MONTHLY

By Chris Beardsley

JAN 2021
EDITION
January 2021 Edition
Editorial by Chris Beardsley
Another study that I reviewed in this edi-
tion examined the effects of applying a
blood flow restriction (BFR) cuff immedi-
ately after a bout of calf muscle exercise
on CNS fatigue in a subsequent quadriceps
strength test. The application of the cuff
increased the amount of CNS fatigue that
was present during the quadriceps strength
test, even though the quadriceps had not
previously exercised. The application of the
cuff trapped metabolites produced during
the calf muscle exercise, and these caused
afferent feedback to the brain during the
quadriceps strength test, thereby reducing
the level of motor unit recruitment that
could be achieved. Again, these results fit

W elcome to the January 2021 edition!

In this edition, I reviewed a couple of
studies that assessed the nature of cen-
with the psychobiological model of fatigue,
as the afferent feedback likely increased
the perception of effort without increasing
tral nervous system (CNS) fatigue during
the level of central motor command.
strength training. One study reported that
increasing amounts of mental effort (exert-
In addition to CNS fatigue, I reviewed a
ed during cognitive tasks preceding exer-
couple of studies exploring the activation of
cise) caused increasing amounts of CNS
the hamstrings during running and during
fatigue during exercise, by progressively
strength training exercises, as well as a
increasing the perception of effort. This fits
couple of studies examining the activation
with the psychobiological model of fatigue,
of the calf muscles in a variety of exercise
in which any factor that increases percep-
variations. These studies provide some
tion of effort without also increasing motor
useful practical implications for training
unit recruitment (including mental effort in
both athletes as well as bodybuilders. See
cognitive tasks or the perception of pain or
you next month!
fatiguing sensations) causes CNS fatigue.

Published by Strength
and Conditioning
Research Limited
 January 2021 Edition
Contents

Strength training
Effects of heavy and moderate loads during strength training
1
Do heavier loads produce greater strength gains despite causing similar hypertrophy?

Contribution of muscle damage repair to strength recovery

2
Does increasing the rate of muscle damage repair cause strength to recover more quickly after a workout?

Changes in motor unit action potential amplitude after training

3
Does hypertrophy occur mainly as a result of increases in the size of muscle fibers controlled by high-threshold motor units?

Central nervous system fatigue greater after longer duration mental tasks
4
How does performing cognitive work before exercise cause fatigue to occur more quickly?

Athletic performance
Regional hamstrings muscle activation during high-speed running
5
Which regions of the lateral and medial hamstrings are most active during running?

Comparing hip extension and knee flexion exercises

6
Which regions of the hamstrings are activated by hip extension exercises and which regions by knee flexion exercises?

Hypertrophy
Effects of external resistance during biceps curl strength training
7
Does training with an exercise that produces peak force when the muscle is more stretched always cause more hypertrophy?

Exploring the causes of central nervous system fatigue during exercise

8
Does afferent feedback from one muscle impair voluntary activation in another muscle?

Optimal training for each head of the gastrocnemius

9
Does the working muscle of the calves affect which head of the gastrocnemius is most activated during exercise?

Does foot position affect calf muscle activation?

10
Does turning the toes inwards or outwards affect whether the medial or lateral heads of the gastrocnemius are more activated?

Published by Strength
and Conditioning
Research Limited
 Effects of heavy and moderate loads
during strength training

T raditionally, strength coaches have programmed

heavy (1 – 5RM) loads for producing the greatest
gains in maximum strength. Yet, this type of training
does not produce the same hypertrophy as moderate
(6 – 15RM) load training when using the same number
of sets to failure. Thus, more sets must be performed,
which increases the length of the workout. Therefore,
many training programs implement both moderate and
heavy loads when training for maximum strength. Yet,
whether training with moderately-heavy (6–10RM)
loads causes greater strength gains compared to mod-
erately-light (11 – 15RM) loads is not clear.

Key findings
In untrained males, strength training with a similar volume load (and a similar number
of stimulating reps) caused the same hypertrophy regardless of whether the load used
in training was heavy (90% of 1RM) or moderate (70 – 80% of 1RM). Gains in maximum
strength were greater when the load used was heavy (90% of 1RM) or moderately-heavy
(80% of 1RM) than when the load used was moderately-light (70% of 1RM).

Practical implications
For maximizing gains in strength, training with heavier loads is optimal. For maximizing
gains in muscle size, a variety of rep ranges (between 5 and 30 reps per set) can be em-
ployed depending on preference, so long as the number of sets to failure is the same.

Effects of 4, 8, and 12 Repetition Maximum Resistance Training Protocols on

Muscle Volume and Strength. Kubo, K., Ikebukuro, T., & Yata, H. (2020). The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. (Link)
Background
OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of strength training with 70%, 80% and 90% of
1RM with the same volume load on changes in maximum strength and
muscle size, in untrained males

INTERVENTION
POPULATION
Subjects did 2 workouts per week for 10 weeks. Each workout involved
multiple sets of the bench press with 3 minutes of rest between sets. For 42 untrained males,
the first 2 weeks, subjects in all training groups did identical workouts aged 20 – 24 years old
(3 sets of 8–10 reps with 60–70% of 1RM). In week 3, one group did 5
sets of 3 reps with 90% of 1RM, another group did 3 sets of 6 reps with
80% of 1RM, and a third group did 2 sets of 10 reps with 70% of 1RM.
In weeks 4–10, the first group did 7 sets of 4 reps with 90% of 1RM, the
second group did 4 sets of 8 reps with 80% of 1RM, and the third group
did 3 sets of 12 reps with 70% of 1RM. The load was increased once the
required number of reps could be performed in all sets.

MEASUREMENTS RESULTS
Volume load (sets x reps x Volume load
weight) and average reps per For weeks 4–10, volume load was not significantly differ-
set ent between the three training groups, in accordance with
the study design.

Average reps per set (and stimulating reps per workout)

For weeks 4–10, the group training with 90% of 1RM did
an average of 3.4 reps per set (corresponding to 24 stim-
ulating reps per workout), the group training with 80%
of 1RM did an average of 7.1 reps per set (corresponding
to 20 stimulating reps per workout), and the group train-
ing with 70% of 1RM did an average of 10.5 reps per set
(corresponding to 15 stimulating reps per workout).

Muscle volume: By multiple All training groups significantly increased muscle volume,
measurements of pectoralis without differences between groups. The increase in mus-
major cross-sectional area us- cle volume was associated with the increase in maximum
ing magnetic resonance imaging strength only in the group training with 70% of 1RM,
(MRI) scans. which suggests that the main mechanism that contribut-
ed to strength gains in that group was hypertrophy.

Maximum strength: By 1RM All training groups achieved significant increases in max-
bench press with a standardized imum strength. The groups training with 80% and 90%
grip width. of 1RM achieved greater increases in strength than the
group training with 70% of 1RM.

SUMMARY
In untrained males, strength training with a similar volume load (and
a similar number of stimulating reps) caused the same hypertrophy regardless of whether
the load used in training was heavy (90% of 1RM) or moderate (70 – 80% of 1RM). Gains
in maximum strength were greater when the load used was heavy (90% of 1RM) or mod-
erately-heavy (80% of 1RM) than when the load used was moderately-light (70% of 1RM).
 Analysis

T his study reported that in untrained

males, bench press strength training
with a similar volume load (and a similar
In many ways, this study was a classic
attempt to investigate the effects of load
during strength training on muscle growth
number of stimulating reps) caused the and changes in maximum strength. Yet,
same pectoralis major hypertrophy regard- several aspects of the study design make
less of whether the load used in training it quite difficult to compare with the rest
was heavy (90% of 1RM) or moderate of the literature (such as the use of vol-
(70 – 80% of 1RM). In contrast, the gains ume load instead of the number of sets
in maximum bench press strength were to failure to standardize volume between
greater when the load used was heavy groups), and some of the results were
(90% of 1RM) or moderately-heavy (80% quite unexpected in the light of previous
of 1RM) than when the load used was similar research (which may be due to the
moderately-light (70% of 1RM). study design).
 Analysis
1. Effects of load on hypertrophy Nevertheless, in this study, the researchers
A primary purpose of this study was to wanted to include a group that trained with
investigate the effects of load during fewer than 5 reps in each set, and previous
strength training on hypertrophy, while research has indicated that training with
controlling for the effects of volume. Yet, fewer than 5 reps per set likely does not
it is unclear whether the physiological provide the same dosage of mechanical
volume (as defined as the dosage of me- tension as rep ranges between 5 and 30
chanical tension experienced by the muscle reps (5). It is easy to see why the choice
fibers of high-threshold motor units) was in was made to use volume load, although we
fact equated between groups. need to accept that there is a high risk that
the dosage of mechanical tension per set
Strength training volume can be mea- was not equated between groups.
sured in many ways. The most common
ways that are used at present are [A] the Additionally, in this study, each set was not
total number of sets performed to failure, performed to failure. Each group was giv-
and [B] the volume load, which is the to- en a target number of reps to achieve on
tal number of reps multipled by weight each set of a workout, with a given load.
on the bar (or the percentage of 1RM). When this target number of reps could
The research literature has made it very be achieved for all of the sets, the weight
clear than when strength training to failure was increased. This strongly suggests that
with the same number of sets to failure, some of the early sets were stopped before
the weight on the bar does not affect the reaching failure, particularly once all of
amount of hypertrophy that occurs, so long the sets could be completed for the target
as the rep range used is between approxi- number of reps. This is a very important
mately 5 and 30 reps (1,2). Moreover, the point, because the research literature has
volume load can vary quite substantially almost always investigated training vol-
without affecting the hypertrophy that oc- ume in the context of training to failure.
curs after training, so long as the number There is far less research available to help
of sets to failure are kept constant (3,4). us understand how volume affects mus-
This suggests that when training to failure, cle growth when stopping short of fail-
the best measurement of volume is usually ure, although it is clear that when sets
the number of sets to failure, and that vol- are stopped several reps from failure, this
ume load (which was used in this study) is greatly impairs the muscle growth that oc-
not a very useful metric for standardizing curs, whether using low (6,7) or extremely
the dose of training performed. high numbers of sets (8).
 Analysis

T he stimulating reps model of muscle

growth was introduced to allow the
volumes of strength training programs that
In this study, not all of the sets in each
workout were taken to failure, and no re-
cord was taken of the proximity to failure
involve the heaviest loads as well as differ- in each set. Each group was given a target
ent proximities to failure to be compared. number of reps to achieve on each set of a
Without the stimulating reps model, it is workout, with a given load. When this tar-
currently not possible to standardize train- get number of reps could be achieved for
ing when lifting loads that are heavier than all of the sets, the weight was increased.
5RM or when stopping sets before failure. Therefore, it is likely that some of the early
sets were stopped before reaching failure,
According to the stimulating reps model, particularly once all of the sets could be
only the final 5 reps of a set to failure pro- completed for the target number of reps.
duce meaningful hypertrophy. Therefore,
each set to failure provides a dosage of 5 Nevertheless, since the group that trained
stimulating reps. When fewer than 5 reps with 90% of 1RM performed an average of
are performed in the set (such as when us- 3.4 reps per set, they would always have
ing a 3RM), the set only provides a dosage been training within 5 reps of failure. Con-
of the number of reps that are performed. sequently, it seems highly likely that they
This explains why strength training pro- would have achieved a total of 24 stimu-
grams involving low reps and high loads lating reps (3.4 reps multiplied by 7 sets)
typically do not produce very much hyper- in each workout. In contrast, the groups
trophy, despite training to failure (5). Simi- that trained with 70% and 80% of 1RM
larly, when a set is stopped before reaching performed an average of 10.5 and 7.1
failure, the dosage provided by that set is reps per set, respectively. Therefore, it is
equal to the number of reps that are done likely that they would have not achieved
within 5 reps of failure. For example, when a total of 5 stimulating reps on the early
stopping a set 2 reps before failure, a total sets. Therefore, the estimates of 15 and
of 3 stimulating reps are achieved. Unlike 20 stimulating reps per workout for these
other ways of measuring volume, the stim- groups are upper limits rather than likely
ulating reps model predicts that training numbers. Unfortunately, without knowing
programs involving stopping several reps the proximity to failure for the early sets,
before failure will not produce much hyper- it is impossible to identify how many of the
trophy, whether using a very high effort on reps were stimulating. Ultimately, it seems
each rep (6,7), or performing a very high that the range of stimulating reps across
number of sets (8). the groups was 15 – 24 reps per workout.
 Analysis

A lthough higher strength training vol-

umes are expected to produce greater
muscle growth, this effect is usually only
2. Effects of load on strength gains
Another primary purpose of this study was
to investigate the effects of load during
noticeable when comparing very different strength training on gains in maximum
number of sets performed to failure and strength. Analysis of many previous stud-
when comparing relatively low numbers of ies has shown that training with moderate
sets (and therefore low numbers of stimu- (6 – 15RM) or heavy (1–5RM) loads caus-
lating reps). es greater gains in strength than training
with light (16RM+) loads (9). Also, a small
Comparisons of similar numbers of sets to amount of research has shown that train-
failure rarely result in substantially differ- ing with heavy loads causes greater gains
ent hypertrophy occurring since it is very in strength compared to training with mod-
difficult to detect small differences in mus- erate loads (10–12).
cle growth occurring between the groups,
particularly when large individual differ- Several mechanisms may be responsi-
ences are apparent (as often happens in ble for the greater increases in maximum
untrained populations). Similarly, it is rare strength when training with heavier loads,
to find differences in hypertrophy between including greater improvements in coordi-
programs involving different numbers of nation (13) because of the velocity-specific
sets to failure when all programs are using nature of coordination changes (14), larger
a relatively high number of sets. For ex- increases in voluntary activation (15) due
ample, it is far easier to detect differences to achieving a higher level of motor unit
between 1 set per workout and 3 sets per recruitment during each set (16), larg-
workout than between 3 sets per workout er increases in tendon stiffness (17), and
and 5 sets per workout. This is because the potentially also larger increases in lateral
effect of volume on hypertrophy is not lin- force transmission due to the larger in-
ear but decreases with increasing numbers tramuscular forces that are present when
of sets per workout. Consequently, while exerting higher muscle forces (18). These
it might be unexpected that training with higher intramuscular forces may potentially
a total of 24 stimulating reps should cause stimulate larger increases in the number
the same hypertrophy as training with a of costameres that link the muscle fibers
total of 15 stimulating reps per workout, to their surrounding collagen layers due to
this may be simply be attributable to the the higher transverse forces produced be-
difficulty of detecting such differences. tween neighboring muscle fibers.
 Analysis

I nterestingly, in this study, there was no

difference in the strength gains achieved
by the heavy (90% of 1RM) and moderate-
Indeed, we would have expected the heavy
load group to have achieved a greater
improvement in coordination when lifting
ly-heavy (80% of 1RM) groups, but both heavy loads (as is assessed by the test of
of these groups achieved greater strength maximum strength) compared to either of
gains than the moderately-light (70% of the other two groups, since coordination
1RM) group. Without additional measure- improvements are velocity-specific (14). It
ments being taken to assess coordination, is possible that the coordination patterns
voluntary activation, tendon stiffness, or of the bench press are similar once loads
lateral force transmission, it is not possi- of 80% of 1RM are exceeded, although
ble to identify exactly what produced these this does not seem to be the case based
greater strength gains in the two heavi- on analyses of prime mover muscle activa-
er load groups. Nevertheless, given the tion across a range of loads (19). Perhaps
very large role of coordination in untrained the gains in coordination were more rap-
subjects, it seems highly likely that the id when using heavy loads but ultimate-
main mechanism in this case was a larger ly caused a similar increase in maximum
increase in coordination in the two heavier strength over the 10-week training period.
load groups. Exactly why the improvement Substantially smaller changes in coordina-
in coordination was not superior in the tion may have occurred after training with
heavy load group than in the moderately– moderately-light loads due to the greater
heavy group is very difficult to explain. fatigue that likely occurred, since this is
known to impair motor learning (20).

Conclusions Practical implications

In untrained males, strength training For maximizing gains in strength, training
with a similar volume load (and a similar with heavier loads is optimal. For maxi-
number of stimulating reps) caused the mizing gains in muscle size, a variety of
same hypertrophy regardless of whether rep ranges (between 5 and 30 reps per
the load used in training was heavy (90% set) can be employed depending on pref-
of 1RM) or moderate (70 – 80% of 1RM). erence, so long as the number of sets to
Gains in maximum strength were greater failure is the same.
when the load used was heavy (90% of
1RM) or moderately-heavy (80% of 1RM)
than when the load used was moderate-
ly-light (70% of 1RM).
 References
1. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). 11. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M.
Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014).
training volume and increases in muscle mass: A system- Effects of different volume-equated resistance training
atic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained
35(11), 1073-1082. (PubMed) men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
28(10), 2909-2918. (PubMed)
2. Baz-Valle, E., Fontes-Villalba, M., & Santos-Conceje-
ro, J. (2018). Total Number of Sets as a Training Volume 12. Mangine, G. T., Hoffman, J. R., Gonzalez, A. M.,
Quantification Method for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Sys- Townsend, J. R., Wells, A. J., Jajtner, A. R., & LaMonica,
tematic Review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning M. B. (2015). The effect of training volume and intensity
Research. (PubMed) on improvements in muscular strength and size in resis-
tance-trained men. Physiological Reports, 3(8), e12472.
3. Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contre- (PubMed)
ras, B., & Sonmez, G. T. (2015). Effects of low-vs. high-
load resistance training on muscle strength and hyper- 13. Green, L. A., Parro, J. J., & Gabriel, D. A. (2013).
trophy in well-trained men. The Journal of Strength & Quantifying the familiarization period for maximal resis-
Conditioning Research, 29(10), 2954-2963. (PubMed) tive exercise. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabo-
lism, 39(3), 275-281. (PubMed)
4. Morton, R. W., Sonne, M. W., Farias Zuniga, A., Mo-
hammad, I. Y., Jones, A., McGlory, C., & Phillips, S. M. 14. Coburn, J. W., Housh, T. J., Malek, M. H., & Weir, J. P.
(2019). Muscle fibre activation is unaffected by load and (2006). Neuromuscular responses to three days of veloc-
repetition duration when resistance exercise is performed ity-specific isokinetic training. The Journal of Strength &
to task failure. The Journal of Physiology, 597(17), 4601- Conditioning Research, 20(4), 892. (PubMed)
4613. (PubMed)
15. Kubo, K., Komuro, T., Ishiguro, N., Tsunoda, N., Sato,
5. Dankel, S. J., Counts, B. R., Barnett, B. E., Buckner, S. Y., Ishii, N., & Fukunaga, A. T. (2006). Effects of low-
L., Abe, T., & Loenneke, J. P. (2017). Muscle adaptations load resistance training with vascular occlusion on the
following 21 consecutive days of strength test familiariza- mechanical properties of muscle and tendon. Journal of
tion compared with traditional training. Muscle & Nerve, Applied Biomechanics, 22(2), 112-119. (PubMed)
56(2), 307-314. (PubMed)
16. Muddle, T. W., Colquhoun, R. J., Magrini, M. A., Luera,
6. Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Me- M. J., DeFreitas, J. M., & Jenkins, N. D. (2018). Effects of
dina, L., Sanchis-Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora-Custodio, fatiguing, submaximal high-versus low-torque isometric
R., .& González-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity exercise on motor unit recruitment and firing behavior.
loss during resistance training on athletic performance, Physiological Reports, 6(8), e13675. (PubMed)
strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(7), 724-735. 17. Bohm, S., Mersmann, F., & Arampatzis, A. (2015).
(PubMed) Human tendon adaptation in response to mechanical
loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exer-
7. Pareja-Blanco, F., Alcazar, J., Cornejo-Daza, P. J., cise intervention studies on healthy adults. Sports Medi-
Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J., Rodriguez-Lopez, C., Hidalgo-de cine-open, 1(1), 7. (PubMed)
Mora, J., & Ortega-Becerra, M. Effects of velocity loss in
the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromus- 18. Kier, W. M. (2020). Muscle force is modulated by
cular adaptations and muscle hypertrophy. Scandinavian internal pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. (PubMed) Sciences. (PubMed)
8. Haun, C. T., Vann, C. G., Mobley, C. B., Roberson, P. A.,
19. Król, H., & Gołaś, A. (2017). Effect of barbell weight
Osburn, S. C., Holmes, H. M., & Gladden, L. B. (2018).
Effects of graded whey supplementation during ex- on the structure of the flat bench press. The Journal of
treme-volume resistance training. Frontiers in Nutrition, Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(5), 1321. (PubMed)
5, 84. (PubMed)
20. Branscheidt, M., Kassavetis, P., Anaya, M., Rogers,
9. Schoenfeld, B. J., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. D., Huang, H. D., Lindquist, M. A., & Celnik, P. (2019).
(2017). Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between Fatigue induces long-lasting detrimental changes in mo-
low-vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review tor-skill learning. ELife, 8, e40578. (PubMed)
and meta-analysis. The Journal of Strength & Condition-
ing Research, 31(12), 3508-3523. (PubMed)

10. Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., &

Peterson, M. (2016). Differential effects of heavy versus
moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy
in resistance-trained men. Journal of Sports Science &
Medicine, 15(4), 715. (PubMed)
 MONTHLY

By Chris Beardsley

Knowing the science

of strength training
will help you write
better programs for
yourself, your clients,
and the athletes
you train

SUBSCRIBE AT
sandcresearch.com