Are resistance training systems necessary to avoid a stagnation and maximize the gains muscle strength and hypertrophy?

Acute Effect of the "Zero Point" Method on Muscle Thickness and Muscle Damage in Trained Men

The "zero point" method allows for lower intensities for an exercise session without impairing the total training volume. This study aimed to compare the effects of the "zero point" versus the traditional method on muscle responses and muscle damage in trained men. Fifteen experienced men (age: 27.7 ± 6.4 years; body mass: 78.4 ± 11.4 kg; height: 174.8 ± 4.9 cm; experience: 5.86 ± 4.7 years; relative bench press strength: 1.38 ± 0.17 kg·kg-1) were subjected to two exercise protocols in a randomized order and separated by a week. The traditional and "zero point" methods were applied in the bench press, with loads of 70% and 50% of one repetition maximum (1RM), respectively, for 10 sets until concentric failure, with 3-min intervals between sets. The zero point method displayed a higher number of repetitions and time under tension than the traditional method, with no difference in the total training volume, echo intensity, algometry, lactate, and myoglobin. For the muscle thickness, no differences between the groups were presented, except for the deltoid muscle thickness, in which a higher post-training volume was observed compared to traditional training. The "zero point" method increases the demand on the deltoid muscles in the bench press exercise, but not on the pectoralis and triceps brachii.

Muscular Adaptations and Psychophysiological Responses in Resistance Training Systems

Purpose: We investigated the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems compared to traditional (TRAD) resistance training on muscular adaptations and psychophysiological responses. Methods: Twenty-seven trained men (age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years; resistance training experience: 5.1 ± 1.7 years) were assigned to experimental groups (DS: n = 9, 3 × 10 repetitions at 75% with 6 additional repetitions at 55% 1RM; RP: n = 9, 3 × 16 repetitions at 75% 1RM; TRAD: n = 9, 4 × 12 repetitions at 70% 1RM) and performed lower-limb training sessions twice a week for 8 weeks. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and localized muscular endurance (LME) tests were performed in 45° leg press at baseline and post intervention. Session-RPE was assessed 15 min after the end of each training session. Results: A significant time vs. group interaction was observed for 1RM (p = .012) and LME (p < .0001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP elicited greater gains in muscular strength than DS (p = .044) but not TRAD (p = .116); and DS elicited greater LME than RP (p < .001) and TRAD (p = .001). No statistical differences were observed in Session-RPE and training strain between conditions; however, RP promoted higher training monotony (p = .036) than DS and TRAD. Conclusions: The DS and RP systems have a potential role in training programs aiming to promote muscle strength and localized muscular endurance adaptations, respectively. However, RP may promote higher training monotony than DS and TRAD, even though the other psychophysiological responses are similar.

Comparison of Traditional and Advanced Resistance Training Paradigms on Muscle Hypertrophy in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Trained individuals may require variations in training stimuli and advanced resistance training paradigms (ADV) to increase skeletal muscle hypertrophy. However, no meta-analysis has examined how ADV versus traditional (TRAD) approaches may differentially affect hypertrophic outcomes in trained populations. The aim of this review was to determine whether the skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses induced by TRAD differed from ADV in resistance-trained individuals. Furthermore, we sought to examine potential effects of dietary factors, participants' training status, and training loads. We searched for peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials (published in English) conducted in healthy resistance-trained adults performing a period of TRAD and ADV with pre-to-post measurement(s) of muscle hypertrophy in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and MEDLINE databases up to October 2022. A formal meta-analysis was conducted in Revman5, and risk of bias was assessed by ROB2. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated no difference between ADV and TRAD for muscle thickness (SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.20 0.29, p = 0.70), lean mass (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.26 0.23, p = 0.92), muscle cross-sectional area (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 0.22, p = 0.64), or all measurements analyzed together (SMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.15 0.14, p = 0.95). No heterogeneity or inconsistencies were observed; however, unclear risk of bias was present in most of the studies. Short-term ADV does not induce superior skeletal muscle hypertrophy responses when compared with TRAD in trained individuals. This review was not previously registered.

Self-Reported Training and Supplementation Practices Between Performance-Enhancing Drug-User Bodybuilders Compared with Natural Bodybuilders

ABSTRACT

Li, J, Davies, TB, and Hackett, DA. Self-reported training and supplementation practices between performance-enhancing drug-user bodybuilders compared with natural bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-This study aimed to examine whether the training and supplementation practices differ between performance-enhancing drug (PED)-using bodybuilders (BB) and natural BB. One hundred eighty-seven competitive male bodybuilders with a median age of 27.0 years completed an online survey. Of this sample, 40 respondents reported using PED (PED-user) and 147 respondents reported to be natural. Compared with natural BB, PED-user BB reported greater off-season body weight (p < 0.001) and weight loss before a competition (p < 0.001). In the off-season, PED-user BB performed a greater number of exercises per muscle group (p < 0.001), number of repetition maximum (RM) per set (p < 0.01), and less recovery between the sets (p < 0.01). During the precompetition phase, the natural BB increased their number of RM; however, the PED-user BB still reported using a greater number of RM per set (p = 0.02), exercises per muscle group (p < 0.001), and less recovery time between the sets (p < 0.01). Both the PED-user BB and natural BB reported greater aerobic exercise frequency (p < 0.001) and session duration (p < 0.001), although PED-user BB performed a greater number of aerobic exercise sessions (p = 0.04) and at a higher intensity (p < 0.01). Advanced training techniques, including negatives, partial repetitions, preexhaustion sets, and timed repetitions, were more popular among PED-user BB (p < 0.05). Creatine monohydrate usage was more popular among natural BB (p < 0.001), whereas branched-chain and essential amino acids were more popular among PED-user BB (p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that PED-user BB perform more metabolically demanding resistance training sessions, more strenuous aerobic training during the precompetition phase, and may have different supplementation preferences compared with natural BB.

Training, Supplementation, and Pharmacological Practices of Competitive Male Bodybuilders Across Training Phases

ABSTRACT

Hackett, DA. Training, supplementation, and pharmacological practices of competitive male bodybuilders across training phases. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 963-970, 2022-Bodybuilding involves the pursuit of muscularity and leanness primarily through the use of progressive resistance training in combination with other practices such as manipulation of diet and use of ergogenic aids. This study aimed to compare the training practices and ergogenic aids used by competitive male bodybuilders across training phases. An online survey was completed by 235 competitive male bodybuilders with a median age of 26.0 (interquartile range 23.0-31.3) years. Results showed that most respondents performed split-routines (85.5%), 4-7 sessions per week (95.7%), trained major muscle groups twice a week (>50%), and session duration being 60-90 minutes (55.7%). Off-season resistance training sessions mostly comprised of targeting 2-3 muscle groups (56%), 2-3 exercises per muscle group (60.4%), 3-4 sets per exercise (73.2%), 7-12 repetition maximum (RM) per set (71.6%), and 61-180 seconds recovery between sets and exercises (80.5%). At the precompetition phase (6 weeks before competition), there was a decrease in the number of muscle groups trained per session (p = 0.027) and a greater number of repetitions performed per set (p < 0.001). A significant increase in the reported aerobic exercise volume was found during precompetition (<0.001). Performance enhancing drugs were used by 53.6% of respondents who did not compete in natural bodybuilding competitions. Dietary supplements were used by 95.7% of respondents with the most common being creatine monohydrate (80.4%) and whey protein (65.8%). Findings suggest that competitive bodybuilders follow resistance training practices consistent with the broad muscular hypertrophy recommendations but a notable shift in practices occur in the weeks before competition.

Rest-pause and drop-set training elicit similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations compared to traditional sets in resistance-trained males

The present paper aimed to compare the effect of drop-set (DS) and rest-pause (RP) systems versus traditional resistance training (TRT) with equalized total training volume on maximum dynamic strength (1RM) and thigh muscle thickness (MT).Twenty-eight resistance-trained males were randomly assigned to either RP (n = 10), DS (n = 9) or TRT (n = 9) protocols performed twice a week for 8 weeks. 1RM and MT of the proximal, middle and distal portions of the lateral thigh were assessed at baseline and post intervention.A significant time x group interaction was observed for 1RM (P = 0.025) in the barbell back squat after 8-weeks. Post hoc comparisons revealed that RP promoted higher 1RM than TRT (P = 0.001); no statistical differences in strength were observed between the other conditions. A significant main effect of time was revealed for MT at the proximal (P = 0.0001) and middle (P = 0.0001) aspects of the lateral thigh for all training groups; however, the distal portion did not show a time effect (P = 0.190). There were no between-group interactions for MT. Our findings suggest that RP promotes slightly superior strength-related improvements compared to TRT, but hypertrophic adaptations are similar between conditions. Novelty bullets • Rest-pause elicited a slightly superior benefit for strength adaptations compared to traditional resistance training. • Resistance training systems do not promote superior hypertrophic adaptations when total training volume is equalized. • Muscle thickness in distal portion of thigh are similar to baseline. Although modest, effect sizes tended to favor rest-pause.

Individual Muscle Adaptations in different Resistance Training Systems in Well-Trained Men

Using a within-subject design we compared the individual responses between drop-set (DS) vs. traditional resistance training (TRAD) (n=16) and crescent pyramid (CP) vs. TRAD (n=15). Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg press and leg extension 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed pre and post training. At group level, CSA increased from pre to post (DS: 7.8% vs. TRAD: 7.5%, P=0.02; CP: 7.5% vs. TRAD: 7.8%, P=0.02). All protocols increased the 1-RM from pre to post for leg press (DS: 24.9% vs. TRAD: 26.8%, P < 0.0001; CP: 27.3% vs. TRAD:2 6.3%, P < 0.0001) and leg extension (DS: 17.1% vs. TRAD: 17.3%, P < 0.0001; CP: 17.0% vs. TRAD: 16.6%, P < 0.0001). Individual analysis for CSA demonstrated no differences between protocols in 15 subjects. For leg press 1-RM, 5 subjects responded more to TRAD, 2 to DS and 9 similarly between protocols. In TRAD vs. CP, 4 subjects responded more to CP, 1 to TRAD and 10 similarly between protocols. For leg extension 1-RM 2 subjects responded more to DS, 3 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. Additionally, 2 subjects responded more to CP, 2 to TRAD and 11 similarly between protocols. In conclusion, all protocols induced similar individual responses for CSA. For 1-RM, some subjects experience greater gains for the protocol performed with higher loads, such as CP.

Carbohydrate refeed does not modify GVT-performance following energy restriction in bodybuilders

Bodybuilding is a sport in which competitors' physiques are judged on their muscular size, symmetry, and leanness, as displayed in a number of different poses. In the pre-competitive period, bodybuilders attempt to reduce body fat stores as much as possible while maintaining fat-free mass (FFM). This is achieved via a sustained negative energy balance, generally induced by a combination of decreased energy intake and increased energy expenditure. This study aimed to assess the ability of bodybuilders to resist fatigue during resistance exercise based German Volume Training (GVT), as well as the affective response after carbohydrate refeed following four weeks of moderate or severe energy restriction. Eleven male bodybuilders (28.4 ± 2.3 years old) with experience in competitions were randomized into two groups: Moderate Energy Restriction (MER; n = 6) or Severe Energy Restriction (SER; n = 5). On the 2nd day (during energy restriction) and 7th day (during refeed) of the fourth week, both groups completed two leg press protocols involving the GVT method. After the first and last workout protocol subjects were assessed for muscle soreness using the visual-analog scale (VAS), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), affective response, lactate, and creatine kinase. Anthropometric analysis indicated that a reduction of 3.7 and 3.2% in body mass corresponded to a loss of 16.0 and 17.6% of fat mass for the MER and SER groups, respectively, with both groups maintaining FFM. Blood CK and VAS values were reduced only in SER. Our results suggest that a carbohydrate refeed may help to attenuate the perception of muscle soreness and maintain exercise performance, especially when severe energy restriction is combined with an intense training protocol such as GVT.

Training Programs Designed for Muscle Hypertrophy in Bodybuilders: A Narrative Review

Bodybuilding is a sport that requires adequate training strategies in order to maximize skeletal muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of the present review was to perform a narrative assessment of the training routines designed for muscle hypertrophy used by bodybuilders. A search was carried out in the databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scielo, EBSCO, LILACS, SportDiscus, Web of Science, and CINAHL with the words “Resistance training” and “hypertrophy” in bodybuilders and their variations that involve the respective outcomes. Fourteen studies were identified that investigated the long-term training routines of bodybuilders. These studies demonstrate a pattern in the training organization, whereby there is a separation of training into four distinct periods: off-season, pre-contest, peak week, and post-contest. Each period has a specific spectrum of intensity load, total training volume, and exercise type (multi- or single-joint). We conclude that bodybuilding competitors employed a higher intensity load, lower number of repetitions, and longer rest intervals in the off-season than pre-contest.