Natural Bodybuilding, Fitness, and Peak Performance

“Build Muscle with Light Weights?” First… always pay attention to detail

Can we “build muscle with light weights?”

This is the question that many people seem to assume they’ve found a definitive answer to in the past month. That’s because it was in April 2012 that the Journal of Applied Physiology published findings of a study that basically claims we can. The study showed that a ten-week comparison between lifting heavy weights for low repetitions and lifting light weights for high repetitions produced no difference in muscle mass gains. And ever since the fitness media discovered so much as the abstract to this study, they’ve fallen all over themselves to report it.

Whether this effusiveness of reporting is because the idea that we can ‘build muscle with light weights’ is “good for older people” – or that it’s just fun to ‘stick it’ to those muscle heads who insist on ‘mindlessly’ grunting with and slamming those heavy weights at the gym – is anyone’s guess. I just find it funny that many will unquestioningly take the results of any study that fits a template they favor and make uncritical generalizations based on findings of rather limited research.

I can hear it now: “What are you saying, Scott… that we can’t ‘build muscle with light weights?’”

Of course not; if I’m critical of a generalization made by this study’s findings, I’d be amiss in making my own generalizations in the other direction. I just think the study and accompanying question ‘can we “build muscle with light weights”’ deserve a bit more detailed analysis.

‘Build Muscle with Light Weight’: The research study

Let’s look at the basic structure of the study that’s become the conclusive evidence for so many that we can ‘build muscle with light weights.’

The experiment was done on eighteen healthy young men at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The subjects were all around 21 years of age (21 ± 0.8 years). The group averaged 1.76 meters in height (± 0.04 m) and 73.3 kg. in weight (± 1.4 kg.). The subjects were “recreationally active”, but had no formal weight lifting experience or regular weight-lifting activity over the year prior to the experiment.

The 10-week study was done using a unilateral protocol of weighted leg extensions. This means that each of the men’s legs was worked separately on a leg extension machine (“single-leg” leg extensions). The subjects were randomly assigned, in “counterbalance fashion”, to one of the three possible unilateral training conditions for each leg. The following were the three different conditions of weight volumes/set protocols that were performed three times per week for the 10-week period (1RM = single-repetition maximum):

1. 80% of 1RM (1 set)
2. 80% of 1RM (3 sets)
3. 30% of 1RM (3 sets)

The researchers were performing this study as further investigation into their earlier findings that showed greater acute protein synthesis activity in muscles worked at higher volumes with lower loads than at lower volumes with higher loads. The abstract for that earlier study can be found right here. In that experiment, the only factor being measured was post-exercise protein synthesis; not measurements of muscle hypertrophy. But the findings of the study showed that training to failure with 30% of 1RM resulted in more post-workout protein synthesis, for a longer period, than did training with 90% of 1RM. This finding seemed worthy of further testing to determine if hypertrophy (muscle size) is affected. Thus, this latest study was more in direct alignment with determining if we can ‘build muscle with light weight’ as effectively (or more) as we can with heavier loads.

Before and after the 10-week study, the men’s leg muscles were measured using MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). In addition, muscle tissue biopsies were taken before the training began, after the first training session, and again at the end of the ten weeks. These muscle tissue samples were quantified using ATPase histochemistry and Western blotting analysis.

The performance strength of the men’s leg extension capabilities was also measured. Both before and after the training program, the researchers recorded the subject’s 1RM, maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC), rate of isometric force development (RFD), and ‘peak power’ output.

So what were the findings; is “building muscle with light weights” a go… or a no-go?

‘Build Muscle with Light Weights’: The study results

In essence, what did the researchers discover in the ‘build muscle with light weights’ versus heavy weights study?

In both thigh measurements and muscle biopsies, there was no statistical difference in hypertrophy between the muscles that were worked for three sets at 80% of 1RM and those worked for three sets at 30% of 1RM. However, there was a more than double degree of average muscle volume increase between each of those respective workout loads compared to the group of 80% of 1RM done for a single set. This suggests that training volume – at least in terms of ‘multiple sets’ versus a single set – might produce more muscle size.

 

'Build Muscle with Light Weights': At least in the short term, the study showed that workout volume might be more important than using heavier weights

 

Another major finding of the study was in the context of max strength gain. ‘Voluntary isotonic strength gains’ were significantly greater in the 80%-1 and 80%-3 groups than they were in the 30%-3 group. This was not so surprising to the researchers since it corroborates findings of earlier studies.

The study also bolstered earlier findings showing a possible connection between acute post-workout muscle protein synthesis and short-term muscle size gains. There was discernibly more protein synthesis activity among the two groups of muscles that were worked for three sets versus the 80% of 1RM worked for one set. Since those two groups obtained over double the muscle size of the single-set group, the connection between degree and longevity of post-workout protein synthesis activity and muscle volume increases seems clear.

What’s not so clear, in my opinion, is whether this means we can ‘build muscle with light weights’ beyond a relatively tiny 10-week period of time.

‘Build Muscle with Light Weights’: Only two ways to continue ‘overload’

Personally, I think this study’s findings are compelling, but hardly conclusive. The most glaring drawbacks are both its short duration and the inexperience of the subjects involved. Many experienced bodybuilders will regularly comment on the anecdotal observation that “rank beginners make progress on ANY workout routine.” Thus, one has to wonder whether the sameness in outcomes between workout weight-loads used in the study would remain beyond ten weeks, or even exist among just slightly more experienced bodybuilders.

During the study, subjects pushed their repetitions to the maximum and, apparently, increased workload only through increases in these repetitions. Obviously, there are only two methods of increasing volume workload on a muscle – by augmenting the workout weight or upping the repetitions performed with the current weight. If continued hypertrophy were desired beyond the 10-week study, an increase in resistance would eventually be required for all three weight-load groups. This raises a pertinent question:

Would there be a greater long-term capacity for resistance increases in either of the two 80% workload groups over the 30% workload groups?

If so, then I’d say that the “build muscle with light weights” rah-rah by the fitness media was premature.

If not… well, then “Yay-hey” for ‘building muscle with light weights’ – especially given its implications for reducing the risk of injury. But I’ll at least bet, based on experience, that even if this is the case, there’s probably a sweet spot somewhere between the 30% and 80% of 1RM loads that were used in the study.

Your opinions are encouraged and welcomed in the comment section.

“Does Tribulus Work”; does it raise testosterone or improve muscle growth?

Call me a stickler for ‘truth in advertising.’ Or just count me as someone who gets annoyed by all the brazen claims made about “testosterone boosting” supplements that get bandied about in the name of selling product at the expense of unsuspecting newbie bodybuilding consumers. When addressing the question “does Tribulus work”, the image that gets under my skin is that of online videos in which bodybuilding supplements resellers sit at a table and “review” some well-known bodybuilding pills, powders, and potions. These guys will shamelessly display a bottle of Tribulus Terrestris and with nary an acknowledgment of the very legitimate question “does Tribulus work”, they’ll tell you “how” it works with a straight-faced assumption that it does. It’s as if any positive claims that were ever presumed about a product, whether hypothesized or even purely imagined, are repeated as fact if that’s what’s expedient for the supplement sellers. I’ve just heard a couple of them repeat the following worn-out claim:

“Tribulus works to raise testosterone levels by increasing luteinizing hormone to the testes.”

This has been the claim about Tribulus Terrestris for at least the past twenty years. It’s based on some animal studies that have demonstrated that it has some effect on androgens in their bodies.

But the question “does Tribulus work” has never been definitively answered within the realm of human studies. In fact, some research suggests that it has no positive testosterone-boosting effect in healthy human males at all. Apparently, this doesn’t stop some supplement hawkers from assuming the animal studies are positively conclusive and ripe for extrapolating that tribulus will increase T-levels in humans. Evidence doesn’t support that assumption. Keep this in mind the next time you’re browsing bodybuilding supplements and a store clerk tells you “tribulus raises testosterone”… as if it’s fact.

‘Does Tribulus Work’: What do the studies show?

There are two likely reasons why a guy might be interested in the “does tribulus work” question: 1) He’s a bodybuilder or athlete interested in raising endogenous testosterone levels for greater strength and muscle gains. 2) Suspected low testosterone levels have caused a flagging libido that he wants to regain. In either case, if tribulus has significant positive effect on raising testosterone, the effects should be anecdotally measurable. And in the case of reason number one, a heightened libido would likely be the acute effect en-route to better muscle gains if tribulus did trigger any significant increases in testosterone.

The notion that extracts of tribulus terrestris (a flowering plant of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia) can boost testosterone levels is supported by evidence of animal studies. The most prominently cited of such studies seems to be one done by Gauthaman K, Adaikan PG, Prasad RN, in 2002 and published right here in PubMed. The researchers sought to determine whether tribulus terrestris possesses aphrodisiac properties in castrated rats. They divided the rodents into five groups of eight subjects each and tested them for eight weeks. Two groups (one castrated and one “intact”) received distilled water (a placebo). Another two groups (one castrated and one intact) received doses of testosterone (10 mg/kg body weight). The fifth group was castrated and received 5mg/kg bodyweight of tribulus terrestris. All the rodent’s body weight and prostate weight were measured, along with measurements of six sexual behavior parameters. 

So what were the results; “does tribulus work” as an aphrodisiac in rats?

“Statistical significance” from this study showed that it does. As expected, all groups of castrated rats showed decreases in body weight, prostate weight, and sexual behavior. However, compared to the ‘control group’ (placebo) of castrated rats, both the testosterone and tribulus treated groups of castrated rats showed slight increases in body weight, prostate weight, and sexual behavior. The researchers concluded that the increase in these parameters among the tribulus terrestris treated rodents was probably due to aphrodisiac activity from the plant’s androgenic properties.

It might be worth noting that the dosage of tribulus terrestris given to the rats in this study was not excessive; equivalent to about 400 mg. daily of tribulus for a 180-pound man.

The few human studies done on tribulus terrestris, however, do not substantiate the findings of animal research done on the plant. One such study was performed on twenty-one young men (ages 20-36) in Bulgaria and published in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology. In this experiment, the men were divided into three groups of seven subjects each. One group was given 10 mg/kg of bodyweight of tribulus terrestris. A second group of seven guys was given 20 mg/kg of bodyweight of tribulus. The other seven (the control) was given a placebo. The groups were tested for four weeks with the experimental subjects taking three even dosages per day of their respective amounts of tribulus. Measurements of the test subject’s serum testosterone, androstenedione, and luteinizing hormone were taken before supplementation began – four times during the experiment – and once at the conclusion of the four weeks.

So what were the results; “does tribulus work” for boosting luteinizing hormone and testosterone levels in twenty and thirty-something-year-old-guys?

Well, not according to that experiment. It showed no statistical significance at all between the guys that got the tribulus and the ones who got the fake pills.

 

'Does Tribulus Work' in high dosages of concentrated forms? If it did so consistently and not through a placebo effect - the stuff would likely sell itself

 

Another human study, this one done on elite rugby players in Australia, sought to determine if tribulus terrestris would improve testosterone levels and strength gains within a five week period of supplementation. The twenty-two subjects were divided into two groups of eleven. One group received one daily dosage of 450 mg. of tribulus while the control group received a placebo. Both groups underwent their usual pre-season heavy weight-training regimen while the researchers monitored their strength gains, muscle gains, and urinary testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratios.  An increase in this ratio would be the easiest way of determining if testosterone levels have risen significantly.

So what were the results; “does tribulus work” in improving ‘T-levels’, strength gains, and muscle gains in elite male athletes?

It didn’t in this test. Although all the subjects gained strength and muscle from their workouts, there were no significant increases among those using tribulus versus those taking the placebo. Furthermore, researchers found no increase of the T/E ratio in the tribulus-taking group.

Are the studies cited here (among a few others) conclusive in answering the question “does tribulus work?” Hardly; the question seems worthy of bigger and better studies with higher dosages of this supplement. All I can do for now is provide my own anecdotal feedback about high dosages of the most purportedly concentrated and “potent” tribulus terrestris on the market.

‘Does Tribulus Work’: Is it just a ‘concentration’ and ‘dosage’ thing?

Some people insist that tribulus terrestris really is effective at raising testosterone if only taken at a potent concentration and high enough dosage. I’m willing to accept this hypothesis, while currently only inclined to expend the resources to test it anecdotally, not scientifically. I’d love to see better-controlled and bigger human experiments done on this product. For now, however, I’m relegated only to personally testing the “hottest” tribulus product every few years – usually when a company claims to have maximized the dosage and percentage of ‘steroidal saponins’ within the product.

Just such a new tribulus product was recently released on the market. It’s called Trib X 90, and it’s purported to contain 90% saponins in each of the 750 mg. capsules. Saponins are what’re believed to be the active ingredients in tribulus terrestris, and I’d only ever seen a maximum percentage of 45 until this product came out. Wow, it’s got double that amount. If tribulus works to raise testosterone in high dosages of potent concentrations, this stuff should deliver the goods.

And I didn’t “test” it in a sparing manner. I went all-out and took up to 6 capsules of Trib X 90 per day. That’s going as high as 4.5 grams of daily intake of tribulus. Of course, I started out with two capsules per day and built up slowly to that max dosage to be sure my body didn’t have a negative reaction to large amounts. I took 2 capsules per day for one week – 4 capsules per day for the second week – and 6 capsules per day for another eight days. This got me through the entire contents of the 90-capsule bottle in just a little over three weeks.

By-the-way, my decision to test this stuff on myself at high dosages was personal; I’m not recommending that anyone reading this should do the same. And be sure to consult your physician before making the decision to use the product (at any dosage) yourself.

So what were my results; ‘does tribulus work’ anecdotally (for me) at high dosages of maximum concentrations?

That’s a negative. I experienced no tell-tale effects of “jacked-up” testosterone. The only physiological effect I noticed was a temporary increase of an “antsy-like” energy… but no different than what I might have gotten from a daily dosage of 5-hour energy drink.

Proponents of tribulus terrestris might argue that ‘increased energy’ was a positive effect of higher testosterone. Maybe… I can’t say for sure because I didn’t have any blood tests done before or during the time I used the product. What I can say for sure is that my muscle building progress derived from a unique and already extremely effective training system remained the same. Also, I noticed no sudden jump in libido from this very high dosage of tribulus.

Admittedly, I have no way of knowing if there’s truth-in-labeling being practiced by the company whose tribulus product I used. Also, I admit to ‘testing’ it for a relatively short period of time with the notion that it should begin showing results in three weeks if it ever would at all.

Does tribulus work? My personal recommendation is that people not waste their money on this stuff. There’s too much evidence showing that even if you get some benefits from the product, they won’t be nearly commensurate with the monetary costs.

In conclusion, I would love to hear feedback and opinions on the “does tribulus work” question. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

“Does Cyto Gainer Work?” It “works” in giving you 550 powdered calories

In addressing the question “does Cyto Gainer work”, I’m struck by some apparent truisms within the realm of physique improvement for underweight males. One is that emotion often trumps reason for a lot of guys who find themselves in a seemingly desperate desire to put on body weight. The other is that reason-trumping emotion seems to have created a “nothing new under the sun” scenario for those asking the “does Cyto Gainer work” question. Unbeknownst to those asking “does Cyto Gainer work”, I was asking the same question of another one of many “muscle building supplements” over 20 years ago.

“The more things change – the more they stay the same.”

The supplement was the first version of a product many people now know well: MET-Rx. And in a similar manner to those asking “does Cyto Gainer work”, I was wondering, in my naïve youth, if there was something special within MET-Rx that could help speed my muscle growth – something that gave it power beyond what food could be provided by food. I was heavily influenced by the claims and wording on the product’s label, not the least prominent being the following tag-line description:

‘Engineered Food’

‘Wow’… I thought, ‘it’s a specially engineered food to accelerate post workout recuperation; I’ve got to try it – I’ve gotta use that stuff and shock my family and friends as they (and I) watch my body transform before our eyes.’

The guy running the supplement store booth at the local swap meet tried to bring me back to earth. I’d asked him if he carried this new ‘engineered food’ as I scanned his shelves and, disappointedly, only saw Metabolol (a hot bodybuilding product of the early ‘90s). He shook his head with an expression as if he’d just encountered someone under a “stupid spell”:

“’Engineered food’ is a marketing gimmick”, he proclaimed. He pointed to the Metabolol. “THAT… is engineered food. And so is that”, he said as his hand swept the array of protein products that covered his rickety wooden shelves.

As it turned out, I would spend months using the first version of MET-Rx, ordered exclusively (and expensively) from a mail order operation in Colorado.

What did I notice from this specially concocted and mysterious “engineered food?” I attained absolutely nothing that I couldn’t have gotten from a non-engineered food. It turned out that my merchant buddy at the swap meet actually had my best interests in mind.  

That’s a long-ago personal experience worth considering right off the bat if you’re asking the “does Cyto Gainer work” question.

‘Does Cyto Gainer Work’: Maybe… if you’re short on L-glutamine?

All these years after my MET-Rx experience, the supplement companies are still touting a selling point that was started with the marketing of MET-Rx over 20 years ago. Let me explain.

MET-Rx was first marketed as possessing a mysterious ingredient that was so “anti-catabolic” that it had even been used to reverse the tissue-wasting process in burn victims. This incredible and “mystifying” ingredient is, of course, now prominently labeled on the side of any can of cheap whey protein you could purchase down at your local Walmart. It’s simply the amino acid L-glutamine. And given that Cyto-Gainer contains “partially predigested whey peptides”, it’s labeled as being high in L-glutamine.

So what does this mean to the “does Cyto-Gainer work” question?

In considering the question, it’s worth noting just how ubiquitous this amino acid is if you’re eating a well-balanced supply of protein sources. Here’s a list of foods that are high in L-glutamine:

• Beef
• Pork
• Chicken
• Fish
• Milk
• Yogurt
• Cottage Cheese
• Ricotta Cheese

As you can see, unless you’re a vegetarian, it’s easy to get L-glutamine in abundant amounts just by eating a diet of high protein foods. Oh, wait… even the vegetarians might not be short on L-glutamine; it happens to be present in veggies such as beans, spinach, parsley, and cabbage.

Bottom line: If the clerk down at the supplement store claims that “Cyto-Gain works” because it’s high in L-glutamine – just consider whether you’re even short of this amino acid in the first place. It’s only if you are deficient in this nutrient that you’re likely to see bodybuilding improvements by taking a supplement that’s high in it.

‘Does Cyto-Gainer Work’… or do big-calorie drinks just make us fat?

Those who’ve read a lot of my muscle building articles know that I have a problem with the ‘fast-metabolism’ excuse for bodybuilding plateaus. It’s not because I don’t have empathy for the plight of skinny guys attempting to gain muscle. It’s that I don’t make the overly-simplistic assumption that slender guys (and gals) have trouble gaining muscle because they don’t easily gain fat. If you think I’m wrong in not jumping to that assumption, just look at your average hard gainer who gains body fat too easily and observe whether he or she is having any easier time gaining muscle than the skinny person. The truth is that nearly every person engaging in bodybuilding – whether they’re skinny or fat – thinks they’re a “hard gainer.”

This is something to consider when analyzing the ‘does Cyto-Gainer work’ question. The reason is that if you’re training and recuperating ineffectively, chugging down a daily serving or two of a big-calorie drink as an attempted remedy can often result in disappointment. And the disappointment might be two-fold: 1) the high calorie powder doesn’t make muscle gains easier: 2) the high calorie powder results in fat gain.

With a 550-calorie wallop per serving, it’s easy to see how Cyto-Gainer could result in fat gain. It’s also easy to see, upon inspection of the Cyto-Gainer label, how 550 calories can be contained in a single serving: the serving is four scoops – 150 grams of powder. A can of it sells for around 50 dollars for 6 pounds. There are 2,726 grams of the product in the can, creating about 18 servings of the 4-scoop dosage. That comes out to about $2.78 per serving – not bad in comparison to less convenient ways of getting 550 calories containing good quality protein.

The label claims that a 4-scoop serving contains 54 grams of protein and 74 grams of carbohydrates. This quantity of carbohydrate is reasonable, especially as a glycogen replenishment taken in immediately following an intense workout. However, the protein quantity seems a bit excessive for a single serving. I’m personally skeptical of anyone’s body really needing this much protein in a single meal, unless it’s consumed without carbohydrates. Whatever’s not used is usually converted to body fat.

 

'Weight Gain Powders': "There's nothing new under the sun"; I remember using this one back in the early eighties. No... it didn't build muscle better than food.

 

If fat gain’s not your personal result from consuming excess protein, energy drain could be; it takes energy for the body to process large amounts of food. The body also requires energy to recuperate from workouts and develop new muscle tissue. Consuming more protein than necessary will not force muscles to recuperate any faster. Ironically, consuming “food coma”- type quantities of any macro-nutrient can divert bodily energy away from recuperation and toward a greater effort to simply digest and process so much food. And even though 550 calories is not an unreasonable amount for a bodybuilder to eat in a single meal, it can very easily become too much if other food items are added to a Cyto-Gainer shake.

Bottom line: Be aware that no high-calorie powder is going to compensate for ineffective bodybuilding workout practices. If you inadvertently over-train or undertrain your muscles, Cyto-Gainer (or any other supplement) will be rendered an unavailing accessory to your unfruitful efforts. Even worse, ANY excess calories consumed in this un-anabolic environment can easily result in fat gains.

“Does Cyto Gainer Work”… or would eggs and pancakes work just as well?

Just for fun, I went to the HardBody Success Free Meal Calculator to add up the calories and macro nutrient percentages of eggs and pancakes. It turns out that five egg whites along with one whole egg and two buttermilk pancakes (with butter and syrup) added up to 692 calories. It’s amazing how fast those types of calories add up. This little ‘power breakfast’ would provide 54% of calories from carbohydrates, 19% from protein, and 27% of calories from fat. It’s a bit high in carbohydrates and definitely over the top in dietary fat, but might be effective with its positives (glycogen replenishment) and innocuous in its negatives if reserved exclusively as a pre or post-workout meal.

My point: Similar to the experience I had with MET-Rx over two decades ago, there’s nothing intrinsically “anabolic” about Cyto-Gainer compared to consumption of macro-nutrient-partitioned food. If you think I’m wrong, just ask yourself the following question next time you see ‘Pre-digested protein’ printed on a protein supplement label:

“Who the hell already ate this stuff and ‘pre-digested’ it for me? Isn’t a digestive system the only thing that could… uh… pre… or partially… digest a food item?”

Okay, sorry… that was an attempt at a little gross humor. But you get my point – there’s no evidence that protein hitting your system faster is any more effective than protein hitting it just a bit later. The protein from egg whites or some milk will actually get into your blood stream relatively soon after consuming them.

The food label on Cyto-Gainer claims that the carbohydrate it contains is “a unique blend of branching as well as long-chain maltodextrin with very low ‘DE’ (Dextrose Equivalence) providing a complex carbohydrate source approximately 96.5% sugar free.”

All I can say is that it appears the company marketing Cyto-Gainer is making a claim about a “unique” maltodextrin with a description that’s applicable to ALL maltodextrin. This ingredient (maltodextrin) is a polysaccharide, comprised of multiple sugar units stuck together in either a ‘chain’ or ‘branched form.’ Maltodextrin contains anywhere from 3 to 17 sugar units in any given chain or branch.

In contrast, a complex carbohydrate (like oats or brown rice) is comprised of 20 or more sugar units stuck together.  The greater number of sugar units of which a polysaccharide is chained or branched – the slower it digests and becomes glucose (‘blood sugar’) in the bloodstream. Carbohydrates that are slower at raising blood sugar are generally healthier and less prone to contribute to fat gain. But relative to complex carbohydrates, maltodextrin has short saccharide chains and is converted to blood glucose rather quickly. In other words, you’d likely be better off eating a big bowl of oatmeal with a mix of milk and whey protein rather than chug down a lot of Cyto-Gainer.

This is not to say that Cyto-Gainer is a “bad” choice if you’re seeking speed and convenience. I’m only reiterating that there’s nothing special about Cyto-Gainer that would make its calories more apt to be directed toward muscle gains and less apt to go toward fat gain than good quality bodybuilding foods.

So, ‘Does Cyto-Gainer Work?’

For convenience in consuming a meal: I’d say “yes.” But if you’re counting on it to act anabolically compared to food, my recommendation is “hold your enthusiasm.”

“Drop-Sets for Mass”: Don’t bet your Hard-Earned Muscle on them

I’ve just finished watching some nearly mindless online bodybuilding videos on the topic of “drop sets for mass.” They’re only “nearly” mindless because they do a good job of explaining what drop sets are and the reason for which they’re intended. They touch the boundaries of mindless, however, because they fail to even acknowledge the real possibility that ‘drop sets for mass’ can have the unintended consequence of accomplishing the exact opposite of their intended purpose. I’ll explain.

Drop-sets for mass are one of at least a half dozen popular muscle building intensifying techniques. They’re a method of taking a generic weight training set (series of repetitions) and making it more challenging by extending it beyond its initial failure point. You could call drop-sets “set extenders”, similar in effect to forced reps as set extenders. And just like forced reps, ‘drop-sets for mass’ are nearly universally assumed to stimulate more muscle growth through their random insertion into bodybuilding workouts previously absent of them.

I’ll tell you a bit later why that can be a time-wasting assumption to make.

“Drop-Sets for Mass”: How they’re performed

There’s nothing rocket science-like in how to do ‘drop sets for mass’; a set is merely extended by reducing the workout weight being lifted. For example, if you’re doing a set of standing barbell curls with 70 lbs., you might perform eight repetitions with that weight before your biceps begin to fail. You’d then immediately reduce down to a lighter weight (maybe... 50 lbs.), and continue to perform more repetitions until the biceps fail with this weight. You could continue the set by dropping the weight even further for a few more repetitions.

Is there any value in doing this type of set?

The big assumption is that it will stimulate further growth by asking more of the targeted muscle tissue than is normally demanded of it. In fact, bodybuilders typically insert ‘drop-sets for mass’ into their routines when they’ve hit a progress plateau and they want to “shock” their muscles out of it.

But will this work; can drop sets for mass be depended on to jar stubborn muscles into new growth?

They’ve got a chance of being effective if one of three general reasons is the cause of the muscle-building plateau in the first place. I’ll explain that.

‘Drop Sets for Mass’: Only if you’re “under training”

Successfully building muscle is a matter stimulating muscle to grow with a certain degree of tissue tear-down (the workouts) followed by a correspondingly correct amount of recuperation time (rest days between workouts). The degree of tissue tear-down and the amount of rest time to fully recuperate from it need to be commensurate; any disproportion between them results in an absence of muscle growth. If your muscles aren’t growing, the reason (from a workout standpoint) could basically be one of only two:

1. You’re not training hard enough to adequately tear down the tissue (undertraining) 
2. You’re training hard enough but not providing adequate rest time between workouts (overtraining)

If you happen to be under-training, adding some ‘drop-sets for mass’ might be effective for bringing tissue break-down up to an adequate level to stimulate muscle growth. If you happen to be over-training, adding ‘drop-sets for mass’ would likely result in nothing but a further deficit in muscle recuperation time; it won’t result in muscle growth.

But there’s a third scenario that can take place by adding drop-sets to a routine. What if you’re already making progress in your muscle building efforts and you add some drop-sets to your workout in hopes of speeding up your progress? Will this work?

It will only be effective if it doesn’t throw off the balanced ratio between muscle tissue breakdown and commensurate recuperation. If it throws off this ratio – if you add drop-sets and don’t add needed recuperation days to accommodate the increased tissue breakdown they create – you can easily go from making progress to hitting a plateau.

This is the important caveat that nobody else in the bodybuilding information world seems to be saying, whether online or offline.

‘Drop-Sets for Mass’: Low reps into high reps?

When a bodybuilder performs ‘drop-sets for mass’, that person is, in effect, substantially increasing the number of repetitions performed in a single set. He or she is turning a medium or low-repetition set into a high-rep set. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with doing that. Likewise, neither is there anything magically ‘mass-producing’ about it. The technique could possibly add some sets that target the Type 1, slow-twitch muscle fibers with those being worked on the lower-reps sets – namely, the Type 2, fast-twitch fibers. This would likely be the result if a trainee performing sets of 4 to 8 reps suddenly doubles or triples that number of repetitions by dropping the weight two or three times for additional reps.

Theoretically, this could lead to more muscle growth by adding some mitochondrial breakdown to the myofibril work that’s occurring with the lower repetition sets. Again, whether more growth results from this would depend on whether the right ratio of recuperation was then applied to this additional dose of tissue breakdown. With the added variable of mixing different muscle building repetitions within the same workout, however, getting the ideal amount of inter-workout recuperation time can be trickier.

If you’ve added ‘drop-sets for mass’ and you haven’t experienced the new muscle size you were promised by those who claimed it would “shock your muscles into new growth” – you now know the likely reasons.

To obtain new muscle growth, we need to train with adequate intensity-of-effort while training/recuperating intelligently at the same time. If this balance isn’t struck, we’re betting whatever hard-earned muscle we’ve gained to this point on pointless workout tricks that can easily result in overtraining.

“I’m a Hardgainer”: No big deal… everyone’s a hardgainer when not training effectively

Any time before ten years ago, you’d have heard me utter the words “I’m a hardgainer” in the context of muscle building. As you might guess, I don’t say “I’m a hardgainer” anymore. Not only do I avoid such comments because they tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies; I avoid that particular one because “I’m a hardgainer” is a statement that truly no longer applies to me. I used to struggle to gain muscle. Now I gain it steadily and predictably.

There’s a guy who trains at the same gym I do who repeatedly uses the statement “I’m a hardgainer” in describing himself and his frustration. In recently speaking with him, I discovered that he’s been at the muscle building pastime for about eight years. I hate to say it, but he appears to have never trained a day in his life. I know – those are harsh words, but it’s the truth. Granted, the man is in his fifties. But his body resembles what people describe these days as a “skinny fat person.”

One of these days, I’ll probably offer to train that guy. It would be a challenge, and very rewarding to eventually witness the “I’m a hardgainer” excuse as it vanishes from his vernacular. I know without a doubt that I could help make it disappear.

Let me explain my reasoning.

'Gaining Muscle vs. Gaining Weight': Don't allow a slender body to cause you to believe muscle growth will be more difficult for you. It's simply your unique starting point if you're underweight.

 

“I’m a Hardgainer”: Really… have you ever heard anyone claim they’re an “easy gainer?”

If you’re a naturally slender person (an ectomorph), you’ve probably already been conditioned to accept the words “I’m a hardgainer.” Even if you didn’t originate such a thought upon first glancing into the mirror and realizing you’re slenderer than most, some online ‘weight gain guru’ has probably convinced you of it by now. There are plenty of them, all telling you that they “feel your pain.” They’ll display pictures of themselves in early to mid-puberty to show you how skinny they were before they discovered their weight gaining secrets. Of course, you’re told to contrast those images with current pictures of them in their early to mid-twenties. Never mind that most guys are underweight in their teens and that they naturally fill out as they reach their early twenties; we’ll forgive the weight gain gurus for leaving out that vital detail from their stories. Just observe whether they’ve made appreciable muscle gains since they’ve undergone that boy-to-man transition and you’ll know if they’re as lost as everyone else.

And what if they are lost? Well, then their label for you as a “hardgainer” could easily be a misdiagnosis.

Think about this if you’ve ever uttered the “I’m a hardgainer” phrase… either aloud or in your self-dialogue:

The place you’re starting has nothing to do with how quickly you make progress in your quest to improve your physique.

 If you’re slender, it only means that this is your unique starting point for gaining muscle. It doesn’t mean you’ll have any more difficulty gaining it than anyone else. Get that “It’s harder for me ‘coz I’m different” idea out of your head right now. It’s not true.

How do I know it’s not true?

I know it’s not because I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t think they’re a friggin’ hardgainer. Let’s get realistic; pro bodybuilders are loading themselves with stacks of pharmaceuticals in order to gain muscle. Overweight guys are having no easier time of gaining muscle than skinny guys. Mesomorphs (those blessed people) are getting off to an advantageous start, but that doesn’t mean their journey in gaining muscle size is any easier than yours.

Bottom line: Have you ever met anyone engaged in building muscle who says they’re an “easy gainer?”

“I’m a Hardgainer” are just code words for “I’m doing this ineffectively”

Like that guy at my gym, anybody will become a VERY hard gainer when approaching muscle building ineffectively. I’ve watched him train from a distance. He’s in the realm of “running east… looking for a sunset” when it comes to building muscle. That’s lost. And it’s a terrible place to be when emotionally invested in any endeavor for which we’re desirous of impactful results.

If I were his trainer, the first thing I’d do is inquire about every type of bodybuilding routine he’s tried in the past. I’d make a list saying…

“Okay, here are all the things that haven’t worked for you in the long run.”

I’d then contrast that stuff with some of the distinct techniques I personally use to get ongoing results. I’d show him how to perform each exercise for maximum targeting of the muscle being worked. I’d explain how he should use ‘micro-feedback’ from total weight volumes moved rather than getting fixated on dead weight being lifted on a “heaviest set.” I’d explain how time is related to volume and that he’ll not make progress without meaningful measurement of these parameters. I’d show him that he needs feedback among these parameters in the form of a written record, and how record-keeping can be so simple that it’s more pleasurable than just “winging it” through a workout. I would then show him how that feedback is what dictates his workout schedule; he’d no longer be brainwashed to think that he needs to work each muscle every week lest the tissue go shriveling away.

When he’s finished with using me as his trainer – he’ll no longer say “I’m a hardgainer” and his inspiration to build muscle for a lifetime will be kindled. What’s more, he’ll have the tools to keep fanning the flames of real motivation.

“Weight Gaining Secrets” you won’t have to pay for…

I’m about to do something REALLY different on the Internet; I’m going to dispense “weight gaining secrets” for which you won’t have to pay. And when I say “won’t have to pay”… I mean you’ll not even need to give me your email address in order to access the “secrets.”

Won’t that be refreshing? I mean, how many online guys are there now selling “weight gain programs?” It seems that an internet version of a modern-day Charles Atlas pops up every month. He reveals the same tired-out weight gaining secrets that the previous half dozen did. Much of the information that’s provided by these overnight experts has already proliferated to the point that it’s trite. But that doesn’t stop their nerve in calling them “weight gaining secrets” and only sharing them if you’ll hand them your email address.

 

"Gaining Solid Weight" requires performing muscle building workouts with enough intensity-of-effort

 

How hackneyed are these typical free reports?

I can give you a quick bullet list off the top of my head of what every one of these guys will tell you in their ‘weight gaining secrets’ reports:

• Lift heavy weights using big compound exercises (i.e. squats, bench presses, military presses, bent-over rowing, dead-lifts, etc.) 
 
• Don’t over-train; your body grows from rest between workouts – not during the workouts themselves. 
 
• Eat more calories… but make sure it’s clean, wholesome food – not junk food. 
 
• Keep workouts short… because anything over an hour at the gym raises your cortisol level while reducing testosterone. 
 
• Get plenty of sleep… because it will help bolster recuperation hormones and recovery between workouts. 
 
• Increase the weights that you’re training with whenever you can. 
 
• Train hard. You’ll need to use enough intensity to stimulate growth. 
 
• Don’t work out too often. It will lead to overtraining and lack of progress. 
 
• Eat frequent meals. Don’t allow yourself to go hungry. 
 
• Stay in calorie surplus. Take in more calories than you’re burning off.

There you go. That’s ten ‘weight gaining secrets’ that have been written in the “free” reports of online bodybuilding gurus… ad nauseum. 

I can hear the question already: “Yeah… but Scott, aren’t they written about repeatedly because they’re true… because they’re effective?”

My own experience with natural bodybuilding reveals a nuanced answer to that. Some of the above cited ‘weight gaining secrets’ are bullet-proof advice. Others of it are effective only when combined with important caveats. And some of it is just downright fluff – things that have been repeated so long that purveyors have accepted them without question, but the triviality of which cannot be negated.

“Oh reeeeally”… you find yourself saying. “Just name one of those that’s ‘fluff.’”

Okay… how about bullet number two – keep workouts short. Following this piece of advice typically requires at least two of three options:

1. Limit the selection of exercises for a given body part.
2. Restrict the number of sets used per body part.
3. Keep rest time between sets relatively short.

There’s definitely a tradeoff that needs to occur here. The assumption among those who claim bodybuilding workouts need to stay short (under an hour) is that the benefit will outweigh the drawbacks.

So what are the drawbacks of short workouts?

I’ll name three drawbacks that can possibly impede a person’s attempt at enjoying the results of using ‘weight gaining secrets’:

1. Limiting exercise selection can thwart attempts at a balanced physique.
2. Restricting the number of sets can result in inadequate stimulation for muscle growth.
3. Using short rest between sets can cause nervous system and VO2 fatigue at the expense of ATP-CP system fatigue needed for muscle growth stimulation.

In regard to drawback #1: How desirable is gained weight if it throws the body’s proportions out of whack? For years, I did ‘big compound movements’ while eating lots of food in an attempt to “get BIG.” For my efforts, I ended up appearing like any other fat guy… with no rear deltoids.

With regard to drawback #2: I was once sold on the idea of Mike Mentzer’s Heavy Duty system – performing one or two intense sets per exercise. I’d be a current proponent of that system if it weren’t for the experience of gaining very little muscle while using it.

And drawback #3: My longtime excursion into doing workout sets with one minute’s rest between them resulted in cardiovascular stamina and even some glances of respect from fellow gym members, but very little muscle growth.

The overly-hyped reason for short workouts is that they’re purported to allow higher testosterone levels to be maintained by the body. But it’s never been proven that acute hormone levels have any positive effect on muscle growth, even if short workouts improve those acute levels by a significant degree. Consider the following question:

Have you ever noticed that those who claim short workouts create higher testosterone never reveal HOW MUCH net testosterone you’ll spare/create by keeping workouts short?

It’s likely because they have no friggin’ idea. Even if they did, they’d not know if it were enough to make a difference to anabolism.

Moreover, if you’re young (and most guys who want to “gain weight” are), you’ve got plenty of testosterone for muscle growth. Manipulation of your hormone levels at an age when they’re already typically raging will likely result in effects that are imperceptible.

“Weight Gaining Secrets”: Adopt what’s useful and dump the rest

Some of these ten “weight gaining secrets” are good advice, but only when tempered with some caveats. For example, taking in more calories than you’re expending is necessary for gains. However, consuming more than a low few-hundred more daily calories than are used up is bad. Remember, you’re really not trying to “gain weight”; you’re working on gaining muscle. Since muscle is only gained at the pace of inter-workout recuperation, stuffing down mega calories will mostly make you fat.

Likewise, using compound movements is a good idea; I’d never design a muscle building routine without them. However, using them exclusively can be both limiting and overtaxing at the same time. They’re limiting in their ability to build a well-balanced physique. They can be simultaneously overtaxing as they systemically exhaust the body beyond its recuperative abilities.

Compound exercises are sold on lists of “weight gaining secrets” for the same reason short workouts are – they purportedly improve testosterone levels. But how much more testosterone will the body produce just because we opt for sets of bench presses over sets of dumbbell flyes? Has anyone determined this? Is it an amount that will significantly augment anabolism? I sincerely ask this question because I’ve just happened to build more pectoral mass over the years with heavy flyes than I have with bench pressing. Moreover, I believe I could train anyone to perform an isolation exercise with enough intensity so as to cause maximum testosterone-releasing effect. Currently, I’m making outstanding muscle building gains with routines that are no more than one-fourth compound movements.

The advice to “not train too often” is terrific. But it’s only useful if the seventh bullet tip on the list (‘Train hard’) is followed. You must train with enough intensity-of-effort to stimulate growth. However, (and this is a BIG ‘however’) if your intensity-of-effort is adequate, you’ll likely need more recuperative rest days between workouts than are commonly prescribed.

I believe that natural bodybuilders need more than a week’s rest for a thoroughly worked muscle to fully recuperate. Sometimes they need much more than a week.

Think about this: If you’re a member of a gym, how many people do you see training there who are ‘training hard’ but appearing the same – month after month, year after year? They don’t improve because they’re training too often. They’ve been so conditioned to believe that missing a week of training will cause their precious muscles to atrophy that they never give the obvious solution a try. It’s a slight tragedy in my opinion; if there’s anything worse than not getting desired results – it’s not getting them and also wasting time.

‘Increase the workout weights’ is also a needed bit of instruction in any ‘weight gaining secrets’ list. However, haphazardly piling on weight without adherence to other workout parameters is ineffective over the long term. You must be sure to systematically add on more workout weight within the confines of other measured guidelines. I cover these in detail within the pages HardBody Success.

‘Weight Gaining Secrets’: Don’t get too hyped up about ‘body weight’

I realize it’s nearly futile to give this advice to any young guy who’s insecure about his body weight. But it really needs to be said more often, so I’ll provide this overarching suggestion:

Focus on muscle gains rather than on overall weight gain.

Too many online gurus are using the terms ‘weight gain’ and ‘muscle gain’ interchangeably. But fat, water weight, and muscle are three very different types of weight one could gain and each is acquired in a different manner.

Take it from a guy who’s been there: Going from a skinny guy in his late teens to a fat guy by the time he’s thirty only raises a new set of challenges. Steer clear of that mistake.

There you have it: Fantastic ‘weight gaining secrets’ (with a bonus tip)… and you didn’t even have to give me your email address. Cheers!

“Cumulative Fatigue”: Another ‘muscle building’ term in need of reference… since all exercise fatigue is cumulative

When I was in Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL Training (BUD/S) back in the mid-1980s, our class endured mind-numbing fatigue that nobody who hasn’t experienced that training can imagine. It was “cumulative fatigue” times a thousand. It was the kind of fatigue that seems to transcend reality – combining every bit of cardiovascular, muscular, and nervous system stress and pushing it to an extent for which not even a body’s max endorphin release can dull the pain.  Putting it mildly: the “cumulative fatigue” was multi-times what you’d get from training for the toughest endurance sports.

One so-called “evolution” in the training that provided the epitome of “cumulative fatigue” was called ‘Log PT.’ This activity is what produced the somewhat famous image of BUD/S trainees running down the beach with “telephone poles” on their shoulders. They aren’t really telephone poles; they’re just big, heavy logs. When you add in the words ‘physical training’, you get PT, Hence, ‘Log PT.’

  

'Cumulative Fatigue': Since all exercise fatigue is cumulative, the real questions are the degree and rapidity to which we should bring it on

 

The real reason behind ‘log PT’ is to build teamwork. But that doesn’t mean the extended effect isn’t to provide an absolutely crazy workout. We’d do multiple bouts of curling the logs, overhead pressing the logs, tossing the logs overhead from one side to the other, and doing sit-ups with the logs on our chests. It would result in about three hours of cumulative fatigue and horrible discomfort. When we’d look at our weekly training schedule and see log PT as an evolution in the coming week, I’m sure we all felt a bit of stomach acid rising up in our throats. I know I did.

So… what does ‘log PT’ have to do with “cumulative fatigue?”

It’s a great example of the different types of exercise fatigue that a human body can generate – especially since we’d experience them all within the evolution’s three hours. We’d get local muscular fatigue until our arms had the strength of wet noodles as we’d try in vain to keep the logs overhead. We’d get cardiovascular fatigue from doing fast paced, maxed out repetitions of specific exercises with the logs. We’d experience overall mental, nervous system, and bodily fatigue from three hours of the constant physical hammering that was the summation of log PT.

How could we even endure such “cumulative fatigue?”

Naturally, there were points in the evolution where we’d switch exercises or the instructors would have us stop for one reason or another (usually to harass us in some creative manner). This was where we’d catch up on the horrendous oxygen deficit our bodies found themselves in. It was also a point where our scorched muscles would finally have a chance to build up a bit more ATP fuel. Despite this, no small break seemed to ever replenish the ongoing nervous system enervation that this activity created.

That kind of “cumulative fatigue” of the nervous system is exactly what (I believe) you DO NOT want to have become too excessive during your muscle building workouts. When it’s combined with excessive cardiovascular fatigue and they both exceed the cumulative fatigue of the muscle fibers, then I think muscle growth gets hampered.

“Cumulative Fatigue”: The question is only of “how soon”

There’s a belief among some bodybuilding and fitness trainers that rest between sets should be kept short and fatigue brought on quickly. They recommend resting 40 to 60 seconds between sets and definitely not resting more than 90 seconds between them. Their rationale is that it’s “cumulative fatigue” of the muscle that stimulates hypertrophy while longer rest stimulates strength gains. To predicate their point, they claim that muscles have a chance to “fully recover” between sets when the sets are done with any more inter-set rest than their one-minute prescription dictates.

First off, the term “cumulative fatigue” within the context of bodybuilding is mindless. That’s because all exercise fatigue is ‘cumulative.’ Each set of whatever you do will have the fatiguing effect of the previous set added to it. The only exception would be your very first set of the entire workout. And the only phenomenon that could prove me wrong on this claim is if a bodybuilder could perform indefinite sets with a respectable workout weight while using longer rest between sets.

I challenge any muscle building enthusiast to try this. Use 60 to 80 percent of your one-rep max on a given bodybuilding exercise and do multiple sets while resting for three minutes between the sets (that’s considered “long rest”). While doing this, if the muscle you’re working never gets fatigued and can, thus, go on forever, then I’ll swallow my pride and say I was wrong about cumulative fatigue. However, if you reach the point in which you can’t do any more strict repetitions within a few sets, then my point about fatigue is correct and muscles don’t “fully recover” – even during “long rest between sets.”

My point: resistance workouts bring on fatigue that’s acquired cumulatively. The only question is how soon we should bring on that fatigue based on the amount of resistance used and the length of intervals between bouts of using it.

‘Cumulative Fatigue’: Consider what type is accumulating first

The currently widespread notion that strength training and size training are mutually exclusive is a bit odd to me. All it takes is some casual observation to show its erroneousness. Professional bodybuilders who possess the most muscle size also demonstrate the most strength in their workouts. I recall seeing Nasser El Sonbaty working his deltoids a few feet away from me at the gym where I trained back in the 1990s. He was doing standing behind-the-neck-presses for sets of ten with 225 pounds on a free-weight barbell. One could easily see the correlation between the massive size of his delts and his demonstrative strength.

My point: Despite the current in-vogue claims regarding myofibrillar growth vs. sarcoplasmic growth, we DO need to get stronger in order to gain muscle size.

Personally, I’ve observed that gaining this vital strength is most effectively done through so-called “cumulative fatigue” occurring in the muscle’s ATP-CP system. This means we DON’T want cumulative fatigue of the VO2 and/or nervous system occurring before the muscle’s strength system can be maximally stimulated.

In other words, when it comes to “cumulative fatigue” (assuming the words make sense), you need to consider what type is accumulating first and whether that’s getting you closer to your goals. Believe me, if you want a nice body, you don’t want to over-train your nervous system at the expense of your musculature.

Our scrawny bodies in BUD/S Training could be somewhat a testament to THAT.



“Are Bodybuilders Stupid?” Only when we don’t exercise smart thinking

I used to think the question “are bodybuilders stupid” was itself… a stupid inquiry. After all, implicit within the question is a possible cause-effect assumption that’s ridiculous. If statistical analysis could demonstrate its answer in the positive, then either a big percentage of low-intellect people are drawn to body improvement or building our bodies makes us stupid. It would obviously be one or the other. Since many non-bodybuilding types who ask the question “are bodybuilders stupid” rarely clarify their own thinking beyond that of an associative observation, they occasionally demonstrate their own lack of critical thinking skill when assuming and hinting of a possible link between strenuous exercise and below-average brain power. Exercise of any kind typically increases circulation, including that to the brain. Although that in itself doesn’t prove a cause-effect relationship suggesting bodybuilding makes us smarter, a basic understanding of physiology should have us wince at any suggestion that weight training directly leads to IQ drainage.

But… as I said, I USED to think “are bodybuilders stupid” was a stupid question. I’ve since sometimes questioned the assumed stupidity of that question. And since my second thoughts don’t stem from a nominalized, final judgment about us bodybuilders, I acknowledge it with the sincerest belief that we can build our minds as assuredly as our bodies. Maybe too many of us stopped doing that after becoming uber-physical types.

Where’s my evidence that the “are bodybuilders stupid” question has some legitimacy?

 

Weight training can actually improve circulation, including that to the brain

 

Surprisingly, right within the claims, practices, beliefs, contradictions, and just downright uncritically thought-out assertions of bodybuilding content itself. While keeping a sense of humor, let’s go over some of what I’m referring to right now.

“Are Bodybuilders Stupid?” Maybe… when the claims we make within bodybuilding are a bit idiotic

I saw something recently on the website of a bodybuilding “expert” that almost floored me. He’d posted an article claiming to reveal the optimal range of repetitions for gaining muscle. Within the article, he said he’d found the best range of repetitions to be between 8 and 12. He arrived at this number range after concluding from personal experience that the range of 6 to 8 reps was too low. What was his reasoning behind this? (Brace yourself):

He’d found himself prone to using sloppy exercise form when going heavy enough to use 6 to 8 repetitions.

Okay… pardon me, but wouldn’t the logical remedy be to slightly reduce the weight load until he could use proper form for the 6 to 8 repetition range? After all, it’s all relative; the weights are “heavy” relative to the strength of the muscles AND to the exercise form used.

Above all, how did he reason that his exercise form is an indictment of lower repetition ranges? I have no friggin’ idea. But what I predict is that if he ever instructs a trainee who has even a modicum of common sense, that trainee might guiltily harbor the question…

“Are bodybuilders stupid?”

Alright, you’re not convinced that the hypothetical trainee might have a legit question? How about this one: Since we’re on the topic of relativity, let’s analyze an oft-repeated reason that a typical bodybuilder recommends bench pressing over flye movements for building pectorals. Here’s the repeated (ad nauseum) reason:

“We need to use the heaviest weights possible in order to build muscle mass.”

Wait a minute… wouldn’t the concept of ‘heavy’ be relative to how many muscles are invoked and at what angle those muscles are stressed by an exercise? When we do bench presses, we’re using our triceps and deltoids along with our pectorals. No matter how well we tweak our form to better target the pecs, we’re still using three muscle groups to move the weight. Thus, the amount of resistance that’s stressing the pectorals is RELATIVE to the amount that would stress them on an isolation exercise like dumbbell flyes.

By pointing this out, I’m not saying that bench presses aren’t a valuable compound movement; they certainly are. I’m merely highlighting that common sense can demonstrate the erroneousness of four misconceptions:

1. That heavier weight used in bench pressing makes this exercise a comparative “mass builder.”
2. That lighter weight used in flye movements makes them “shaping exercises.”
3. Only compound movements build substantial muscle size.
4. Isolation movements won’t build muscle size.

Just as an example: If a person can do strict bench pressing with 185 lbs. for 6 maximum repetitions, then that particular weight is ‘heavy’ for that individual on the bench press. If the same person can perform strict incline dumbbell flyes with 40-lbs. dumbbells for a maximum of 6 repetitions, then THAT particular weight is ‘heavy’ for them on incline dumbbell flyes. A workout with the flyes would be a heavy workout at that weight. The weight is HEAVY relative to the isolation of the pectorals based on the angle and direction that the muscle is being stressed.

Bottom line: If we don’t want the “are bodybuilders stupid” question thrown at us, let’s at least be sure we don’t have nonsensical reasoning applied to practices in our own favorite sport or pastime.

Are Bodybuilders Stupid? “Do as I say… but don’t look too closely at what I do”

Adjacent to the gym where I train there’s a bodybuilding supplement store with a big-screen television inside. The TV will often be playing videos of pro bodybuilders doing their workout demos while dispensing snippets of instruction. While recently taking a few moments to view a segment of one of these videos, I noticed a blatant contradiction by a pro bodybuilder that would have any thinking person asking the question:

“Are bodybuilders stupid?”

How could any viewer not ask this question when this particular pro (I won’t mention names) touts himself as a “thinking man’s bodybuilder?” In all fairness: his instruction in optimal exercise form is fantastic. But his lack of forethought in other areas is… well… disappointing. Let me explain.

This bodybuilder is, apparently, a big proponent of the time under tension theory. Judging by the short segment I saw, he’s willing to nearly scold any trainee who thinks workout weight takes precedent over the all-important “time under tension.” The ‘time under tension’ he prescribes is made to sound extremely important within all relevant contexts: the exercise repetitions and exercise sets, as well as the entire bodybuilding workouts.

Fair enough! But… after all that fuss about ‘time under tension’, he proceeded to instruct a trainee in doing (of all things)… ‘Alternating Dumbbell Curls.’ We’ve all seen this exercise. It’s the one in which a bodybuilder alternates between curling a left-handed dumbbell with curling a right-handed dumbbell. The practice obviously creates a substantial rest/pause for each respective bicep while the other one is doing its curl. Never mind that few people in bodybuilding do enough thinking to even ask why this exercise is permissible for biceps and rarely used for other muscle groups. But since we’re on the topic, let’s ask the question: If alternating reps are effective, why don’t we see the following exercises?

• Alternating calf raise?
• Alternating bent-over dumbbell rows?
• Alternating leg presses?
• Alternating dumbbell bench pressing?
• Alternating dumbbell ‘skull-crushers?’

… You get the point; why don’t we just take a rest-pause between every rep by doing alternating… everything?

Okay… back on point: How can a bodybuilding expert instruct people in the incredible importance of in-set ‘time under tension’ and follow that by instructing/overseeing a trainee in doing alternating dumbbell curls? Suddenly, the time under tension didn’t matter anymore? Or are we bodybuilders too often inviting the question…

“Are bodybuilders stupid?”

“Are Bodybuilders Stupid?” Maybe… when natural bodybuilders follow the advice of pro bodybuilders

Natural bodybuilders might be more deserved of the “are bodybuilders stupid” question when they follow the advice of pro bodybuilders than at any other time. We who are life-time naturals are acting stupidly any time… and I do mean ANY… time we follow the workout schemes and schedules of steroid-using pro bodybuilders. If you doubt me on this, I invite you to ponder a question:

When was the last time you witnessed a pro bodybuilder making steady, noticeable gains while “off the juice?”

I’ve trained in Southern California gyms for over two decades and I’ve never seen that. The reason is revealed by any honest glance at a pro bodybuilder’s typical schedule. These guys can never really be off steroids and other bodybuilding drugs for very long. Moreover, the months out of a year when they’re “off cycle” are spent trying to get their endocrine systems back to a semblance of normalcy. During that time, it’s not hard to notice that their muscles atrophy significantly. I’ve seen many as they struggle just to maintain what they’ve got until the next pre-contest drug cycle. Then… voila, they’re back “on cycle” – gaining muscle unnaturally for the next competition.

This scenario appears to go unnoticed by some online natural bodybuilding gurus. Some of them will willingly team up with professional bodybuilders on instructional videos. As if joint marketing is more important to them than leaning and sharing sound natural bodybuilding principles, they’ll meekly submit to a sycophantic relationship in which the pro bodybuilder is “teaching” and the natural bodybuilder is lapping it all up like it’s the pinnacle of bodybuilding information. While I’ll acknowledge some terrific information in the area of exercise form and technique dispensed by some pro bodybuilders, experience has taught me that their training routine advice amounts to a long-term waste of time and energy.

 

'Natural bodybuilding' requires distinctly different routines and schedules from that of 'steroid-enhanced bodybuilding in order to be intelligently and effectively executed.

 

I won’t mince words: Many of these pro bodybuilders never get a clue themselves. And how could this not sustain the “are bodybuilders stupid” question? They’re personally experiencing the physiological difference between training with drugs and training without them. But watching them closely only reveals that many of them typically make no (or very little) change to their training techniques when they’re not “cycling.”

Does anyone have a muscle confusion program to sell them?

“Are Bodybuilders Stupid”… or is Internet bodybuilding marketing getting REALLY stupid?

I won’t mince words here either: Internet bodybuilding and fitness marketing has begun to appear like one big mess of a ponsi scheme.

Let me share an experience as an example. I just did a search on a key bodybuilding word and ended up on a page that poses as an article.  It only poses as an article; it’s really a shill review.

What do I mean by “shill review?”

I mean the author is pretending to provide an objective review for an information product by an online bodybuilding guru. However, the so-called review is hardly objective because the “article author” is nothing other than an affiliate marketer who aims to get a percentage off the product’s sale.

There’s nothing wrong with that… right?

Not at all. But things are a little out of hand when the article author and online bodybuilding guru both position themselves as being against the “rip-off supplement companies”… but then take a cut of advertising dollars from these companies when the company’s supplement ads appear on the guru’s or article writer’s websites. Within the margins of the article page on which I’d landed, I saw ads for Force Factor, a product promoted with outrageous claims of dubious credibility (to put it mildly). These are the kinds of confusing, mixed messages that muddle an industry when too many of its participants are seeking a quick buck… from anywhere.

So let’s not just be smart bodybuilders; let’s be smart (and ethical) about spreading our bodybuilding and fitness philosophies.

“Are Bodybuilders Stupid?” No… but we need to be ‘extra smart’ to override a stereotype

It wouldn’t be difficult to bring up more idiotic sayings, contradictions, assumptions, and even some non-sequiturs repeated within the bodybuilding and fitness industries. Just to cite a simple one: Why do we constantly refer to building “lean muscle mass”… or even “quality muscle mass?” It’s acknowledged in one breath that fat and muscle are two different tissues. Then trainers will tell their clients about the benefits of building “lean muscle mass.” But if muscle and fat are two different things, then how could muscle mass be anything but lean? I won’t even venture a guess at what people in our industry mean when referring to “quality muscle mass.” Is there a type of muscle that lacks quality? If so, what measures would one take to make sure they get the quality type?

This might all seem like nitpicking. But it could be a bit of necessary nitpicking; more legitimacy to our industry might be borne out of overcoming a long-held stereotype about bodybuilders. And overcoming that stereotype might call on us to think more intelligently than the habitual and noncritical thinking that many of us engage in for too much of our days.

“What is Time under Tension”… and does it help build muscle?

If you’re like I am, you probably apply critical thinking to the bombardment of claims you get hit with every day. And the context is irrelevant; it doesn’t matter if those claims are coming from a self-righteous journalist who’s enamored with his or her own subjective model of idealism, or a self-appointed expert who suddenly possesses every definitive answer on a topic. Analysis should be your MO – logic and feedback your tools of analysis. Remember, sometimes when they can’t dazzle you with brilliance – they’ll try to baffle you with bull-shi… (uh… you know the saying).

Take the question of “what is time under tension” in bodybuilding and fitness. The simple answer is that it’s the amount of time that tension is placed on a muscle when we’re applying resistance to that muscle. The resistance could come in the form of body weight exercises, free weight workouts, machine weights, or resistance bands. Basically, the time spent in the middle of your repetitions (when you’re lifting and lowering the weight) is time under tension.

But let’s face it: That’s an explanation of time under tension at its most granular level.  The question “what is time under tension” can’t be intelligently addressed without first identifying a point of relative reference for the time.

What do I mean by that?

 

'Time Under Tension': If someone tells you it's more important than workout poundage, ask them why muscles recognize the passage of time more than the gravity of what they're holding.

 

I mean that there’s time under tension for each repetition, as described above. But then there’s the total time under tension for a set of repetitions. Add those together and you’ve got time under tension for the total number of sets done on an exercise. Finally, adding all the time under tension done on different exercises gives us time under tension for an entire workout. So the first thing you should ask someone who responds to “what is time under tension” with something like the following nonsensical answer:

“It’s all that really matters”

…You might want to ask them the context for which it matters and the degree of its importance.

What do I mean by the ‘degree’ of its importance? I’m referring to the ratio of its value compared to other factors.

Let me explain it this way: You’ll often hear experts these days (even pro bodybuilders) telling you that the weight you’re lifting during your workouts doesn’t matter. They’ll say things like the following statement:

“It really doesn’t matter how much weight you lift; what matters is the torque placed on the muscle… and time under tension.”

Now… if you’ve gone about choosing a personal trainer who says such a thing (especially if it’s a competitive bodybuilder), I suggest you reply with the following question:

“Okay… so if the weight we use doesn’t really matter, are you willing to spend six months prior to your next bodybuilding contest reducing your workout weight poundage to about half what you’re lifting now?”

Of course, no bodybuilder in his or her right mind would agree to do THAT. It would be like adhering to a prescription for smaller muscles. And their reluctance will reveal the claims that “the weight doesn’t matter” and “time under tension is all that matters” as… well… the half-truths (at best) for which they are.

Similarly, some personal trainers who are staunch believers in the “time under tension” theory like to repeat things like the following contention:

“A muscle doesn’t really know how much weight it’s lifting; it only knows torque and time under tension.”

My question is this: If a muscle doesn’t know how much weight it’s lifting – how does it possibly know how much time it’s been lifting it? Are we going to claim that muscles recognize time passage but not weight poundage? That’s ridiculous. The answer, of course, is that a muscle doesn’t KNOW anything; it’s just tissue that responds to stimulus. As such, its augmentation relies to a certain degree on time under tension but is likewise very dependent on increases of workout weight poundage in order to gain strength and size.

And what about the term “torque” in describing muscle contraction? Torque is a mechanical engineering word that’s defined as “the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis, fulcrum, or pivot.” It might be accurate to describe some skeletal muscles as demonstrating ‘torque’ while contracting. However, even when this is the case, the amount of weight being lifted would definitely affect this torque.

“What is Time under Tension”: Uh… it’s the part when you make funny faces

Let’s say you decide to do a set of bench presses for eight repetitions. In doing them, you decide to use four seconds to lower the weight to your chest on each repetition. You choose to pause at the bottom of the rep for one second and explode on the positive side of the repetition for another one second. The positive part of the repetition takes you one second. At the top of the repetition, you decide to lower the weight again immediately, with no pause at all. Assuming you keep the weight moving like that with no excessive pausing, this would give you approximately six seconds of time under tension for each repetition. After completing the eight reps in this manner, you’ll have obviously put your muscles under 48 seconds of time under tension.

So that’s how time under tension is typically defined within the context of a weight lifting set. Its existence as a concept is obviously dependent on how much time we take to lower and raise the weight and the length of pause we take at the bottom (and/or top) of the movement.

But this half-hearted definition raises the question of relativity. If we subtract the 1 second of brief pause at the bottom of the presses, we actually get 40 seconds of time during each rep that the muscle is really under tension. So a person who prescribes such a repetition tempo is really saying that no less than 83% of each repetition (40/48 = .83) should be spent with tension on the muscle.

So “what is time under tension”… really, in the context of a set?

Let’s say I suggest that you take a two-second pause at the top of each repetition while keeping your 4-second negative, one second bottom-pause, and 1-second positive. You decide to take me up on that. When you’re finished with the eight reps, you will STILL have put the muscle under 40 seconds of tension. The only difference is that the set will have a different ratio of pause/tension time. Now the set will have taken you about 64 seconds to complete while keeping the muscles under tension for 63% of the time (40/64 = .63).

What’s my point?

It’s that statements like “we’re trying to increase time under tension” are meaningless without a reference of relativity (the total time expenditure) that turns it into a ratio of ‘time under tension/total time used.

Why is this important?

Because making time under tension a prime objective raises a great question: Why don’t those who think it’s such an important workout concept just recommend doing ONE GIANT SET with super-slow negative reps and no rest periods? This would create INCREDIBLE tension for nearly 100% of the time used to create it.

C’mon… you’ve got to ask these questions if you’re a thinking person (which I know you are).

‘What is Time under Tension’: Is it the tension in ratio to exercise time?

We could answer the “what is time under tension” question in relation to time the muscle spends under tension during the collection of sets of an exercise. In this case, of course, we’re just adding in the factors of total sets done and rest time between sets. Using our bench pressing example above, we could perform four sets of the eight reps with two minute’s rest between each set. If we do that with the four-second negative, one-second bottom-pause, one-second positive, and no pause at the top, we’re back to having sets of forty-eight seconds.  Four sets of 48 seconds are 3 minutes and 12 seconds of set time. Add in three, two-minute rest periods between the four sets and we end up with a total time for the bench pressing exercise of 6 minutes and 12 seconds.

 

'Negative Repetitions': They can stimulate additional muscle fibers. However, over-doing them can easily overtrain a natural bodybuilder.

 

But what ratio of this exercise time is “time under tension?”

By subtracting the eight seconds per set of pausing at the bottom of the movement and the three two-minute inter-set rest periods, we end up with 3 minutes and 32 seconds of that time in which the muscle is not under tension. So let’s get the ratio of time the muscle is under tension:

372 – 212 = 160

160/372 = .43

So with two minutes of rest between each set that we do at this particular repetition tempo, we end up with four sets of bench presses that take just over six minutes to complete and an exercise “time under tension” of about 43%.

So… is this good… or bad… or neither here nor there?

Let’s just contrast it with shorter rest between sets. If we reduced our rest time to one minute between our sets instead of two, we’d end up with a total set time of 3 minutes and 12 seconds (192 sec) and a higher ratio of time under tension for the exercise time:

160/192 = .83

We’d now have 83% of our total four-set exercise time with the muscle under tension.

Obviously, the factors that affect the ratio of time under tension for the total output of a particular exercise are the following bullets:

• Speed of the eccentric (negative) portion of the repetitions.
• Speed of the concentric (positive) portion of the repetitions.
• Pauses during the repetitions.
• Number of repetitions per set of the exercise.
• Number of sets of the exercise.
• Rest time between sets of the exercise.

Any time we slow down the repetition speed and, thus, increase the duration of each repetition, we increase the ratio of time under tension during the set if all else remains the same. Likewise, if we reduce or eliminate pausing during reps and reduce rest time between sets, we also increase the time under tension if all else remains the same.

In the context of an entire workout, we can increase the ratio of time under tension through any of the factors above along with reducing the time spent in moving from one exercise to another.

 

‘What is Time under Tension’: Just a prescription for lactic acid buildup?

Now that we’ve determined the whole ‘time under tension’ concept as something that can only make sense as a ratio, let’s look more closely at its implications. Those who contend that it’s more important than workout poundage are, in essence, saying we should reduce the weight being lifted and increase the ratio of time lifting it. Workout poundage reduction is what naturally needs to occur when increasing this ratio because the more time during a workout that a muscle is under tension, the faster it loses strength. 

And what’s the reason for that?

It’s due to lactic acid and other waste product buildup. Also, when a bodybuilder performs repeated sets with one minute or less of rest between them, the muscles use ATP stores quickly and the body consumes glycogen in an attempt to build more of it to be used as fuel for muscle contraction. To put it in everyday vernacular: The muscles and body get tired fast.

There are some who claim this is better for hypertrophy (muscle growth) than a lower ratio of workout time under tension. These people typically say that we should slow down the negative portion of our repetitions, increase our total set time to between 40 and 70 seconds, and reduce our inter-set rest time to between 30 and 60 seconds.

The logic behind doing this is… that… well, I don’t know WHAT the logic is behind doing it because its proponents never explain their rationale. Some of them go as far as telling willing listeners that it’s “scientifically” shown to maximally build muscle. My advice: Be skeptical of those types of claims. When someone asserts that their methods are “scientific”, ask them for references to double blind studies that back their claims as science.

Anecdotally, my experience has never confirmed the claims of these believers of time under tension’s benefits. To the contrary, I’ve observed the opposite; a greater propensity for muscle growth from heavier workout weights, shorter sets with less eccentric tension, and longer resting time between sets.  In fact, if you asked me “what is time under tension”, my simple answer would be the following opinion:

“It’s something that if increased beyond the point of a 50% ratio can easily lead to nervous system overload that minimizes stimulation of fast-twitch muscle fibers which possess the most potential for muscle growth.”

In other words, maximum time under tension is not the best muscle building method for the natural bodybuilder.

Your opinions are welcome (and encouraged) – especially if you’ve used routines with high ratios of time under tension (i.e. prolonged eccentric reps, short inter-set rest) for a few weeks or months. We’d love to get your feedback.

“Resting Time between Sets”: How long for maximum muscle?

There is perhaps no more greatly underutilized concept than “resting time between sets” as an in-workout tactic for building maximum muscle size in bodybuilding. Just walk into any gym with the idea of estimating how many people therein are even partially paying attention to their resting time between sets and you’ll be hard-struck to find many. A good number will be arbitrarily applying inter-set rest time; just doing sets whenever they feel like it. Others will have some cognizance of it, but only to the extent that they’ve been convinced to keep the time short lest they “stay in the gym too long.”

Since recent workout dogma dictates that long workouts are antithetical to anabolic hormone release, it’s been popularly advised that “resting time between sets” stay on the short side in order to be in alignment with this “short/fast workout” vogue. This has resulted in recommendations of resting time between sets be no longer than 1 to 2 minutes.

But is a resting time between sets of 1 to 2 minutes really the best way to build maximum muscle? This is a great question. Forget, for a moment, the idea of using weight training as a cardiovascular or VO2 workout; we can add some fat burning workouts that are more efficient as separate entities. Combining cardio and strength training with the faddishness of a CrossFit workout will likely get us subpar results in each of those respective endeavors.

Let’s focus instead on weight training’s ability to maximally create tissue that will turn our bodies into resting furnaces of a higher metabolic rate. Let’s come from the idea that building appreciable muscle adds metabolically active, contour-producing body mass that actually makes losing fat easier and a lot more fun. Believe me, when there’s a decent amount of muscle beneath the fat, workout motivation becomes the means to an exciting end. When that happens, we don’t require wacky workouts based on muscle confusion to keep us motivated and entertained.

With that said, let’s delve further into whether resting time between sets should be short (1-2 minutes) or long (2-5 minutes).

“Resting Time between Sets”: Is the current advice just feeding a want?

Currently, vast swaths of the population want to hear that desirable things can be gotten with little time expenditure. They want to be told that exciting body improvements can be had with eight minutes in the morning. They want to chug their beers and eat their chocolate sundaes on… well, Sunday and hear that they’ll be atoned for their “sins” by working out for ten minutes on Monday.

It’s natural to an extent; many of us are obviously “time challenged.”

But is this prevailing mood causing workout advice to meet popular want rather than to follow where evidence would lead it? I ask this question with regard to resting time between sets within the context of maximally building muscle. We know the crowd that claims “you-can-work-out-effectively-in-the-time-it-takes- you-to-shower” wants everyone to believe that short resting time between sets is good. We also know the “better-get-outa-the-gym-in-40-minutes-or-your-testosterone-level-will-drop-to-the-level-of-a-little girl” crowd wants us to believe something similar. But each of these respective groups has an ulterior motive for subscribing to these views: they want to tell people what people want to hear; that building enough muscle to create an improved metabolism can be done within the time it takes to make a pot of coffee or watch their favorite sit-com.

Let’s be different and actually follow the evidence when exploring the “resting time between sets for muscle hypertrophy” question.

“Resting Time between Sets”: My personal experience

As described in a previous post, I’ve attempted to build decent muscle size using 1 minute rest between sets. The results were disappointing. Conversely, I’ve used 3 to 4 minutes between sets for muscle building and achieved fantastic results. The short rest period between sets built my cardiovascular endurance more than my muscle size. The longer rest allows me to keep the weight heavier throughout the sets of reps to stimulate the myofibrils that result in the greatest growth potential. My muscles have gotten bigger as they’ve gotten stronger. They’ve gotten stronger by adequate stimulation of myofibril tissue through working the ATP-CP energy system.  

But doesn’t longer resting time between sets lengthen workout time? Doesn’t that wreak havoc on endogenous testosterone levels?

Show me someone who doesn’t at least question the importance of in-workout testosterone levels and I’ll show you someone disconnected (at least temporarily) from their critical thinking skills. Muscles grow during rest – not during workouts. This means that average testosterone levels during inter-workout recuperation are what’re important. Since a workout is catabolic (i.e. it tears down tissue) anyway, then what’s the importance of the release of an anabolic hormone during the time of the workout? Testosterone levels ebb and flow throughout the day. Even if a longer workout knocks them down a bit, they rebound relatively quickly after that.

The answer in the minds of the short-workout proponents is that testosterone levels will remain high at the conclusion of the shorter workout and this will enable the body to use the hormone at a (theoretically) vital time in the recuperation phase. It’s still believed among many people that a “window of opportunity” exists for two hours after a workout in which the body grabs the greatest foothold on recuperation through protein synthesis – an idea that’s been perpetuated by bodybuilding supplement companies.

For what it’s worth, my personal experience does not substantiate this idea. I’ve done 40-minute workouts with short inter-set rest periods (in and out of the gym fast). I’ve likewise done plenty of two and even three-hour workouts in which my inter-set rest was long. The short workouts with abbreviated resting time between sets have had me hit plateaus that were as frustrating as anyone could experience. The longer workouts have often rewarded me with non-stop muscle growth. A big factor for success in using either type of training is the amount of applied rest time between workouts. However, the fact that each of these respective training methods creates a different effect on the amount of strength that can be maintained throughout a workout might make a perceptible difference in muscle hypertrophy.

“Longer Resting Time between Sets”: Evidence that corroborates my experience?

Much of the hoopla regarding short resting time between sets (1 minute intervals) revolves around the notion that this practice causes more endogenous HGH and testosterone release than do longer rest periods. This idea really took off after a study (1) done back in 1990 by Dr. William Kraemer and his colleagues. In the study, the researchers found that a higher amount of these two potentially anabolic/metabolic-enhancing hormones were released by the body with workouts of short rest intervals as compared to ones with longer intervals.

But this raises a good question: Does greater acute hormone release mean greater long-term muscle growth?

Moreover, does anyone who assumes that these acute hormone levels are important ever wonder how MUCH additional testosterone and HGH a short workout preserves and whether that amount would make an anabolic difference?

Apparently, a study on rats (2) demonstrated that muscles grow as a result of overload without any acute anabolic hormone release at all. In the study, done by A.L. Goldberg back in 1975, the rodents were subjected to extra strain on their soleus muscles (lower calves) by removal of the tendon connecting it to their gastrocnemius muscles (upper, beefy part of calves). The sudden increase in workload on the rat’s soleus muscles resulted in as much as a 40% weight increase in that muscle within 6 days. Moreover, hypertrophy occurred even when the rats were deprived of testosterone through castration and dispossessed of growth hormone through removal of their pituitary glands.

A human study (3) done at McMaster University in Ontario Canada back in 2006 also demonstrated that muscles grow without any significant increase in acute hormone release. This study was done on ten healthy young men who trained 3 times per week in a unilateral protocol of leg extensions and leg presses. A “unilateral” protocol means that each of the men exercised one leg while the other was used as a non-exercised control group. The exercises were performed at 80% to 90% of the subject’s one-rep maximum lifting weight (1RM). Samples of the test subject’s blood were taken before and after the first training session and following the final training session. These samples were analyzed for levels of total testosterone, free testosterone, luteinizing hormone, SHBG, growth hormone, cortisol, and insulin-like growth factor-1.

The results of the study showed only a very slight increase in circulating growth hormone levels within 30 minutes of exercise that returned to baseline levels within 90 minutes. No significant increases in testosterone, HGH, or IGF-1 levels were observed in the 90 minutes following exercise. Despite this, cross-sectional measurements of the vastus lateralis (largest section of thigh muscle) showed increased size in both 2a and 2b fast-twitch muscle fibres of the exercised leg. There was no observable increase in muscle size in the unexercised leg.

Couple these findings with the common sense question that asks what the value of acute, exercise-induced hormone release means for long-term anabolism and you’ve got to at least wonder about its purported value as an effect of short resting time between sets.

Resting Time between Sets: But “train heavy” is such idiotically ‘relative’ advice

Peruse any serious strength training or bodybuilding book and you’ll likely find a section that tells you that repetitions and numbers of sets are inversely related to the quantity of weight lifted. Uh…does this really need to be explained to anyone? Does anybody from this planet that’s aware of the law of gravity need to be told that the heavier something is – the less they’ll be able to move it? Or that they’ll need longer rest intervals between bouts of moving it in order to delay getting tired?

Are we really that… stupid? Haha… I think the average five-year-old has that one figured out.

So we know that longer resting time between sets allows us to lift heavier weight for a higher number of sets. The question is: Does this result in more muscle growth than using lighter weights for sets with less rest time between them?

What often gets lost in this discussion is the fact that muscles will only have grown when weights that were once heavy to them become lighter to them. A muscle must get stronger in order to become bigger. If you doubt me on that claim, just take a look at the biggest bodybuilders. They also happen to be the strongest bodybuilders. Ronnie Coleman, one of the biggest bodybuilders alive, is known for being capable of lifting (and using) extremely heavy workout weights.

So if we need to get stronger to gain size, it becomes a question of how to get from point A to point B. For example, if you can currently walk up to a curling bar and maximally perform 10 repetitions with 70 pounds on the bar, your biceps will be bigger when you can walk up to that same bar and perform 10 repetitions with 85 pounds (just to pick a random higher number). This naturally leads to the following questions:

Do heavier weights with longer inter-set rest stimulate faster strength progression?

Or is it lighter weights with less inter-set rest that stimulates faster strength progression?

The real question is which method will get the contractile tissues of your biceps growing the fastest so that they’ll become capable of doing those ten reps with 15 pounds more weight as quickly as possible.

A clue to the answer might be provided by another study (4). This one, done back in 1995 and published in the JSCR, tested increases in strength relative to different resting times between sets, among other things. The study involved 33 weight trained men who were divided into three equal-sized groups.  The three groups were given identical workout regimens for five weeks, including the same exercises, rep schemes, and set schemes. The only difference among the three groups was their inter-set rest intervals; one group rested 3 minutes, another rested 90 seconds, and the third rested 30 seconds.

The results of the study were significant. The first group (that rested 3 minutes) increased in 1RM squat strength by a big margin above groups two and three. In fact, they improved in strength by more than triple the strength gains of group three.

The amount of 1RM squat strength gain for group one was 7%. If we transfer that over to our barbell curling example (just for fun), it would equate to jumping from the 70-pound weight for 10 reps up to 75 pounds for the same ten reps. This would likely result in a 1RM barbell curl increase from about 90 lbs. to nearly 100 lbs. It would also have the biceps well on their way to curling the 15-pounds-heavier workout weight and displaying the concomitant size increase that goes with it.

Resting Time between Sets: A roadmap to hypertrophy?

Of course, single set strength capability is likely more an effect of muscle hypertrophy than a clear and simple roadmap of how to gain it. That’s because single-set workouts are usually only effective for rank beginners and multi-set strength increases require more strategic thinking. Consider it this way: A guy like Ronnie Coleman has as much muscle as he does not only because he can lift… say… 270 pounds for ten reps in behind-the-neck-press (just a guess). It’s also because he can lift 225 pounds in the same lift (another guess) for multiple sets of ten reps. It’s the multiple sets of lighter weight that is the strategery that provides the hypertrophy that leads to the single-set max strength – not the other way around.

The idea of longer resting time between sets is also not without its expert proponents. Respected strength coach Charles Poliquin recommends (5) up to a 1:20-30 set/rest time ratio in order to fully recuperate the nervous system and allow the fast-twitch muscle fibers to be stimulated into growth. That ratio means that if it takes you twenty seconds to perform a set, it should take you 6 minutes and forty seconds to recover from it. This might be an extreme to the other end, but it serves to illustrate the importance of nervous system recovery between sets. I personally recommend at least a 1:10 set/rest ratio.

The point of all this is simple: If you’ve been banging your head in frustration because significant muscle size gains have eluded you despite your short, fast, “testosterone sparing” workouts, it might be time for you to get more strategically savvy. At least consider the possibility that “resting time between sets” is important – likely as important as number of repetitions, rest days between workouts, and getting enough protein.

Think of it this way: Before you can lift a heavier weight for sets of 6 to 10 reps with a minute between sets – you might first need to become capable of lifting that weight for sets of 6 to 10 reps with 3 minutes between them. Then you could make an incremental reduction of your inter-set rest time for that particular volume your next goal.

An ever-improving physique takes some strategic thinking and disciplined execution – like most of the good things in life.

References:

1. KRAEMER WJ, L MARCHITELLI, SE GORDON, E HARMAN, JE DZIADOS, R MELLO, P FRYKMAN, D MCCURRY, and SJ FLECK. Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. (Journal of Applied Physiology, 69:1442-1450. 1990)
2. GOLDBERG AL, ETLINGER JD, GOLDSPINK DF, JABLECKI C. Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. (Med Sci Sports: 7(3):185-98 Fall 1975)
3. WILKINSON SB, TARNOLPOLSKI MA, GRANT EJ, CORREJA CE, PHILLIPS SM. Hypertrophy with unilateral resistance exercise occurs without increases in endogenous anabolic hormone concentration. (Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Dec;98(6):546-55. Epub 2006 Sep 14.)
4. ROBINSON, JOSEPH M.; STONE, MICHAEL H.; JOHNSON, ROBERT L.; PENLAND, CHRISTOPHER M.; WARREN, BEVERLY J.; LEWIS, R. DAVID.  Effects of Different Weight Training Exercise/Rest Intervals on Strength, Power, and High Intensity Exercise Endurance (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research November 1995 - Volume 9 - Issue 4)
5. POLIQUIN, CHARLES. The Poliquin Principles (Ch. 3, Pg. 32) Dayton Publishers & Writers Group 1997