differing slightly due to stage to the final week of training. In terms
of the season. Volume and intensity were of strength measures, isometric mid-
reduced in the light taper in comparison thigh pull relative peak force improved
to the two-week pre-competitive period, over time (pooled data), with post hoc
while the heavy taper had comparable testing revealing significant increas-
intensity and volume to that period but es from pre-training (34.7 ± 5.0 N/kg)
lower volume than the training preced- to post-training (35.9 ± 4.8 N/kg). No
ing that. The heavy taper produced great- further significant change was observed
er percentage increases when compared at post-taper. Significant improvements
to the light taper in maximal leg press over time were also observed for CMJ
isometric peak force (17.9 ± 5.0% vs. 2.4 height (at all time points) and the ra-
± 3.1%), as well as in leg press 1RM (5.9 tio of CMJ flight time to contraction
± 3.2% vs. -3.4 ± 2.5%). The heavy taper time (from pre- to post-training). When
also showed greater improvements in comparing tapers, no significant differ-
comparison to the light taper for squat ences were found for one taper compared
jump power, rate of force development, to the other. However, we did see small
73
effect size improvements at post-taper ing, this was a commonly recommended
versus pre-training for the high inten- strategy: “just take the week off.” Sev-
sity group for isometric mid-thigh pull eral researchers have investigated such
relative peak force, CMJ height, and the a strategy, and fairly consistent findings
ratio of CMJ flight time to contraction have been observed.
time. A small effect was noted only for Anderson and Cattanach (1) per-
CMJ height in the lower intensity group. formed some early work in this area with
For brevity, I haven’t discussed the trained athletes in a study published as a
mechanistic findings; however, studies conference abstract. After five weeks of
investigating mechanisms have been strength training three days per week,
limited, and their findings are inconclu- 41 NCAA Division One track and field
sive. One point worth mentioning is the athletes (22 male, 19 female) were split
enhanced performance in power tasks into groups and rested for two, four, or
seen in some of the studies above. Such seven days post-training. Participants
a change may represent an enhanced demonstrated small improvements (an
(or less fatigued) neuromuscular system average of 4.9%) in squat and bench
(16), but since the specific mechanisms press 1RM following the rest periods,
are unclear, this is an area in need of fur- with no time frame being more benefi-
ther investigation. cial than the others.
When looking at the above results, we Weiss et al conducted two studies
observe that volume-reduced strength looking at training cessation (17, 18).
tapers appear to be effective in enhancing Their initial study involved 54 previ-
various measures of maximal strength. ously untrained male participants who
We also see that in most of the tapers trained the plantar flexors for three days
above, training intensity was main- per week over eight weeks, before be-
tained. However, in the limited studies ing split into groups to take two, three,
comparing tapers, there was a tendency four, or five days off training (17). They
for higher intensity tapers to be more ef- found small ES improvements in 1RM
fective. Given the limited data, though, heel raise in the groups who had three
this is far from clear. days (ES = 0.30) and four days (ES =
0.38) of training cessation, with only
trivial changes for two and five days. The
What About Time Off? improvement observed for the four-day
Another form of peaking for an event group was significantly greater than both
is training cessation. Such a strategy the two- and five-day groups. In their
simply involves taking time away from later study, 25 resistance-trained males
training. When I first began powerlift- (≥1.5 years training and ≥1.25 body
74
weight bench press) followed a four- hoc testing revealed significant increases
week strength training plan focused on from pre-training to post-training ces-
the upper body (18). Participants were sation for both CMJ height and isomet-
tested on both their bench press 1RM ric bench press relative peak force (both
and isokinetic bench press (at two ve- associated with small ES) and from
locities) before training, and after either pre-training to post-training for body
two, three, four, or five days of training weight (associated with a trivial ES). We
cessation, as in their initial study. In this found no significant differences between
study, no significant changes were not- groups or in any biochemical or psycho-
ed for any measures. However, force was logical measures collected. So, although
improved (associated with small ES) for we couldn’t determine any specific
the lower velocity isokinetic bench press mechanisms, the CMJ height improve-
in the four days and two days (relative ments at post-training cessation versus
only) groups and for relative 1RM bench pre-training may indicate neuromus-
press in the two-days group. These stud- cular function was improved following
ies, although not conclusive, seem to in- training cessation, given the neuromus-
dicate that 2-4 days off training may be cular demands of the task. Our results
most beneficial for enhancing strength reinforce earlier work that demonstrat-
and that up to one week off training ed that short periods of training cessa-
does not harm maximal strength. tion may enhance performance, but the
Our work in this area (14) utilized mechanisms remain unclear.
a powerlifting-focused strength pro- It appears that the peaking strategy of
gram for four weeks, prior to either “taking a week off ” has some merit. The
3.5 or 5.5 days of training cessation. above research demonstrates that from
Each participant completed both du- two days to a week off training is po-
rations in a counterbalanced, random- tentially able to improve performance,
ized crossover design. Eight strength or at least maintain it, with perhaps
trained (1RM deadlift of 1.90 ± 0.30 around four days appearing most bene-
times body weight) participants com- ficial. However, the mechanisms remain
pleted the study. Performance measures to be determined; a reduction in fatigue
included the countermovement jump, is likely, but the specifics of this are yet
isometric mid-thigh pull, and an iso- to be fully explained.
metric bench press. We found signifi-
cant improvements over time for CMJ
height and isometric bench press rela- Conclusions and Future
tive peak force, as well as significant in-
creases in body weight over time. Post
Research
We now know that a taper is primarily
75
1. During a strength taper, the primary focus should be reducing training volume with
smaller alterations (if any) to training intensity.
2. A minimum of two days (48 hours) – but no more than a week – should be taken
off training to peak for a strength event. Around four days appears to be optimal to
enhance maximal strength.
3. An athlete’s prior training must be considered when planning a taper. Greater training
loads – or longer training periods – prior to the taper will likely mean more fatigue to
recover from, which may require larger reductions in training load or a longer period
of tapering.
4. There is no “one size fits all” model for the taper. It is essential that athletes keep
detailed training diaries in the lead up to major competitions. This will enable reflection
and subsequent improvements in future tapers.
undertaken to reduce fatigue and allow performance. If this strategy is utilized

peak performance to occur at a speci- on its own, then around four days off
fied event or at a given time. Substan- training may be optimal. However, I
tial reductions in training volume are of would suggest a shorter time frame at
primary importance during the taper. A the end of a taper – such as two days (48
method often utilized by strength ath- hours) before the event or testing day.
letes is to remove accessory exercises While general recommendations can
during the taper, making training more be provided, it is imperative that the in-
specific while also reducing training dividual is considered. Specifically, how
volume. Less is known about changes have they tapered previously? And how
to training frequency (so recommenda- much training load have they been un-
tions are less clear), but I would suggest der prior to this taper? Keeping accu-
that it should be maintained; however, rate training logs will allow reflection on
frequency could potentially be reduced both effective and ineffective tapering
to achieve volume reductions. Lastly, it strategies for that individual. A particu-
appears that training intensity should be larly demanding training period prior to
maintained, or smaller alterations should a given taper may require greater reduc-
be made to it compared to volume. tions in training load or a longer taper-
Another peaking strategy could be taking period.
ing time completely away from training, So, where should we go from here?
with periods of up to a week allowing There is still much to be investigated.
maintained (or even enhanced) strength
76
Research to date has very rarely com-
pared different tapering strategies, so
this needs to be investigated further.
Specifically, we know very little about
whether one type of taper (i.e. step or
exponential) is more effective. Further-
more, whether higher intensity tapers
are better than lower intensity tapers re-
mains unclear, although our limited data
tends to support higher intensity tapers.
77
References
1. Anderson T and Cattanach D. Effects of three different rest periods on expression of developed
strength [abstract]. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 7: 185, 1993.
2. Chiu LZ and Barnes JL. The fitness-fatigue model revisited: Implications for planning short-and
long-term training. Strength & Conditioning Journal 25: 42-51, 2003.
3. Coutts A, Reaburn P, Piva TJ, and Murphy A. Changes in selected biochemical, muscular strength,
power, and endurance measures during deliberate overreaching and tapering in rugby league players.
International Journal of Sports Medicine 28: 116-124, 2007.
4. Gibala MJ, MacDougall JD, and Sale DG. The effects of tapering on strength performance in trained
athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine 15: 492-497, 1994.
5. Grgic J and Mikulic P. Tapering practices of Croatian open-class powerlifting champions. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 31: 2371-2378, 2016.
6. Häkkinen K, Kallinen M, Komi PV, and Kauhanen H. Neuromuscular adaptations during short-
term "normal" and reduced training periods in strength athletes. Electromyography and Clinical
Neurophysiology 31: 35-42, 1991.
7. Le Meur Y, Hausswirth C, and Mujika I. Tapering for competition: A review. Science & Sports 27:
77-87, 2012.
8. Marrier B, Robineau J, Piscione J, Lacome M, Peeters A, Hausswirth C, Morin J-B, and Meur YL.
Supercompensation kinetics of physical qualities during a taper in team sport athletes. International
Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12: 1163-1169, 2017.
9. McGuigan MR and Kane MK. Reliability of performance of elite Olympic weightlifters. The Jour-
nal of Strength & Conditioning Research 18: 650-653, 2004.
10. Mujika I. Intense training: The key to optimal performance before and during the taper. Scandina-
vian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 20: 24-31, 2010.
11. Mujika I and Padilla S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adap-
tations. Part I. Sports Medicine 30: 79-87, 2000.
12. Pritchard H. Tapering strategies to enhance maximal strength. (Doctoral Thesis). Auckland Univer-
sity of Technology, 2017.
13. Pritchard HJ, Barnes MJ, Stewart RJ, Keogh JW, and McGuigan MR. Higher vs. lower intensi-
ty strength training taper: Effects on neuromuscular performance. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance: Epub Ahead of Print, 2018.
14. Pritchard HJ, Barnes MJ, Stewart RJC, Keogh JWL, and McGuigan MR. Short term training ces-
sation as a method of tapering to improve maximal strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research 32: 458-465, 2018.
15. Pritchard HJ, Tod DA, Barnes MJ, Keogh JW, and McGuigan MR. Tapering practices of New
Zealand's elite raw powerlifters. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30: 1796-1804, 2016.
16. Twist C and Highton J. Monitoring fatigue and recovery in rugby league players. International Jour-
nal of Sports Physiology and Performance 8: 467-474, 2013.
17. Weiss LW, Coney HD, and Clark FC. Optimal post-training abstinence for maximal strength ex-
78
pression. Research in Sports Medicine 11: 145-155, 2003.
18. Weiss LW, Wood LE, Fry AC, Kreider RB, Relyea GE, Bullen DB, and Grindstaff PD. Strength/
power augmentation subsequent to short-term training abstinence. Journal of Strength & Condition-
ing Research 18: 765-770, 2004.
19. Winwood PW, Dudson MK, Wilson D, Mclaren-Harrison JK, Redjkins V, Pritchard HJ, and Keogh
JW. Tapering practices of strongman athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 32:
1181-1196, 2018.
20. Zaras N, Stasinaki A, Krase A, Methenitis S, Karampatsos G, Georgiadis G, Spengos K, and Terzis
G. Effects of tapering with light vs. heavy loads on track and field throwing performance. Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research 28: 3484-3495, 2014.
79
Study Reviewed: Internal Loads, but Not External Loads and Fatigue Are Similar in
Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males during High Volume Squatting
Exercise. Fernandes et al. (2018)
Do Middle-Aged Lifters Fatigue

Faster than the Young Guys?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
Most people expect that they’ll fatigue faster during training once
they leave their 30s behind. A new study found that older lifters
can still keep up.
80
KEY POINTS
1. During high-volume (10x10 at 60% of 1RM) squatting exercise, young and middle-
aged lifters seem to fatigue at similar rates.
2. Across the entire sample, increases in heart rate during the session were associated
with decreases in force and power output.
3. Many people just take for granted that they’ll fatigue faster once they leave their
youth behind. This study shows that, as long as you keep training, you probably
don’t have much to worry about, at least during middle age.
E
xercise science literature is full of drive. This study indicates that, as long
studies comparing young (<30 as you keep training, intra-session fa-
years old) and geriatric (>65 tigue shouldn’t hold you back, at least
years old) lifters. There are a few prac- into your 50s.
tical reasons for such studies: there’s a
lot of funding for research into geriat-
ric populations, and most measures of Purpose and Research
performance decrease precipitously by
the time people enter their seventh de-
Questions
cade on this Earth, making it easier to
Purpose
attain significant results. However, mid-
dle-aged folks get the shaft. Most peo- The primary purpose of this study was
ple recognize that they’re not going to to compare internal and external train-
be in peak physical shape at 75, but they ing loads in young and middle-aged
want to know what to expect when they men after a high-volume, lower body re-
reach their 40s or 50s. So, when a study sistance training session. The secondary
is published on middle-aged lifters, I’m purpose was to investigate the relation-
quick to jump on it for MASS. ship between measures of training load
and post-training decreases in muscle
In the current study (1), young
function.
and middle-aged lifters completed a
high-volume squat workout (10x10
Research Questions
at 60% of 1RM), while researchers as-
sessed a load of internal and external 1. Would internal training loads (heart
markers of fatigue. There were no sub- rate, per-set RPE, and session RPE)
stantial differences in any of the fatigue differ between young and mid-
markers, ranging from velocity, to power dle-aged lifters during and follow-
output, to perceived exertion, to motor ing a high-volume squat session?
81
2. Would external training loads The study took place over the course
(peak velocity, peak power, and vol- of two lab visits per subject. The first
ume load) differ between young visit was simply for anthropometric as-
and middle-aged lifters during a sessments (height, weight, body compo-
high-volume squat session? sition), familiarization with the testing
3. Would pre- to post-exercise de- protocols, and strength testing for the
creases in muscle function (max- squat.
imum voluntary contractile force, The second visit took place 2-4 days
voluntary activation, muscle excit- after the first visit. The second visit start-
ability, and peak power with 20% ed with a variety of tests, followed by 10
and 80% of 1RM loads) differ be- sets of 10 squats with 60% of 1RM, and
tween young and middle-aged lift- two minutes of rest between sets. Par-
ers following a high-volume squat ticipants were instructed to move each
session? rep as fast as possible for the concentric,
4. Would the ratios between internal and depth requirements were roughly
and external training load measures the same as powerlifting depth require-
differ between young and mid- ments (i.e. hips had to sink below the
dle-aged lifters? knees). After the tenth set, the same set
of tests were repeated, and the partici-
5. Would any of the internal or exter-
pants provided a session RPE score 15
nal measures of training load be as-
minutes after the last set.
sociated with any of the measures
of decreased muscle function? Measures
Before and after the squat session, re-
Subjects and Methods searchers measured peak power in the
squat at 20% and 80% of 1RM, blood
Subjects lactate levels, maximum voluntary con-
traction force of the knee extensors, vol-
The subjects were nine young men (21- untary activation, and resting doublet
25 years old) and nine middle-aged men force.
(35-54 years old). All participants had at
least two years of sports experience and Most of those measurements should
at least two years of lifting experience, be familiar to MASS readers, but volun-
and they all regularly squatted as part of tary activation and resting doublet force
their training programs. require a bit more explanation. Resting
doublet force gives you an idea about
Design decreases in muscle contractile capacity
due to local factors, while voluntary ac-
82
Figure 1 RPE scores (mean ± SD) across each set for young and middle-aged groups
Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
-0.07 -0.32 -0.35 -0.13 -0.29 -0.14 -0.28 -0.32 -0.36 -0.35
(-0.86, 0.72) (-1.10, 0.47) (-1.14, 0.44) (-0.91, 0.66) (-1.08, -0.50) (-0.93, 0.64) (-1.07, 0.51) (-1.11, 0.47) (-1.15, 0.43) (-1.14, 0.45)
10
8
7
RPE
5
4
3
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Set
Young Middle-aged
Qualitative descriptor, effect size, and upper and lower 90% confidence intervals are noted above.
tivation gives you an idea about decreas- activation, you have the participant ex-
es in muscle contractile capacity due to ert as much force as they possibly can,
central factors. To assess resting doublet and then you apply an additional electri-
force, you apply a brief electrical current cal current to the muscle, which further
(of a fixed voltage) to the subject’s mus- increases force output. If that addition-
cle, which causes an involuntary muscle al electrical current only causes a small
contraction, and see how much force the increase in force output, voluntary ac-
subject produces. Central motor drive is tivation is high, meaning that you were
taken out of the equation, so decreases already effectively recruiting essentially
in resting doublet force tell you that lo- all of your motor units. If the additional
cal factors (disruption of actin and my- electrical current causes a large increase
osin cross-bridges, damage to the sarco- in force output, voluntary activation is
lemma, compromised calcium handling, low, meaning that your attempt at pro-
decreased nerve or sarcolemma excit- ducing maximal force was still leaving a
ability, etc.) are contributing to decreas- lot of motor units un-recruited.
es in force output. Voluntary activation, During the session, the researchers as-
on the other hand, assesses decreases in sessed peak velocity and power for each
central motor drive. To assess voluntary set, volume load completed (sets x reps
83
Figure 2 Peak velocity (mean ± SD) across each set for young and middle-aged groups
Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear
0.10 -0.13 -0.13 -0.29 -0.23 -0.14 -0.25 -0.08 0.14 -0.07
(-0.71, 0.91) (-0.94, 0.68) (-0.94, 0.68) (-1.08, 0.49) (-1.02, 0.56) (-0.93, 0.64) (-1.04, 0.53) (-0.86, 0.71) (-0.64, 0.93) (-0.88, 0.74)
140
130
Peak velocity (cm/s)
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Set
Young Middle-aged
Qualitative descriptor, effect size, and upper and lower 90% confidence intervals are noted above.
x load), heart rate at the end of each set, middle-aged lifters, but that’s probably
and ratings of perceived exertion. The due to the fact that your maximal heart
RPE scale they used was an effort-based rate decreases as age increases. Relative
scale (0 = “extremely easy” and 10 = “ex- heart rate wasn’t calculated, but it prob-
tremely hard”), rather than a reps-in-re- ably would have been even more simi-
serve based scale, which is probably what lar between the young and middle-aged
most MASS readers are accustomed to. subjects. Furthermore, heart rate tend-
Fifteen minutes after completion of the ed to increase from set-to-set in both
session, the participants also provided a groups, and the rate of the change was
session RPE rating, using the same type similar between groups (an increase of
of scale (0 = “really easy” and 10 = “max- 1.72 beats per minute per set for young
imal”). lifters, and 1.91 beats per minute per
set in middle-aged lifters). Set-to-set
increases in RPE were also similar be-
Findings tween groups (0.36 points per set in the
Heart rate and RPE didn’t meaning- young lifters, and 0.34 points per set in
fully differ between the young and mid- the middle-aged lifters).
dle-aged lifters. Heart rate tended to be Power output in each set tended to be
about 10 beats per minute lower in the higher for the young lifters, but that’s
84
Table 1 Pre- and post-session measurements
Between-group
Measurements Age group Pre Post % change
Young 265.7 179.2 -32.6%

Maximum isometric
0.40
force (N.m)
Middle-aged 199.1 144.9 -27.2%
Young 93.4 85.3 -8.7%

Voluntary activation
-0.46
(%)
Middle-aged 93.6 82.9 -11.4%
Young 85.1 64.2 -24.6%

Resting doublet
0.00
(N*m)
Middle-aged 69.2 48.3 -30.2%
Young 507.9 486.6 -4.2%

20% peak power
-0.07
(W)
Middle-aged 387.4 357.6 -7.7%
Young 1295.3 1098.5 -15.2%

80% peak power
0.17
(W)
Middle-aged 977.1 831.9 -14.9%
Young 1.9 9.8 415.8%

Blood lactate
2.46
(mmol/L)
Middle-aged 1.6 8.1 406.3%
A positive effect size represent less fatigability in middle-aged subjects.
probably just due to the fact that they the pre-exercise variability in both mea-
were stronger than the middle-aged lift- sures was very low, which inflates effect
ers. Peak velocity was similar in both sizes.
groups in all sets. The rate at which ve- Change in heart rate during the train-
locity and power decreased from set-to- ing session was moderately associated
set was also similar in both groups. with changes in isometric knee exten-
Decreases in knee extension isomet- sion force and peak power at 80% of
ric contraction strength, resting dou- 1RM (r=0.45 and 0.50). Volume load
blet force, and power output at 20% and completed during the training session
80% of 1RM were similar between the was also moderately associated with
young and middle-aged adults. The mid- changes in isometric knee extension
dle-aged lifters had slightly larger de- force and peak power at 20% and 80%
creases in voluntary activation (d=0.46; of 1RM (r=0.50-0.59). However, vol-
medium effect), while the young lift- ume load was based solely on the lifters’
ers had larger increases in blood lactate strength (since all of the lifters used 60%
(d=2.46; large effect). However, I doubt of 1RM for their sets), so it stands to
either of those differences really matter; reason that stronger lifters would have
85
larger absolute decreases in strength and
power measures. It would be more in-
formative to assess whether volume load OVERALL, IT SEEMS THAT
was associated with relative (percentage)
decreases in strength and power; my ACUTE FATIGABILITY
hunch is that the associations would be
much weaker, or possibly nonexistent. AND RECOVERY RATES
DON’T REALLY START
Interpretation DROPPING OFF UNTIL
This wouldn’t be a MASS issue if I
didn’t complain about the statistical LIFTERS ARE APPROACHING
analysis in at least one article. The au-
thors used magnitude-based inference THEIR 50S OR 60S.
(which is already problematic; 2), and
I’m not entirely sure how they calcu-
lated their effect sizes. The decrease in demographic, and many MASS readers
resting doublet force does the best job of are middle-aged or approaching mid-
illustrating the issue. Both groups had a dle-aged, so I’m always excited to review
decrease in resting doublet force of 20.9 the rare papers that give more insight into
Nm. If the mean change is the same, the physiology of middle-aged lifters.
the between-group effect size should And, in spite of my complaining about
be zero (which is how I reported it in their statistical analysis, I very much
Table 1). Somehow, they reported that enjoyed this study. The authors collect-
as a large effect (d=1.53), with a larger ed a lot of data, looking at everything
decrease seen in the middle-aged sub- from performance decrements using “re-
jects. So, if you check out the full text al-world” measures (velocity and power),
of the paper, and you notice that their to perceptions of effort, to mechanistic
effect sizes don’t match the effect sizes data. All in all, this is about as thorough
reported in this article, that’s why. as an acute fatigue paper can get.
As I’ve noted before in MASS, there’s In this study, the young lifters were
a tremendous amount of research com- stronger, more muscular, and leaner,
paring young and elderly (65+ years old) but most of the major markers of fa-
adults, but very little research compar- tigue were similar between groups. As
ing young and middle-aged adults. I like I noted in the results section, the me-
to make sure Eric is up-to-date on the dium-to-large effect sizes for voluntary
research that affects people in his age activation and blood lactate probably ar-
86
Figure 3
Active people
Fatigue resistance and recoverability
Sedentary
to active
Active to
sedentary
Sedentary people
20 40 60 80
Age
Theoretical representation of how fatigue resistance and recoverability may

change with age, based on activity level.
en’t worth getting too worked up about tween change in heart rate during the
(a 2.4% difference in voluntary activa- session and decreases in isometric force
tion and 1.7mmol/L of lactate likely ar- and peak power at 80% of 1RM. This
en’t physiologically meaningful), and the suggests that, regardless of age, lifters in
only other medium effect size (d=0.40) worse cardiovascular shape experience
was for maximum isometric contraction, larger performance decrements during
with a larger decrease for young adults. high-volume training. That’s not incred-
However, the young adults were stronger ibly surprising, but it’s always nice when
to begin with, so even though they had a data support a supposition that makes
larger MVC decrease in absolute terms, intuitive sense.
the percentage decrease was similar in This study is a good complement for
both groups (32.6% for young adults, a previous paper we reviewed in MASS
and 27.2% for older adults). In terms of (3), which found that middle-aged lifters
the associations, the only ones that re- and young lifters recover at similar rates
ally interest me are the associations be-
87
It doesn’t seem that within-session fatigability differs between young and middle-aged
lifters. If you’re nearing middle-age, you shouldn’t worry about increased fatigability
due simply to the passage of time, and if you’re currently a middle-aged lifter, you
should still be able to keep up with most of the young guys.
following training. Overall, it seems that when they were younger. And if they
acute fatigability and recovery rates don’t were in excellent shape in their youth,
really start dropping off until lifters are that may be true to some degree – they’ll
approaching their 50s or 60s. probably have a few more aches and
Now, I do think that some drop-off pains, and they may never surpass their
probably starts occurring before you prior physical peak – but they should be
reach your seventh decade of life. How- able to get back to a point where they fa-
ever, it seems that the decline is smaller tigue and recover at a rate that’s at least
than is detectable with the sample sizes comparable to that of their youth. Being
you’ll see in most exercise science stud- equipped with this information can help
ies. Here’s a conceptual model for how combat the fatalism a lot of people feel.
I think fatigability and recoverability
changes with age, based on whether you
stay active. Next Steps
If you’re sedentary, there’s likely a The guys in this study were stronger
steady drop-off that starts in your 20s than the folks you’ll find in most ran-
and continues throughout adulthood. dom gyms, but they were far from elite
If you stay active, that drop-off is likely lifters. I’d love to see whether there’s a
much less steep, such that a 50-year-old larger difference in intra-session fatiga-
lifter may be comparable to a couch po- bility between young and middle-aged
tato in their 30s. Age catches up with lifters who compete in strength sports
everyone eventually, but you can impact at a high level. Furthermore, intra-ses-
how quickly it gains on you. sion fatigability is a trainable quality, so
I’d love to see a longitudinal study in-
I think studies like this are helpful,
vestigating whether volume tolerance
especially if you train or coach many
improves at similar rates in untrained
middle-aged folks. I’ve talked to a lot
young and middle-aged adults.
of people in their 40s who’ve gotten out
of shape and think that there’s no way
they’ll be able to feel the way they felt
88
References
1. Fernandes JFT, Lamb KL, Twist C. Internal Loads, but Not External Loads and Fatigue Are Similar
in Young and Middle-Aged Resistance-Trained Males during High Volume Squatting Exercise. J.
Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2018, 3(3), 45.
2. Sainani KL. The Problem with "Magnitude-based Inference." Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018
Oct;50(10):2166-2176.
3. Gordon JA 3rd, Hoffman JR, Arroyo E, Varanoske AN, Coker NA, Gepner Y, Wells AJ, Stout JR,
Fukuda DH. Comparisons in the Recovery Response from Resistance Exercise between Young and
Middle-Aged Men. J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Aug 29.
89
VIDEO: Iron Supplementation
in Strength Sport
Many supplements have equivocal findings, but when it comes to

endurance exercise performance, iron supplementation is actually
recommended by multiple organizations. Do the benefits of iron
supplementation translate to strength performance?
Click to watch Michael's presentation.
90
References
1. Pasricha SR, Low M, Thompson J, Farrell A, De-Regil LM. Iron Supplementation Benefits Physi-
cal Performance in Women of Reproductive Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis–3. The
Journal of nutrition. 2014 Apr 9;144(6):906-14.
2. Mielgo-Ayuso J, Urdampilleta A, Martínez-Sanz JM, Seco J. Dietary iron intake and deficiency in
elite women volleyball players. Nutricion hospitalaria. 2012;27(5):1592-7.
3. Mielgo-Ayuso J, Zourdos MC, Calleja-González J, Urdampilleta A, Ostojic S. Iron supplementa-
tion prevents a decline in iron stores and enhances strength performance in elite female volleyball
players during the competitive season. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2015 Feb
10;40(6):615-22.
4. Zoller H, Vogel W. Iron supplementation in athletes—first do no harm. Nutrition. 2004 Jul 1;20(7-
8):615-9.
5. Rubeor A, Goojha C, Manning J, White J. Does Iron Supplementation Improve Performance in
Iron-Deficient Nonanemic Athletes? Sports health. 2018 May 1:1941738118777488.
6. Ahmadi A, Enayatizadeh N, Akbarzadeh M, Asadi S, Tabatabaee SH. Iron status in female athletes
participating in team ball-sports. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2010 Jan 15;13(2):93.
7. Lyle RM, Weaver CM, Sedlock DA, Rajaram S, Martin B, Melby CL. Iron status in exercising
women: the effect of oral iron therapy vs increased consumption of muscle foods. The American
journal of clinical nutrition. 1992 Dec 1;56(6):1049-55.
8. Zourdos MC, Sanchez-Gonzalez MA, Mahoney SE. A brief review: the implications of iron sup-
plementation for marathon runners on health and performance. The Journal of Strength & Condi-
tioning Research. 2015 Feb 1;29(2):559-65.
91
VIDEO: The Structure of
Flexible Dieting, Part 3
BY E RI C HE LMS
Eric returns to his first video series in MASS to discuss how “intuitive eating”
fits into the world of weight class-based strength sport and physique
competition. He also takes a look at the potential downside to weighing and
tracking and discusses alternative approaches to nutritional management.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.
92
References
1. Schaumberg, K., et al., Dietary restraint: what's the harm? A review of the relationship between
dietary restraint, weight trajectory and the development of eating pathology. Clin Obes, 2016. 6(2):
p. 89-100.
2. Romano, K.A., et al., Helpful or harmful? The comparative value of self-weighing and calorie count-
ing versus intuitive eating on the eating disorder symptomology of college students. Eat Weight
Disord, 2018.
3. Forman, E.M., et al., Acceptance-based versus standard behavioral treatment for obesity: Results
from the mind your health randomized controlled trial. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2016. 24(10): p.
2050-6.
4. Westenhoefer, J., A.J. Stunkard, and V. Pudel, Validation of the flexible and rigid control dimensions
of dietary restraint. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 1999. 26(1): p. 53-64.
93
Just Missed the Cut
Every month, we consider hundreds of new papers, and they can’t all be
included in MASS. Therefore, we’re happy to share a few pieces of research
that just missed the cut. It’s our hope that with the knowledge gained from
reading MASS, along with our interpreting research guide, you’ll be able to
tackle these on your own.
• McKean et al. Are exercise professionals fit to provide nutrition advice?

An evaluation of general nutrition knowledge
• Grgic and Pickering. The effects of caffeine ingestion on isokinetic
muscular strength: A meta-analysis
• Gorissen et al. Protein content and amino acid composition of
commercially available plant-based protein isolates
• Meldrum and DeBeliso. A Comparison of Back Squat & Safety Squat Bar
on Measures of Strength, Speed, and Power in NCAA Division I Baseball
Players
• Sollie et al. Protein intake in the early recovery period after exhaustive
exercise improves performance the following day
• Knufinke et al. Effects of Natural Between-Days Variation in Sleep on
Elite Athletes’ Psychomotor Vigilance and Sport-Specific Measures of
Performance
• Lee et al. An electromyographic and kinetic comparison of conventional
and Romanian deadlifts
• Coker et al. Predictors of competitive success of national-level
powerlifters: a multilevel analysis
• Brent. Modeling Overuse Injuries in Sport as a Mechanical Fatigue
Phenomenon
• Oranchuk et al. Improvement of Kinetic, Kinematic, and Qualitative
Performance Variables of the Power Clean With the Hook Grip
• Jason et al. Influence of Menthol on Recovery From Exercise-Induced
Muscle Damage
94
• Lawrence et al. Effect of Unstable Loads on Stabilizing Muscles and Bar
Motion During the Bench Press
• Korak et al. Muscle Activation Patterns of Lower-Body Musculature
Among 3 Traditional Lower-Body Exercises in Trained Women
• Jackman et al. Assessing the Usefulness of Acute Physiological
Responses Following Resistance Exercise: Sensitivity, Magnitude of
Change and Time Course of Measures
• Ware et al. Cannabis and the Health and Performance of the Elite Athlete
95
Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on December 1.
Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.
96

MASS Vol 2 Issue 11-drkbn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS Vol 2 Issue 11-drkbn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS Vol 2 Issue 11-drkbn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

V O L U ME 2 , ISS U E 11 NOVEMBER 2 0 1 8

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

The MASS Team

Blood Flow Restriction Training Causes Type I Fiber Hypertrophy in

Track RPE With Velocity to Improve Your Estimate of Intensity

Energy Availability in Strength and Power Athletes

Does Lifting Heavy Harm Your Range of Motion?

Tapering To Maximize Strength: How Should We Peak For Competition?

Do Middle-Aged Lifters Fatigue Faster than the Young Guys?

VIDEO: Iron Supplementation in Strength Sport

VIDEO: The Structure of Flexible Dieting, Part 3

Blood Flow Restriction Training

Height (cm) 176 (5) 177 (9)

Weight (kg) 89 (14) 102 (18)

1RM in front squat (kg) 141 (25) 151 (26)

Personal record in squat (kg) 186.7 (42) 207 (40)

Personal record in deadlift (kg) 227 (44) 244 (36)

Personal record in bench press (kg) 135 (28) 154 (32)

The values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). No statistically

Research Questions changes in molecular mechanisms

Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7

Subjects and Methods some deadlift variation twice per week.

Muscle cross sectional area

(% change from baseline)

cantly pre- to post-training in the blood

intermedius thickness didn’t significantly

changes in type I fiber CSA were strongly 20

and positively associated with changes in # # #

vastus lateralis CSA (r=0.81).

However, isometric knee extension

BFR Con BFR Con

bers increased more in the blood flow Capillarization

A Type I Type II B Type I Type II

(% change from baseline)

(% change from baseline)

BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con BFR Con

(% change from baseline)

Track RPE with Velocity to Improve

Subjects Age (years) Relative squat Relative bench Relative hip-thrust

Data are mean ± SD

bench press, squat, and hip thrust (in that

Pearson’s coefficient of determination (R2)

and 90% of 1RM, and one rep at 100%

squat (session 5), and hip thrust (session 0.80

load using a general equation (across all

You can read more about this in our in-

1 rep @ 9 RPE is about

1RM = one-repetition maximum

In a world with few studies on a mixed-

rarely assessed in this population. Years training (years) 8±4

Training (hours/week) 15 ± 6.2

Subjects and Methods Previous stress fractures (n) 5

Black or mixed/white (n) 8/5

Subjects and Study Design

Primary Method Description

LEAF-Q score Questionnaire

Bone mineral density DXA Low bone density

Resting metabolic rate Indirect calorimetry Low resting energy expenditure