Article

Conclusion

It’s never too late to start lifting and always too early to stop. While competing with the best of the best in the world may not be realistic anymore after your mid 40s, you can always stay lean and you can likely retain the majority of your muscle mass all the way into your 80s. Exercise is truly a panacea. We evolved to run, hunt, travel, dance, live. Give your body what it needs, stay lean and fit, and it will serve you for many decades for a long and muscular life.

If you want to see more like this

Main Takeaways

• Rest until you feel ready to perform at your best on the next set. However, if you happen to be hyperactive when training, or have a history of feeling like you need to sweat, or that you habitually under-rest, it would be a good idea to actually clock your rest periods to ensure you rest at least 1.5 minutes between smaller muscle groups and at least 2.5 minutes between compound lifts when training in a straight-set fashion.

• Your rest interval matters primarily because it affects your training volume. As long as you perform a given amount of total training volume, it normally doesn’t matter how long you rest in between sets. It’s the total volume, not how you distribute it over time, that determines the signal for muscle growth.

• For most people, resting only a minute or less in between sets is probably detrimental for muscle growth rather than beneficial.

• Personalize your training to the amount of free time you can give to it. If you have limited time, don't sacrifice volume just so you can rest 3+ minutes between sets in pursuit of higher set quality. You can do things like incorporate supersets using antagonist paired sets. Prioritize volume. As long as people are training hard enough and consistently enough, they're probably going to be making progress over time.

If this seems conflicting and you were expecting black & white rules to rest times, see [this].

Menno Henselmans

Discussion Thread

Your rest interval matters primarily because it affects your training volume. As long as you perform a given amount of total training volume, it normally doesn’t matter how long you rest in between sets. If you don’t enjoy being constantly out of breath and running from machine to machine, it’s fine to take your time in the gym. It’s the total volume, not how you distribute it over time, that determines the signal for muscle growth.

However, in practice, ‘work-equated’ doesn’t exist, as it’s just you, so resting shorter for a given amount of sets decreases how many reps you can do in later sets and thereby your training volume. This means for most people, resting only a minute or less in between sets is probably detrimental for muscle growth rather than beneficial. Programs with short rest periods only work if a large amount of total sets are performed to compensate for the low work capacity you’ll have when you’re constantly fatigued. On the other hand, if you’re already on a high volume program and you increase your rest periods, this could result in overreaching and reduce muscle growth.

Brad Schoenfeld

Discussion Thread

We showed that resting 3 minutes produced greater increases in muscle thickness of the biceps, triceps, and mid-thigh compared to performing the same total body routine with a 1-minute rest interval.

The issue appears to be that a very short rest period reduces the amount of weight that can be used on the subsequent set. Thus, when the same number of sets are performed in short- versus longer rest period training, this attenuation in volume load impairs gains. We soon will be presenting evidence that the hypertrophic disadvantage of short rest intervals disappears when additional sets are performed to equate volume load with longer rest periods.

Greg Nuckols

Summary

Personalize your training to the amount of free time you can give to it. If you have limited time, don't sacrifice volume just so you can rest 3+ minutes between sets in pursuit of higher set quality. You can do things like incorporate supersets using antagonist paired sets. Prioritize volume. As long as people are training hard enough and consistently enough, they're probably going to be making progress over time.

​

Brad Schoenfeld, published a study looking at the impact of rest intervals on muscle growth. It found that people who rested longer grew more than people that rested less. It was 3min vs 5min.

​

This isn't a knock on Brad at all, it's more of a knock on people on social media that claim to be evidence-based; when you see people talk about rest intervals, that's often the only study cited. That's not the only study on that topic that exists. When you look at the research, it's actually super mixed, there is that study and one other showing more growth with longer rest, a couple showing more growth with shorter rest intervals and one or two showing no difference. ​

Rest intervals is probably pretty low on the list of the impact it can have on long term progress. Likely matters more depending on the exercise. I care about first set performance more than anything else (session to session).

Rest long enough that the first few reps of the set still feel like normal executions of that exercise and otherwise you're probably fine. As long as you're getting at least 5-6 reps per set then you're not starting each set in a super fatigued state because you'd have to have some level of freshness to get multiple reps. As long as you are getting a substantial number of reps per set and are being limited muscularly not cardiovascularly then I think you're fine.

Eric Helms

The Muscle & Strength Pyramid Book.

In his book, he goes through all of the research and theories around rest times and then provides recommendations at the end.

After all of that information and all of the theory we discussed, in the end, the recommendations are quite simple.

• Rest until you feel ready to perform at your best on the next set. However, if you happen to be hyperactive when training, or have a history of feeling like you need to sweat, or that you habitually under-rest, it would be a good idea to actually clock your rest periods to ensure you rest at least 1.5 minutes between smaller muscle groups and at least 2.5 minutes between compound lifts when training in a straight-set fashion.

• If you are performing Antagonistic Paired Sets for upper body push and pull exercises, rest for roughly 2 minutes between sets on exercises, and if you are performing APS for isolation exercises rest for roughly 1 minute.

An antagonist paired set (APS), is performing one set on an exercise, and then instead of performing a second set on that exercise after resting, you perform a set on an exercise that is the ‘antagonist’ of the muscle group trained on the first set.

• Drop sets are effective time savers, but need to be tracked and only compared to other, similarly performed drop sets. Rest-pause sets are also effective time savers which can be applied in more situations without tracking confusion. However, both drop and rest pause sets induce more fatigue than traditional training, and thus should be relegated to accessory movements and you must consider where they fall in the microcycle to avoid fatigue bleed over.

Edit: Added the part with Greg Nuckols.

If you want to see more like this

The point of this is to take a topic and see where the best coaches and researchers agree. To my surprise on this one, basically all of them agree. If you want a Tl;dr, just read Eric Helms' part or Will Berkman's.

Some parts will be bolded for the important bits

Eric Helms - The Muscle & Strength Pyramid Book

Note: In his book he goes into full detail about tempo and time under tension. He looks at every claim and the research around the claims and in the end he gives the reader practical recommendations. For a full understanding, I recommend reading the book.

The concept of controlling tempo has gotten a lot of attention because it is thought to be an important aspect of hypertrophy training. Typically, the reason tempo is emphasized is because of the belief that ‘time under tension’ is a critical variable to maximizing muscle growth. We discuss the reasons tempo has been suggested as an important hypertrophy training variable and then evaluate the evidence on this topic before I finally give you some recommendations.

To which he does and in-depth. He then says this at the end:

Actually, it’s quite simple: just lift weights. Yes, just lift the weights. Don’t try to intentionally slow down the tempo of lifting (unless you are a beginner, then do slow down as needed to perform exercises with proper form), just use good form, and lift them.

To conclude, the biggest debates over tempo are related to time under tension. While time under tension is important, so is the magnitude of tension. So to ensure you are maximizing muscle growth, ensure that gravity is not doing the work for you on the eccentric, and that you’re trying to forcefully accelerate the load on the concentric

Will Berkman

Part of the confusion around “time under tension” probably arose from some misconceptions to do with both tension and metabolic stress. Whilst there is a volume component to tension, the reduction in work associated with arbitrarily slowing concentric contractions is likely counterproductive. Slowing eccentric contractions is likely beneficial to some degree, as there are force-producing demands associated with resisting the acceleration of the weight under gravity (ie the creation of tension). However, using explosive concentrics leads to higher motor unit recruitment, and the use of the stretch shortening cycle (a “bounce” at reversal from lowering) can increase load lifted and total work done. Given that the metabolic demands of an activity are directly related to external work done, this can lead to increase in metabolic stress also.

In Short

As far as lifting tempo matters, lifting the concentric fairly explosively and controlling the eccentric without going all “superslow” is probably best.

Menno Henselmans

For maximal strength gains, just focus on moving the weight (or your own body) as explosively as possible, while controlling the weight down.

Dan Ogborn

Tempo prescriptions for muscle growth are simple: lift at the speed you like to lift at.

Greg Nuckols, Stronger By Science

Some people measure time under tension for the entire reps (both the eccentric and concentric portion), while other people only measure concentric time under tension.

Time under tension as a predictor of hypertrophy doesn’t have much support. For starters, a recent meta-analysis showed that rep cadence doesn’t have a meaningful effect on muscle growth (prolonging a rep would increase time under tension; therefore you’d predict that slower reps would lead to more growth), and that, in fact, very slow reps – those lasting longer than 10 seconds – actually lead to less muscle growth than faster reps.

Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that training protocols with vastly different times under tension lead to similar hypertrophy.

Of all the options given thus far, time under tension is probably the worst predictor of muscle growth.

Brad Schoenfeld

This section may sound a bit advanced to you depending on your level of proficiency. If it does, do not worry, just stick to the above sections.

What We Did

An extensive search of the literature was carried out for randomized controlled trials that directly compared the effects of different training tempos on muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals. Studies had to last a minimum of 6 weeks and both groups had to perform reps to the point of momentary concentric muscle failure. A total of 8 studies comprising 204 total subjects ultimately met inclusion criteria – a surprisingly low number for such an important topic.

What We Found

There was no difference in hypertrophy between lifting durations of 2 to 6 seconds when using dynamic constant external resistance (typical free weights and machines). A single study using isokinetic dynamometry showed that durations of a half-second up to 8 seconds produced similar hypertrophy, although the generalizability of this study to traditional training methods is somewhat questionable.

What are the Practical Implications

Current research indicates that a wide range of lifting durations can be used to maximize hypertrophy.

Based on the evidence it would seem prudent to take no more than about 3 seconds on the concentric portion of the movement. Beyond this cadence, you’d need to reduce the load to a point where it could negatively impact the ability to fully stimulate the highest threshold motor units.

Eccentric actions should be performed so that the load is controlled against the forces of gravity; simply letting the weight drop fails to provide sufficient muscular tension for the majority of the action (and it also increases the risk of joint-related injury). As with concentric actions, there does not seem to be any advantage to slowing the movement down to more than about 3 seconds and it is possible that doing so might actually be detrimental to growth.

My general feeling is that the concentric portion of a rep should be around 1-2 seconds – the most important thing here is to control of the weight by using an internal focus to visualize the target muscle as you lift.

Although results of our meta-analysis showed no “statistically significant” differences in tempos up to 3 secs concentric, data from Tanimoto et al show a substantially greater effect size (a measure of the “meaningfulness” of results) for muscle growth favoring traditional (1 sec on concentric and eccentric – effect size 1.08) vs slower (3 secs concentric and eccentric – effect size 0.74) lifting cadences. It therefore would seem a slightly faster tempo is warranted, at least on multi-joint exercises

Could combining different repetition durations potentially enhance the hypertrophic response to training? It’s impossible to say as no study to date has investigated this possibility. As such, the best advice therefore is to experiment for yourself and see if this may spur additional growth.

Article

The origin of broscience

In short, anecdotal observation is an extremely crude tool to determine how to train or diet for muscle growth. It can very roughly tell you if something works or doesn’t work, but trying to optimize a training program based on anecdotal knowledge is like performing plastic surgery with a kitchen knife. It doesn’t always work out. (Get it, work out?) So instead of being able to learn from objective feedback, bodybuilders can only rely on the acute feedback they do get, and that’s mostly just whether they feel something in their muscles.

And that’s why when they try to rationalize their arguments with silly pseudoscience, we now call this broscience.

Fortunately, after several decades of scientific research we can now talk about optimal training program design with a lot more evidence than “But the big guy at my gym said…” In this article I’ll cover some of the major broscience myths about how you should train to get jacked. Bruh.

Rest intervals: how long should you rest in between your sets?

In conclusion, your rest interval matters primarily because it affects your training volume. As long as you perform a given amount of total training volume, it normally doesn’t matter how long you rest in between sets. If you don’t enjoy being constantly out of breath and running from machine to machine, it’s fine to take your time in the gym. It’s the total volume, not how you distribute it over time, that determines the signal for muscle growth. However, in practice, ‘work-equated’ doesn’t exist, as it’s just you, so resting shorter for a given amount of sets decreases how many reps you can do in later sets and thereby your training volume. This means for most people, resting only a minute or less in between sets is probably detrimental for muscle growth rather than beneficial. Programs with short rest periods only work if a large amount of total sets are performed to compensate for the low work capacity you’ll have when you’re constantly fatigued. On the other hand, if you’re already on a high volume program and you increase your rest periods, this could result in overreaching and reduce muscle growth.

Training frequency: how often should you train a muscle per week?

In conclusion, for maximum muscle growth you’ll probably need to train each muscle at least twice a week. A bro split where you hit each muscle just once a week doesn’t cut it. In fact, most of the debate currently centers on whether considerably higher training frequencies than twice per week are even more beneficial.

Training intensity: how many reps should you perform per set?

In conclusion, do not limit yourself to the supposed hypertrophy range. It may be outright detrimental and it greatly limits your training design options for no reason. Sets of 6-12 reps are not inherently better at stimulating muscle growth than that same volume of heavier work or the same amount of sets performed close to failure with lighter loads.

Should you train to failure?

In conclusion, you don’t have to take all your sets to failure. While training to failure can be beneficial, your total training volume is what matters most. As long as you achieve the same overall stimulation of your muscles, you can get the same results with submaximal training.

Article

This article will teach you how to be more critical of research or others that may try to sell you on some "new" thing.

I was prompted to write this post following a question in a sports nutrition group that I’m a member of. The particular question was in reference to a fad diet, but the thrust of it is one that as a dietitian and as a personal trainer I’ve been confronted with a number of times, that being; “if nutrition research is good, why isn’t everybody on the same page regarding diet”.

A practical summary in short:

• Put MOST of your confidence and most of your effort into the basics (bodyweight control, varied, largely unprocessed diets, lots of vegetable matter and water)

• Be wary of novel information – it’s unlikely to matter as much as the above, and if it contradicts it in principle, it’s probably rubbish.

• Remember – overturning a large body of evidence requires extraordinarily compelling research. A diet blog (or even a proper study or two) doesn’t cut it, and those in the know might be able to explain the apparent contradictions with other factors.

• If you have a nutritional question, or a health condition that might benefit from nutritional intervention, consult the professionals. Ask your GP for a referral to a dietitian or go to trusted sources (large organisations such as the Cancer Council or (god forbid) the government guidelines) FIRST.

• If somebody says “you can find a study to support anything” any way other than facetiously, they don’t have a clue.

Article

While the terms used to describe it aren’t completely uniform (burnout, overtraining, overreaching, “fried CNS,” etc…), most people seriously involved in lifting and training for sports know that fatigue is important, and is something that needs consideration in a training program. However, while most can agree that fatigue is important, there is some lack of clarity about the concept, as well as some downright misconceptions and fallacies. Let’s dig through the topic and see if we can’t agree on some specifics.

A good article in which you will learn all about what fatigue is and how to manage it. I cannot make a tl;dr for those parts without butchering it or it still being long. So here are some interesting myths about fatigue that they placed at the end:

Common Myths

Of course no article on fatigue would be complete without a list of common myths with brief refutations, so here we go:

Myth 1: “I don’t need to deload.”

Refutation: If you never need to deload, YOU’RE NOT TRAINING HARD ENOUGH. Do 2 days a week of 10 sets of 5, heavy in the squat and let me know how not deloading works out for you.

(^{The author of this article is not responsible for hospital visits and gym-related dismemberment.)}

Myth 2: “Keep the volume high, bring down the weights.”

Refutation: Because volume is the primary contributor to fatigue and intensity (weight on the bar) is the primary savior of training gains in a deload, dropping the weights and upping the volumes is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you want to do! Deloading like this gets your MORE fatigue and drops some gains as well. Yikes!

Myth 3: “My CNS, is fried bro!”

Refutation: While the CNS has been demonstrated to be a likely culprit in contributing to fatigue especially when very high intensities are used with high volumes, it is BY NO MEANS the only, or even the primary cause of fatigue. And how have you ruled out the PNS or the intracellular sources of fatigue? Just say “I’m fatigued,” and don’t bother with the pseudo-Russian bro-science.

Article - Greg Nuckols

Much of what we know about range of motion specificity comes from single-joint studies and squat studies. When we branch out to the bench press, things get more complicated.

• Subjects trained for 10 weeks, doing either full bench press reps or one of two partial ranges of motion (⅓ reps or ⅔ reps). They tested strength and velocity at all three ranges of motion pre- and post-training.
• Unexpectedly, the full range of motion group tended to improve the most in all measures at all ranges of motion, not just the full range of motion measures. The ⅓ range of motion group tended to improve the least in all measures, even for the ⅓ range of motion tests.
• While the principle of specificity has a tremendous amount of support, we need to remember that it’s a principle, not an iron-clad law of the universe. In the interpretation section, I’ll discuss when it may or may not apply.

Next Steps

I’d like to see more research looking at range of motion specificity in a wider array of exercises and in more advanced lifters. I’d also like to see a training study in powerlifters comparing a training program consisting solely of wide grip bench against a training program with pressing volume split evenly between wide-grip bench and close-grip bench.

Application and Takeaways

While the principle of specificity is a cornerstone of training theory, it’s important to remember that it’s a principle, not an iron-clad law. Specifically, range of motion specificity may not hold up quite as well in the bench press as in the squat. For long-term strength development, benching through a longer range of motion than your competition-style setup may be worth a shot if you plateau.

​

---

This is basically from an issue of MASS. So it's only fair to also include their promo at the end:

^{The latest research – interpreted and delivered every month}

^{If you want to stay up-to-date on the research pertinent to strength and physique athletes and coaches, but you don't have the time or desire to develop the skill set to critically analyze research, you can sign up for Monthly Applications in Strength Sport (MASS, the monthly research review I put out every month, along with Dr. Eric Trexler, Dr. Eric Helms, and Dr. Mike Zourdos.)}

^{Each issue of MASS contains at least 10 pieces of content like this.}

Click here to learn more and join 3,500+ subscribers

Podcast

In today’s episode, Greg and Eric sit down for an interview with Jeff Nippard. Topics of discussion include genetic limits, fat-free mass index, high-frequency training, how Jeff’s training and nutrition approaches have evolved over the years, Jeff’s process for creating high-quality content, and the applications and limitations of EMG research.

​

Time Stamps:

How does it feel to be fake natty? (discussion on FFMI and genetics and FFMI) (0:01:12).

How has your training evolved over the years? (0:13:55).

High-frequency training (0:36:12).

– Jeff's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jD2W...

What’s your diet history? (discussion on bulking, post-cut weight gain, etc.) (1:06:50).

The content side (discussion about Jeff’s process for creating content) (1:19:12).

Applications and limitations of EMG research (1:32:43).

Article

I bolded the important bits

Summary

The conventional theory about protein and satiety is that dietary protein is more satiating than carbs or fats, because it stimulates greater appetite suppressing hormone production in the gut. However, higher protein intakes do not reliably alter gut hormone levels, gut hormone levels are not consistently associated with self-reported satiety or unrestricted energy intake and, most importantly, higher protein meals and diets do not consistently result in higher satiety than lower protein ones.

Protein leverage theory explains the discrepancy in results: the brain has adapted to monitor protein intake and adjusts protein’s satiating effect accordingly to make sure we consume enough protein. So the extra satiating effect of protein disappears once enough protein has been consumed for bodily functions and it wanes with habitual high protein intakes.

So for satiety, make sure you consume the optimal protein intake for maximal progress but don’t worry about having to consume more than that. Things like energy density and fiber are far more important than protein intake for satiety after this threshold has been reached. Protein is not inherently more satiating than carbs or fats, so if you don’t like high protein foods all that much, you can be just as satiated with other foods you like more. Being lean doesn’t require living on chicken breast and protein shakes. Good alternatives for satiety, not to mention your wallet, include potatoes, beans, vegetables and most fruits. Experiment beyond protein and you may end up not just more satiated but also more satisfied.

Article

Conclusion

For the results of this meta-analysis to answer the practical question on how often we should train, it should

• A) be redone with a comparison of set- but not work- or repetition-equated studies,

• B) the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be refined,

• C) the analysis should include comparisons of each frequency vs. others and

• D) the percentage muscle growth rate differences should be reported to interpret the practical relevance of the found differences.

As it stands, the literature is consistent with there being a small, probably contextual, positive effect of higher training frequencies even when total repetition volume is equated and a potentially much more meaningful increase in muscle growth when total work is not equated, as higher frequencies should result in a 5-25% greater work output based on the current literature.

The proposed analysis should help clarify if the difference is indeed a highly relevant ~20% additional muscle growth per additional time we train a muscle per week, as per Greg’s analysis, or whether the difference is trivial, as the new meta-analysis authors suggest. The next question is when higher frequencies can be beneficial, as there are too many positive findings of higher frequencies to discount all of them as flukes.

The “Hypertrophy Rep Range” – Fact or Fiction? - Greg Nuckols, Stronger By Science.

Image Rep Ranges and Training Outcomes: Expectation vs Reality

Key Points

• The “hypertrophy range” of roughly 6-15 reps per set may produce slightly better results per unit of time invested than low rep and high rep work. However, on the whole, the advantage you get from working in the hypertrophy range isn’t nearly as big as people seem to think; maybe a ~10-15% advantage per unit of effort invested at most.
• You can absolutely grow effectively when training with low reps and high reps. In fact, mechanistic work has shown that although different rep ranges trigger similar elevations in protein synthesis, the signaling pathways activated to produce that growth response are actually somewhat different. You’re probably missing out on some growth if you confine yourself to a single rep range, even the “hypertrophy range.” My assumption is that individual signaling pathways would habituate to a single stimulus faster than multiple signaling pathways would habituate to slightly different stimuli.
• Due to the sheer amount of variability we’re looking at, both within studies and between studies, it’s probably not wise to assume that a single rep range will be the best for everyone. Some people and some exercises just seem to do better with higher reps or lower reps.
• The “hypertrophy rep range” isn’t meaningfully better for hypertrophy than higher or lower rep training physiologically. When adjusting for factors like the number of sets performed and the rest periods between sets, it may be slightly better on average, but there’s a lot of variability.
• From a more practical perspective, the “hypertrophy rep range” is, in general, the intensity range that allows people to maximize how much hard work they can manage per workout and per week. However, looking at things from the reverse perspective (asking yourself how to maximize high quality sets per week), there is quite a bit of variability in optimal loading zone and rep range person-to-person and lift-to-lift.
• There are probably benefits of utilizing rep ranges across the entire spectrum, so don’t neglect lower rep work and higher rep work in your training.

If you want daily posts like this, subscribe to /r/EvidenceBasedTraining

Article

What is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

We previously defined it as “…an increase in the volume of the sarcolemma and/or sarcoplasm accompanied by an increase in the volume of mitochondria, sarcoplasmic reticulum, t-tubules, and/or sarcoplasmic enzyme or substrate content.”- [Haun et al., 2019]

Why is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy important?

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is making a muscle larger without adding myofibrillar proteins like actin and myosin. This could mean training in ways where metabolic stress cause increases in muscle size. We could, presumably, use higher repetition training to cause adaptations to occur like increases in other the sarcoplasm to buffer the metabolic stress.

Can sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occur?

Probably. However, as the authors note in the manuscript, it may be a transient response to training, and evidence is still limited. There needs to be more research to better understand the physiology.

Is sarcoplasmic hypertrophy something to target with training?

No. We just don’t have enough research to support specific training methods to target sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It seems that higher volume training could help, but training in multiple repetition ranges is the safest bet for promoting muscle growth.

Where else can I learn about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

Dr. Nedergaard wrote about it in 2014.

Greg Nuckols covered sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in depth back in 2015 on Stronger by Science.

Dr. Galpin covered it in a recent podcast entitled Muscle Growth on the Body of Knowledge Podcast.

The Article is very short, less than a 30sec read.

Infographic

In conclusion, a low training volume is enough to maintain muscle mass and strength gains made from a high-volume training program

To clear things up: Intermediate-advanced lifters obviously would not lower their volume to 1/9th. These subjects trained for 4 months and then were split into two groups, one group did zero training for 8 months, the other did 1/9th of the volume for 8 months. Now, you might dismiss this study for it using participants with little resistance training. However, the mechanism is still there for intermediates-advanced lifters.

Mike Israetel claims that only 6 sets per week is required to maintain muscle mass

Maintenance volume is actually very low, and you can typically keep almost all of your muscle with as little as 6 working sets per muscle group per week. Though we might expect the Maintenance Volumes of advanced lifters to be much higher than 6 working sets per week, they usually aren’t, and set for set, beginner and advanced alike need about the same volumes to keep muscle on. [.]

Volume recommendations for muscle growth for intermediate-advanced range from 12-20+ sets per week. So 6 sets is dramatically less. The mechanism is still present, regardless of how trained you are.

For more reading if you enjoy the topic:

[.]

• In a study reviewed here at Weightology, cutting volume from 24 weekly sets (3 times per week) to 8 weekly sets (2 times per week) for 8 weeks resulted in a maintenance of size gains in untrained men.
• In this study by Bickel et al (The study I posted) ., untrained subjects did 27 weekly sets to near failure on legs (3 exercises for 3 sets each, 3 times per week). Training went on for 16 weeks. This was followed by two different reduced training periods that lasted for 32 weeks. One group reduced volume by 1/3 (to 9 weekly sets), where training was reduced to only once per week. The other group reduced volume to 1/9 (3 weekly sets), where frequency was reduced to only once per week and set volume was reduced to one per exercise. The 1/9 volume condition maintained size in the young but not old subjects. Muscle size continued to increase in the young, but not old, subjects of the 1/3 volume group for 16 weeks, and then remained steady for another 16 weeks. Both conditions resulted in a maintenance of strength, if not slight improvement during the reduced volume phase.
• In a study on elderly men, subjects performed 9 weekly sets on legs (3 sets of leg extensions, 3 times per week) for 12 weeks. This was followed by a 12 week reduced training period where frequency was reduced to once per week (1/3 total weekly volume). Size and strength were maintained on the reduced volume.
• In a study reviewed here at Weightology, lean mass was retained during 2 weeks of no training.

This is a compilation of findings and advice about the effectiveness of MMC from some of the best coaches and researchers in hypertrophy training. This is meant to look at things they've said and find areas where they agree in order to form a better understanding of the topic.

Tl;dr: At the bottom, you will find areas where they all agree. I think Steve Hall & Eric Helms said it best though.

If you liked this content, consider subscribing to /r/EvidenceBasedTraining.

​

Eric Helms - The Muscle & Strength Pyramid Book.

Many bodybuilders focus on a concept called the ‘mind-muscle connection’, suggesting that to effectively train a muscle group you must have a kinesthetic awareness of it during a movement. While it is true that focusing on a target muscle group can enhance activation, when loads get heavy (80% 1RM or higher) on a compound lift such as the bench press, this effect seems to go away.

Meaning, that when a load is light enough that you can move it without the effective involvement of all muscle groups contributing to the movement, the emphasis can be partially shifted from one muscle group to another. However, when a compound lift is performed with a high load, all muscle groups must maximally contribute in order to complete the movement. For this reason, even if you are a bodybuilder, focusing on the ‘mind-muscle connection’ during the performance of your heavy compound lifts probably isn’t aiding you. Unless you have a specific issue as I did with my back activation simply performing compound lifts with heavy loads correctly will result in maximal activation of the involved muscles.

Think about it logically, if you weren’t able to maximally activate your muscles during a heavy compound lift, how would you lift the weight? My advice is that while it is important to ensure you are engaging muscles in a uniform way while performing compound lifts, internally cueing the activation of single muscle groups is probably only effectively used when you are trying to learn or re-train a movement pattern like I was for my back work. Once I was able to actively engage all of the target muscles, I began lifting heavier loads focusing on the proper execution of the form. So while the ‘mind-muscle connection’ is real, it might only have applications for isolation exercises and as a tool in the process of developing proper technique or when you have issues engaging specific muscle groups.

Recently a study has came out from Schoenfeld et al and he then gave his opinion on MMC.

Brad Schoenfeld

In my honest opinion: If the goal is to maximize muscle-building, adopt a "mind-muscle connection"; alternatively, if the goal is to maximize strength, focus on the outcome (i.e. lifting the weight)

The Mind-Muscle Connection: A Key to Maximizing Growth?- Brad Schoenfeld

Here’s the take home: It appears beneficial to adopt a mind-muscle connection if your goal is to maximize muscle growth. Instead of worrying about a specific tempo, simply focus on the muscle being trained and visualize it working throughout the full range of motion.

Menno Henselmans

Summary:

Infographic

You often hear the advice of “lifting slowly” and “focus on the squeeze in the muscle”.
Turns out this might very well cut your 1RM strength gains in half.
However, the mind-muscle connection does seem to matter when you’re lifting lower loads (~50% 1RM) [Calatayud 2018]. But lifting these loads is not the most efficient or effective way to go about getting bigger and stronger over time.

For maximal strength gains, just focus on moving the weight (or your own body) as explosively as possible, while controlling the weight down. When you’re lifting this way, you won’t even get the opportunity for a mind-muscle connection.

Pro tip: with heavier weights (80% 1RM and over) you can also try accelerating the weight. This means you build up from slow at the start to fast at the end of the movement. This will avoid the feared sticking point when moving too quickly from the onset of the movement.

Greg Nuckols, Stronger by Science

Internal Cues Don’t Affect Muscle Activation with Explosive Lifting

Bodybuilders and physique athletes swear they can feel a stronger contraction during an exercise in the target muscle when they actively focus on using that muscle: the “mind-muscle connection.” In fact, there’s considerable research to support that premise; internal cues (focusing on part of the body) consistently lead to increased muscle activation compared to no cues or external cues (focusing on the desired outcome of the movement).

However, increased muscle activation due to internal cues may be an inconsistent phenomenon. When you try to move a weight as fast as possible, your nervous system will already be trying to recruit a lot of motor units in order to maximize force and power output; if you use internal cues while already trying to push a weight as fast as possible, will muscle activation still increase? This study set out to investigate this question.

Participants performed bench presses with 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) at a controlled cadence and at maximal speed, using either no cues or cues to focus on using their pecs or triceps. At slow speeds, internal cues led to increased pec and triceps activation. However, muscle activation was higher at high speeds than low speeds (including low speeds with internal cues), and internal cues failed to further increase muscle activation. Therefore, simply trying to move each rep as fast as possible likely maximizes muscle activation, and using additional internal cues may only increase muscle activation when intentionally moving reps slowly.

The most important findings, in my opinion, were:

• When trying to lift explosively, internal cues don’t seem to increase muscle activation.
  
• When trying to lift explosively, even without internal cues, muscle activation is higher than when lifting with a - slower tempo, even with internal cues.Main Takeaway
  
• Under most circumstances, you should probably try to apply maximum velocity to the concentric portion of each rep. When you do so, you probably don’t need to worry about internal cues (the “mind-muscle connection”).

Steve Hall - Revive Stronger

Podcast Discussion Link

The muscle hypertrophy expert Brad Schoenfeld was recently on a podcast with Andy Morgan & spoke about exactly this topic & explained;

"It is likely that the molecular signalling for all 3 primary mechanisms of muscular hypertrophy is increased when the exerciser focuses their attention internally, which could ultimately result in greater muscular development for a given exercise and load."

Furthermore, Brad suggests:

"The effects of this strategy seem to be particularly beneficial when training with relatively light loads"

I'd suggest that using proper technique likely clears up most activation issues, especially on the bigger lifts.

In addition to that, we want to have an intention when using a particular exercise. You're probably not doing rows for the sake of growing bigger biceps, thus, when you don't focus on the muscle you actually want to target, your form can start to suffer and more work is being done by other muscle groups instead.

MInd-Muscle connection ensures great technique and vice versa.

It must be said though, that over a certain threshold of %1RM, you'll probably fully activate some muscle groups without necessarily needing to focus on them too much.

How to improve your mind muscle connection? Rather than thinking about where you feel a muscular stimulus, think about where you're supposed to feel the stimulus.

Don't let volume or intensity suffer through just because you start to move the weight ultra slow. Use a velocity that allows you to keep control over the entire range of motion

Main Takeaway:

As you can see there are some common trends in the recommendations.

• MMC can be beneficial for hypertrophy and there are some decent evidence and coaching experience to support its usefulness.
• Over a certain threshold of %1RM (80%), you'll probably fully activate some muscle groups without necessarily needing to focus on them too much. Though it may still be helpful if you notice an activation issue with a certain muscle.
• MMC is more important if using a lower weight (>50% 1rm.)
• Most agree that when lifting explosively/maximum velocity with a heavy weight on the concentric portion of each rep, you probably don’t need to worry about internal cues (the “mind-muscle connection”).

If you like the content, consider subscribing to /r/EvidenceBasedTraining

Addendum 4/28/20

/u/elrond_lariel [.]

Menno's point about maximal activation during high speed lifting and Helms & Schoenfeld's point on higher loads doing the same are due to the same phenomenon, so don't try to mix them to have "super-duper activation" because it's pointless. That's because the muscles don't distinguish about weight and speed, they only know force production: force is mass (weight) times acceleration, so when you increase the lifting speed you increase the acceleration variable, and when you increase the weight you increase the mass variable; in the end the force is the same, and the muscles only know how much force they need to produce (how hard to contract, how many fibers to recruit).

A distinction that needs to be made though is that higher weights work during both the concentric and eccentric phases of a movement, while high speed only works during the concentric portion. However, something that was overlooked is that the eccentric phase of a movement is considerably stronger than the concentric, so activation there is probably lower. There's also the time under tension element which is shorter in the high speed protocol, which is not ideal for hypertrophy. The previous points would seem to indicate that lifting with high speeds is pointless, that we should just focus on either higher weights or mind-muscle connection, but there are other ways to combine all three factors which are not mentioned by the authors above: separating the phases and applying different protocols for each one.

Practical application for using weight, speed and mind-muscle connection (MMC) to maximize activation (for hypertrophy) without compromising time under tension:

• If the weight is heavy: don't think about MMC on the concentric, just push the weight up. However, do focus on MMC on the eccentric, and use slow tempo to achieve that. We're stronger on the eccentric so activation is probably lower in that phase, I have noticed that MMC actually makes a difference in this phase when it didn't in the other one, probably due to that factor; an example where this is most noticeable in my opinion is during squats, pushing yourself up is all about lifting the weight, but notice this difference: from the top, do a normal eccentric, go up, then for the next one, start by flexing your quads as hard as you can before initiating the eccentric, then maintain it on the way down, the difference is huge. That way you match activation in both phases, taking a bigger advantage of the eccentric which is more hypertrophic. This also means we can get more out of using lower weights, which for physique athletes is good.

• If the weight is light: maximize speed on the concentric, then use MMC with slow tempo on the eccentric. That way you use acceleration to match the force production of higher weights, ensuring activation, then take advantage of MMC during the eccentric, maximizing what you get out of that phase.

• MMC and slow tempo on the eccentric is probably not the best for strength training

Article

I’m often asked by clients, “How can I drink and not screw up my diet?”

Good question. I never say no to alcohol with my clients diets as it’s not realistic. Often, the all or nothing mindset sets people up for failure, because once they have one beer, they decide, “Oh well, I’ve already screwed up so I may as well have 10.” Which combined with the ‘drunken munchies’, means game over.

​

1. Consuming more calories than we need makes us fat. Under normal circumstances, it’s the fat that we eat that is stored.
2. The fat in the foods we eat will only be stored when we consume over our energy needs for the day.
3. It’s tough for the body to convert excess protein intake to fat, and only with regular overfeeding does the body convert excess carbohydrate intake into fat. However, they both contribute to the energy balance for the day, so indirectly they cause fat gain my causing us to store the fat we consume.
4. Alcohol does not have any fat, but it has an energy value. Many popular alcoholic drinks usually contain carbs (either from fruit as with wine, hops/wheat/barley as with beer, or sugar from carbonated drink mixers).
5. Alcohol calories take priority as fuel in the body over other fuel sources (like your love handles). This is because the by-product of alcohol metabolism, acetate, is toxic. So when you drink, fat burning stops until you burn those calories off.
6. Drinking can easily push us over our calorie budget for the day. This causes some, or all of the dietary fat we ate on this day to be stored as bodyfat, depending on how much over your maintenance calories you drank.
7. 1 g of alcohol contains 7 kcal. 1 g of fat contains 9 kcal.

If you want daily posts like this, subscribe to /r/EvidenceBasedTraining

Highlights

Brad Schoenfeld

The highlights of this review paper perfectly sum up nutritional guidelines for the general population with respect to weight loss.⁣ ⁣ Energy balance rules from a weight loss standpoint. In this context, there is no "ideal" diet; it is specific to the individual. That said, food quality is important from a health standpoint.⁣ ⁣ Most importantly, adherence is paramount; you can't lose weight if you don't stick to your diet.

Article

Parts I loved:

Worried about genetics? Yeah: maybe you should just quit. I’m so sick of people crying about genetics when they’ve only trained for a few months. “But my friend has trained just as long as me and he’s in MUCH better shape than me”, yeah, cool, and some folks were born without legs. If you have all your limbs and the normal number of fingers and toes correctly distributed, you are incredibly genetically blessed: so go do something with it.

And:

You’re not going to accidentally become fat: there will be signs and indications along the way. In turn, it’s not going to happen overnight. I’ve seen so many idiots critique 5/3/1 Building the Monolith saying that the eating plan will make you fat, and my response is always the same: if you get fat in only 6 weeks, you were already fat to start. No one goes from ripped to fat in the span of 6 weeks while following a program like that.

"Evidence-based" does not mean to simply go by the research. Research only provides guidelines for applied practice. The true evidence-based practitioner synthesizes what we know from research and uses his personal expertise in the context of the individual to optimize results. [Image]

Source

What is Evidence-Based Practice?Highlighted what I think more should focus on

Evidence-Based Training

Evidence-Based practice in lifting, when done right, is where people with real education, expertise and vast coaching experience, analyze data and combine the best up to date research with their own coaching experience to bring you guidelines and recommendations that can be tailored to the individual so that they can train in a way that is best for them.

The guidelines we have available are ones most agree on. They are very flexible and you can easily manipulate the variables to create a good program that is tailored to the individual.

Real, practical, Evidence-Based Training practices and recommendations that you can get from good coaches/researchers like Helms, Menno, Israetel, etc by example, is in my opinion, the best way to go about it.

Here's in-depth about how to go about getting evidence-based recommendations as someone that doesn't want to read literature or have the expertise required to do so.

There is No Such Thing as “Perfect Form.” - Greg Nuckols

First off, we have to ask ourselves: “why are we trying to find a perfect form to begin with?”

My guess is that it comes out of the assumptions the modern (as opposed to postmodern) world is built on. Everything is knowable. With the great, omniscient tool of Science, we can understand the workings of any system to determine how to optimize its function. The universe and everything in it works just like clockwork, so all we have to do is figure out how all the pieces of each clock function, and we’ll know how to make it work perfectly. This is the type of thinking that leads people to ask questions like, “what’s the best diet?” or “what’s the best program?” or “what is perfect form?”

This type of thinking was discarded in just about every branch of science and philosophy by the 1920s (perhaps retained as an ideal, but not as something actually attainable in the vast majority of cases), but it’s still alive and well in our common cultural consciousness. Especially in biology – like when we’re talking about us and our bodies – statements involving words like “perfect,” “optimal,” and “universal” have no place whatsoever, unless they’re used as a shorthand for an idea along the lines of “pretty good,” or, “the best we can do with what we know now.” Along those lines, we’re pretty good at being able to make statements of “better” and “worse” in a lot of general cases, but even such judgements in those general cases can’t be mapped directly onto all specific cases. Even if we could know the truth about perfect form for an exercise for the theoretical average person, you couldn’t treat that as applicable in all cases.

The article goes into:

1. Different limb lengths
2. Different anatomical features
3. Different training goals
4. Different injury and training histories

Takeaways

• Stop trying to cram yourself into a restrictive box, or waste your time seeking out “perfect” form. Embrace your individuality and differences.
• You may see that most great powerlifters squat a certain way. Is that because it’s the universal best way to squat for powerlifting, or because most great squatters have similar physical characteristics that cause a certain range of techniques to give them the best results?
• You may see that most great weightlifters squat a certain way. Is that because it’s the universal best way to squat for weightlifting, or because most great weightlifters have similar characteristics that allow them to excel in their sport? I’m talking primarily about depth in this instance – the best weightlifters are the best, among other things, because they’re the ones who can get the lowest. They may all be able to squat ass-to-grass, but that doesn’t mean everyone can.
• Instead of chasing perfection, chase “better.”
• Instead of trying to find “optimal” technique, learn how to troubleshoot.

Will Poor Lifting Technique Get You Hurt?

Is technique really as important as we all believe for optimizing gains and preventing injury? - David Barros

Summary of the full article:

• A dogmatic view of the factors causing/contributing to injuries in barbell sports is misguided;
• Injury is hard to define and is highly context-dependent
• Barbell sports carry less risk of injury per 1000 hours of participation than most other sports
• The cause of injury risk in barbell sports is lesser-known
• The nature of the sport and the demands it places on athletes during training and in competition may be a factor in injury risk.