Most people consider training that way suboptimal for chest hypertrophy. A new study out of the Journal of Sports Sciences disagrees: long(er) rest periods seem to correlate to better performance in the bench press, whether training for strength or hypertrophy. (1)

[Related: We Tested and Ranked 12 of The Best Barbells]

What the Study Says

The paper published in Dec. 2023 was authored by Janićijević & colleagues and is titled, “Optimizing mechanical performance in the bench press: The combined influence of inter-set rest periods and proximity to failure.”

In short, the researchers’ data showed that rest periods of up to five minutes between sets of bench press exercises promoted better performance than resting for one or three minutes.

[Related: The Best Pre-Workout Supplements for Chest Workouts]

What They Did

Janićijević et al. took a small group of “physically active individuals” and assigned them various bench press protocols. Here’s a breakdown:

[Related: The Best Bench Press Programs for All Levels]

What They Found

Overall, the findings of this study paint a fairly intuitive picture. Longer relative rest periods support better strength training performance than brief rest, a prescription echoed by other similar studies in the past. (2)(3) But that’s not all:

This may be attributed to the different energetic resources your body relies on for bouts of activity with different durations. Your muscles and central nervous system need more time to bounce back from heavier lifting than they do from lighter, endurance-focused sets.

[Related: The Best Wrist Wraps for Bench Pressing]

This finding aligns with most contemporary sports science perspectives. The more explosively you try to lift, the longer you need to rest. One essential caveat to this study is that the authors zeroed in on how rest periods influence sets not taken to absolute failure.

Limitations

No study is without its limitations, and this paper, while valuable, shouldn’t necessarily shut the book on rest periods during bodybuilding workouts or powerlifting training sessions.

• Participant Group: With only 23 total participants, the sample size was fairly small.
• Sex Disparity: The authors recruited almost twice as many men as women, which may have colored their data somewhat.
• Exercise Selection: This study was conducted on the Smith machine bench press instead of the free-weight barbell bench.

What You Should Do

According to the authors’ remarks from the paper’s abstract, “to maintain bench press mechanical performance, five-minute inter-set rest periods are necessary when sets are terminated close to failure.”

They indicate that if you prefer to train a bit further away from failure — as in, lifting lighter weights — shorter rest periods of around three minutes won’t dampen performance much.

Taking five minutes to rest between sets doesn’t appear to harm strength or muscle-building efforts. That crowd of high schoolers you see “4v1’ing” the bench press on Monday nights might’ve been on to something after all.

More Research Content

• Intermittent Fasting May Increase Mortality Risk by 91%
• Study Argues Today’s Children Are Weaker Than Previous Generations
• Standing Calf Raises Grow More Than 2X as Much Muscle as Seated

References

1. Janićijević, D., Miras-Moreno, S., Morenas-Aguilar, M. D., Moraga-Maureira, E., Weakley, J., & García-Ramos, A. (2023). Optimizing mechanical performance in the bench press: The combined influence of inter-set rest periods and proximity to failure. Journal of sports sciences, 41(24), 2193–2200.
2. de Salles, B. F., Simão, R., Miranda, F., Novaes, J.daS., Lemos, A., & Willardson, J. M. (2009). Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 39(9), 765–777.
3. Senna, Gilmar W.; Willardson, Jeffrey M.; Scudese, Estevão; Simão, Roberto; Queiroz, Cristiano; Avelar, Raoni; Martin Dantas, Estélio H.. Effect of Different Interset Rest Intervals on Performance of Single and Multijoint Exercises With Near-Maximal Loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(3):p 710-716, March 2016.
4. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Orazem J, Sabol F. Effects of resistance training performed to repetition failure or non-failure on muscular strength and hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022 Mar;11(2):202-211. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.007. Epub 2021 Jan 23. PMID: 33497853; PMCID: PMC9068575.

The post This Study Tells You How Much Rest You Need During the Bench Press to Build Muscle & Strength appeared first on BarBend.

But the tide might be turning for intermittent fasting. On Mar. 18, 2024, the American Heart Association (AHA) highlighted an in-review study with a shocking headline: That time-restricted feeding may increase your risk of cardiovascular mortality by as much as 91%. You may have seen this news on outlets like WebMD and USA Today. 

[Related: The Best Fat Burners on the Market]

But what exactly did the study say, do its claims hold water, and what are the associated health risks for intermittent fasting, if any? Here’s what you need to know.

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

What the Study Says

The research in question was presented at a Mar. 18-21 AHA conference and was helmed by Dr. Victor Wenze Zhong. (3) Here’s a more detailed look at the claims made by Dr. Zhong and colleagues: 

Findings

This research report was created based off of longitudinal, observational data of 20,078 adults. Please note that the full research text is not available as of the time of this article’s publication. The authors compared information on dietary patterns from 2003 to 2018 against data on U.S. deaths from 2003 to 2019. Their primary findings include:

• Those who adhered to time-restricted eating, consuming all their calories within an eight-hour window, had a 91% higher risk of death due to cardiovascular disease.
• The authors indicated that a similar increase exists for people living with heart disease or certain cancers.
• For people currently living with cardiovascular disease, a “feeding window” of eight-10 hours per day was associated with a 66% higher risk of death from either heart disease or stroke.
• Time-restricted feeding did not reduce overall risk of death.
• A feeding window at or above 16 hours per day was associated with lower cancer mortality for cancer patients. 

Editor’s Note: The two sources of data utilized by Zhong et al. were the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and the CDC’s National Death Index database. 

Limitations

Before you go revamping your entire meal prep plan, know that there are plenty of limitations to the arguments presented by Dr. Zhong and the AHA. While scientific data is always valuable to have, there are some limitations to this study that you should be aware of.

First and foremost, per the AHA itself, “…[limitations] included reliance on self-reported dietary information.” This means that the information obtained from this research came from subjects (over the age of 20) responding to surveys and not from participants in controlled settings or from a more stringently selected population. Moreover…

• The full research text has yet to be published or peer-reviewed in an academic journal. 
• This is observational, longitudinal (measured over time) data, which doesn’t present an especially strong causative relationship.
• Subjects were “tracked” for a median period of eight years, reporting only on their dietary behaviors.
• Their data displayed a significant risk of cardiovascular mortality, but their data showed no significant negative impact on all-cause mortality from fasting. 

[Related: The Ultimate Guide to Pre-Workout Supplements]

This presentation from the AHA has drawn criticism from a number of different sources. Speaking to WebMD, Dr. Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, regarded the conclusions as “premature and misleading.”

Notably, leading author Dr. Zhong also remarked to WebMD about the limitations of his team’s work. “[Multi-year controlled dietary trials are] challenging if not impossible to conduct,” he said, indicating that the absence of evidence on long-term intermittent fasting behaviors means that people should be “extremely cautious.”

What You Should Do

So, what should you do with this information if you’re an IF devotee? Is it time to hang up the lifting belt and get back into breakfast? Not necessarily. While the headline associated with this report is more shocking than most scientific claims, Dr. Zhong’s work has faced some backlash from the scientific community. More importantly, the purported risks have yet to be substantiated by more credible research methods.

[Related: The Best Protein Powders for Women]

Intermittent fasting is an accessible, often-effective method of weight management, but it’s hardly a one-size-fits-all dietary approach. If you enjoy practicing IF (or any of its cousins), you shouldn’t let this single data set dissuade you. That said, there’s more than one effective type of diet out there. 

Other Types of Diets To Try

There’s no magic behind intermittent fasting; setting distinct “start eating” and “stop eating” times can help people control their caloric intake, which is a method for effecting weight change. But if intermittent fasting isn’t your jam, you may consider trying another dietary protocol with methods that better align with your habits and goals:

• Warrior Diet
• Flexible Dieting
• Mediterranean Diet
• Keto Diet
• Carnivore Diet

Note that “specialty” diets, including but not limited to the ones mentioned above, are not necessarily designed to replicate the benefits of intermittent fasting. Not all dietary protocols are suitable for all individuals. The eating behavior that you select should be sustainable, fulfilling, aligned with your health goals, and, most importantly, supported by scientific evidence. 

More Research Content

• Research Suggests That Today’s Children Are Weaker Than Previous Generations
• Study: Standing Calf Raises Build More Than 2x as Much Muscle as Seated
• This Study Suggests That Even 100 Grams of Protein Per Meal Isn’t “Wasted”

References

1. Halberg, N., Henriksen, M., Söderhamn, N., Stallknecht, B., Ploug, T., Schjerling, P., & Dela, F. (2005). Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 99(6), 2128–2136. 
2. Tinsley, G. M., Forsse, J. S., Butler, N. K., Paoli, A., Bane, A. A., La Bounty, P. M., Morgan, G. B., & Grandjean, P. W. (2017). Time-restricted feeding in young men performing resistance training: A randomized controlled trial. European journal of sport science, 17(2), 200–207. 
3. 8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death. American Heart Association. (n.d.)

Featured Image: grandbrothers / Shutterstock

The post Recent Study Suggests Intermittent Fasting May Increase Mortality Risk by 91%. Should You Be Worried? appeared first on BarBend.

In the review, the authors rely on recent scientific studies to make some strong claims: That children and young adolescents today are failing to meet the strength, coordination, and general athletic requirements to prevent disease later in life.

“Measurable reductions in physical fitness are beginning to emerge,” the authors assert at the onset of their arguments. Here’s what’s going on and whether their claims hold water. 

[Related: Research Shows That Active Children Get Better Grades]

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

What the Study Says

This analytical review — note that it was not a real-world study carried out on child participants — was authored by Faigenbaum et al., who examined a collection of existing literature on sport and physical activity behaviors among children and adolescents.

Their chief assertion is straightforward enough; today’s youth are not as fit as they should be. (1) According to Faigenbaum & colleagues’ reporting, only one in five children met the physical fitness benchmarks set by the World Health Organization. (2)

Those benchmarks include attaining 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) each day. As such, the authors assert that there’s a growing prevalence of what they call “pediatric dynapenia” in children and teens. Dynapenia typically describes the gradual loss of muscular strength and endurance in elderly folk. As such, the paper indicates that a “cycle of consequences” is starting to take shape: 

• Dynapenia in children creates a “strength deficit,” which leads to functional limitations in mobility and activity.
• These functional limitations create sedentary behavioral habits in children.
• Habitual physical inactivity and failure to meet MVPA benchmarks increase injury risk.
• Higher injury risks and a sedentary lifestyle reduce resilience and lead to poor health outcomes.
• These conditions increase the likelihood of disability and disease, which creates more dynapenia, and the cycle repeats. 

Other Findings

Faigenbaum & colleagues examined additional studies to look a bit deeper into the causes and consequences of these behaviors. 

• They argue that current physical activity guidelines place too much emphasis on general movement at the expense of “strength-building activities.”
  • Children should practice fundamental movement patterns such as pushing, pulling, or anti-rotation exercises, the authors argue. 
• The authors examined longitudinal data showing that muscular weakness during adolescence is predictive of disability up to 30 years later, particularly for nervous system or psychiatric conditions. (3)
• Faigenbaum & colleagues identified that children with excessive smartphone use or television time tend to have poor health outcomes later in life. 

All is not lost for Generations Z & A, though. The authors of this paper also examined existing studies to identify what types of physical activity are best suited to preventing poor health later in life.

The authors regard bodyweight exercise, group training masked as “play,” and carefully controlled weight lifting as beneficial. They also cited one specific paper that argued that the ability to squat 105% of body weight is the optimal benchmark for preventing traumatic knee injuries (note that this study was conducted on adolescent female athletes). (4)

[Related: The Best Beginner Workout Plan to Kickstart Your Fitness Goals]

Limitations

While Faigenbaum et al. were comprehensive in their examination of the existing literature on childhood activity levels, this review does come with some considerations.

• This work is a literature review, not a longitudinal study, cohort study, or cross-sectional experiment. The authors did not conduct experiments and draw direct conclusions from their data; they examined existing works and compiled their arguments accordingly. 
• More specifically, the authors did not cite specific comparisons in strength tests between children in 2023 and years past. 
• Many of the claims made in this paper are speculative or correlational instead of causative. However, the authors’ arguments are steeped in a wide array of existing data from other researchers. 

Your Takeaways

This paper examined general trends in physical activity, fitness, and muscular strength among children and young adolescents. By reviewing existing literature, Faigenbaum & colleagues painted a clear picture — children and teens are less active overall than in years past, and these habits may lead to poor health outcomes and chronic disease in adulthood. 

References 

1. Faigenbaum, Avery D. EdD, FACSM1; Ratamess, Nicholas A. PhD1; Kang, Jie PhD, FACSM1; Bush, Jill A. PhD, FACSM1; Rial Rebullido, Tamara PhD2. May the Force Be with Youth: Foundational Strength for Lifelong Development. Current Sports Medicine Reports 22(12):p 414-422, December 2023. | DOI: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000001122
2. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2020. 
3. Henriksson H, Henriksson P, Tynelius P, Ortega FB. Muscular weakness in adolescence is associated with disability 30 years later: a population-based cohort study of 1.2 million men. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019; 53:1221–30.
4. Augustsson SR, Ageberg E. Weaker lower extremity muscle strength predicts traumatic knee injury in youth female but not male athletes. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2017; 3:e000222.

Featured Image: VGstockstudio / Shutterstock

The post New Study Argues That Today’s Children Are Weaker Than Previous Generations appeared first on BarBend.

A December 2023 study out of the journal Frontiers in Physiology, entitled “Triceps surae muscle hypertrophy is greater after standing versus seated calf-raise training,” had notable findings regarding which calf exercises build the most muscle. Here’s the kicker: The standing calf raise might be the only exercise needed to beef up the calves. There’s some nuance at play, though. Here’s what you need to know: 

[Related: The Best Supplements for Bodybuilding in 2024]

What the Study Says

The paper was authored by Kinoshita et al., who set out to assess how to optimally train the calves for muscular hypertrophy. In their work, they argue that “identifying an effective training modality is warranted … because the calves are relatively unresponsive to resistance training.” (1) So, here’s what they did:

Findings

In simpler language, a small group of folks with no strength training experience worked their calves separately for 12 weeks. They performed seated calf raises with one leg and standing calf raises with the other to assess which movement was better for muscle growth. Here’s what happened: 

[Related: The Best Bodybuilding Leg Workout You Can Do]

Limitations

Kinoshita and colleagues make some compelling claims in their research throughout this paper, but one single study doesn’t wholly shut the book on calf training. There are a few limitations to this line of research worth considering:

1. The study analyzed a small sample of participants. A sample size of 14 is generally not considered large enough to draw broad conclusions.
2. By their own admission, the authors did not include a control group to measure against.
3. The study discusses that they did not carry out any performance-based analysis, noting that strength and power training may be particularly relevant for the calf musculature.

What You Should Do

This study isn’t the first of its kind. Other exercise science papers have analyzed the efficacy of standing seated calf raises, and many have arrived at similar conclusions. But does that mean the seated calf raise isn’t worth your time? Not necessarily. Still, to put this research into action, you could:

[Related: The Best Pre-Workouts To Buy in 2024]

Key Takeaways

Believe it or not, there is some legitimate scientific basis to the idea that calf size is, at least, partially up to genetics. Studies on androgen receptor density — critical for signaling muscle growth — show that most people have few receptors in their lower limbs compared to the upper body. (3) However, this study does offer some valuable takeaways:

Are standing calf raises all you need to build muscle? Based on this single study, one could argue so. But as with any bit of scientific research, your best bet is to carefully analyze the data and make an informed decision regarding how it does (or doesn’t) apply to your goals. 

More Research Content

• A New Study Reveals 2 Training Techniques to Maximize Muscle Growth
• New Study Suggests Overhead Triceps Extensions Build More Muscle Than Pushdowns 
• These Researchers Reveal the Right Way to Train for More Muscle Mass 

References

1. Kinoshita M, Maeo S, Kobayashi Y, Eihara Y, Ono M, Sato M, Sugiyama T, Kanehisa H, Isaka T. Triceps surae muscle hypertrophy is greater after standing versus seated calf-raise training. Front Physiol. 2023 Dec 13;14:1272106. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1272106. PMID: 38156065; PMCID: PMC10753835.
2. Kooistra, R. D., de Ruiter, C. J., & de Haan, A. (2008). Knee angle-dependent oxygen consumption of human quadriceps muscles during maximal voluntary and electrically evoked contractions. European journal of applied physiology, 102(2), 233–242. 
3. Kadi, F., Bonnerud, P., Eriksson, A., & Thornell, L. E. (2000). The expression of androgen receptors in human neck and limb muscles: effects of training and self-administration of androgenic-anabolic steroids. Histochemistry and cell biology, 113(1), 25–29. 
4. Hébert-Losier, K., Schneiders, A. G., García, J. A., Sullivan, S. J., & Simoneau, G. G. (2012). Influence of knee flexion angle and age on triceps surae muscle activity during heel raises. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 26(11), 3124–3133. 

Featured Image: Jasminko Ibrakovic / Shutterstock

The post New Study: Standing Calf Raises Grow More Than Twice as Much Muscle as Seated appeared first on BarBend.

The paper, conducted by Trommelen et al. and published on Dec. 19, 2023, in the journal Cell Reports Medicine, makes a strong argument in favor of putting as many scoops of your favorite whey protein powder into your shaker bottle as you want. The study appears to show that there’s no upper limit to the anabolic response generated by consuming as much as 100 grams of protein at a time.

[Related: Different Types of Protein Powder Explained: Which Is Right for You?]

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

What the Study Says

Trommelen & colleagues, the authors of the study titled “The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans,” take a firm stance regarding the ongoing protein timing debate right from the get-go. They state in their work that “The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.” (1) To that end, they set about conducting an acute observational study of the effects of ingesting different amounts of dietary protein after a workout.

For context, the bodybuilding and fitness community seems to constantly be at war over the “optimal” amount of protein on a per-meal basis. Some data has thrown out numbers like 25 to 40 grams. (2)

At the same time, other reputable sources argue that the body will eventually utilize however much protein it is provided, whether that is across one meal or six. (3) Here’s what the authors of this recent study did to find out the truth: 

Limitations

The authors make some strong claims in favor of the viability of high-protein meals. However, their data is not entirely infallible; there are some limitations to the utility of this study. For one, large anabolic responses don’t necessarily mean that all of that protein is being put to work to repair and grow muscle tissue. Certain studies have argued that elevated muscle protein synthesis and anabolic signaling may not be highly important for actual muscle hypertrophy. (4)

[Related: Best Meal Replacement Shakes for Bulking and Weight Loss]

The authors may have opted out of making such a claim because this was not a longitudinal study. Longitudinal, or “over time,” data is more actionable. This study shows that there may not be an upper limit to single-meal protein ingestion. Notably, they also didn’t observe complete protein “saturation” with 100 grams, implying that even higher doses may also be fine.

Main Takeaways

This study by Trommelen & colleagues appears to be another notch in favor of protein frequency/timing not being as big of a deal. It’s still far from an open-and-shut case, especially if you’re the type of person who wants to optimize every aspect of your bodybuilding meal prep or dietary habits. Here are the study’s main takeaways:

• There appears to be no identifiable “cap” to the amount of protein your body can utilize if you extend the time frame long enough.
• Even 100 grams of protein ingested in one sitting won’t lead to amino acid oxidation or, in plain terms, wasting.
• If you don’t have the luxury of eating many small protein-rich meals daily, don’t worry about leaving gains on the table. 
• Other studies still assert that more “moderate” per-meal levels of protein might be better for maximizing muscle protein synthesis, but the jury’s still out.
• Your time is probably better spent worrying about hitting a consistent protein-per-day benchmark. How much protein is needed to build muscle is a highly individualized question. If you need a hand to know what’s likely right fo you, try BarBend’s in-house protein calculator:

[Related: How To Bulk — the Ultimate Guide To Gaining Size]

More Research Content

• A New Study Reveals 2 Training Techniques to Maximize Muscle Growth
• Stretching Can Directly Create Muscle Growth
• New Study Suggests Overhead Triceps Extensions Build More Muscle Than Pushdowns

References

1. Trommelen, J., van Lieshout, G. A. A., Nyakayiru, J., Holwerda, A. M., Smeets, J. S. J., Hendriks, F. K., van Kranenburg, J. M. X., Zorenc, A. H., Senden, J. M., Goessens, J. P. B., Gijsen, A. P., & van Loon, L. J. C. (2023). The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans. Cell reports. Medicine, 4(12), 101324. 
2. Moore, D. R., Robinson, M. J., Fry, J. L., Tang, J. E., Glover, E. I., Wilkinson, S. B., Prior, T., Tarnopolsky, M. A., & Phillips, S. M. (2009). Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 89(1), 161–168. 
3. Macnaughton, L. S., Wardle, S. L., Witard, O. C., McGlory, C., Hamilton, D. L., Jeromson, S., Lawrence, C. E., Wallis, G. A., & Tipton, K. D. (2016). The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein. Physiological reports, 4(15), e12893. 
4. Damas, F., Phillips, S., Vechin, F. C., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2015). A review of resistance training-induced changes in skeletal muscle protein synthesis and their contribution to hypertrophy. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(6), 801–807. 

Featured Image: Milan Ilic Photographer / Shutterstock

The post New Study on Protein Timing: Even 100 Grams Per Meal Isn’t Wasted appeared first on BarBend.

The short answer is no, but the scientific community has gotten us closer. Days before the start of 2024, a narrative study titled “Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Hypertrophy: a Narrative Review” was published in the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. (1) Featuring coach and content creator Jeff Nippard as one of its seven authors, the study sought a more “universally agreed-upon definition…as to what constitutes proper technique” for resistance training.

What the Study Says

This study emerged from the ambiguity of proper lifting technique prescriptions, where lifters are often told that form is critical without an explicit definition of what “proper technique” is.

For purposes of hypertrophy (the scientific word for muscle growth), the study defined proper lifting technique as “the controlled execution of bodily movements to ensure an exercise effectively targets specific muscle groups while minimizing the risk of injury.”

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Jeff Nippard (@jeffnippard)

[Read More: These Researchers Reveal the Right Way to Train for More Muscle Mass]

The study analyzed repetition tempo, range of motion, and exercise-specific kinematics (motion mechanics). However, there is a lack of published research on the latter, so the jury is out on whether strict reps or non-strict reps are more beneficial for muscle growth.

Here’s what the study did provide help with:

Repetition Tempo

Generally speaking, every rep of each exercise you do has a concentric and an eccentric phase. The concentric portion is when your muscle is shortening, lifting the weight. Think: the up part of a pull-up. The eccentric phase is when your muscle is lengthening, resisting, and lowering the load. This would be the down portion of a pull-up.

Without universal clarity on whether concentric, eccentric, or a combination of both is the best for muscle growth, the narrative review found that significant muscle gains occur when reps take two to eight seconds to perform. There seemed to be a bias for faster concentrics paired with slower eccentrics during biceps training but mixed results for leg training.

The Takeaway: Concentrics can be explosive and seemingly remain effective for hypertrophy; eccentrics should be performed slower to ensure the target muscle lowers the weight rather than gravity off-setting the load.

With moves like the back squat and bench press, you can follow this tempo training scheme directly. However, not all lifts start in the eccentric phase. For example, chin-ups start with a concentric pull. In those cases, start with a two-second pull, one-second pause, then go down into your four-second eccentric.

According to this study, the added time under tension that your muscles endure may help build maximum muscle when tested between two and eight seconds per rep, with more time in the eccentric.

Learn More: If the study is inspiring you to spend more time under tension, check out these BarBend articles:

• How Tempo Training Can Progress Your Workouts
• Your Guide to Concentric Vs. Eccentric Training — Which Should You Emphasize, and When?
• Improve Muscle Mass, Technique, and Mental Toughness With 1 ½ Reps

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jeff Nippard (@jeffnippard)

[Read More: New Study Suggests Overhead Triceps Extensions Build More Muscle Than Pushdowns]

Range of Motion

Muscle length and range of motion are often conflated, and this narrative review set out to specify the difference when it comes to muscle growth. Range of motion (ROM) refers to the muscle moving through an exercise as far as it can go. (Think about performing a dumbbell bench press from when your arms are fully locked out until the dumbbells touch your chest.) Achieving a full ROM does not necessarily account for the muscle length throughout (though they are regularly conflated).

An analysis of the available research suggests that training muscles in their lengthened positions is likely more beneficial for hypertrophy than training them in their shortened positions and full ranges of motion. For example, your biceps are fully stretched at the bottom of a Bayesian curl, not at the top.

Takeaway: If your goal is hypertrophy, you’re probably better off letting your muscle spend more time in the lengthened part of the range of motion than the shortened range. Still, more research is needed into the subject.

Learn More: Itching to give the lengthened muscle range more love so you can start pushing the limits of your shirt’s seams? Get all the info you need here:

• Are Long-Length Partial Reps the Secret to Hypertrophy?
• The 10 Best Exercises for Long-Length Partial Reps
• Partial Vs Full Range of Motion: Which Is Ideal for Muscle Development?

Key Takeaways

After reviewing the available research, Androulakis et al. recommended the following, albeit simplified, recommendations for those wondering how to build muscle.

• This 2024 study was conducted by notable names in the exercise science community, including Jeff Nippard, Milo Wolf, and Brad Schoenfeld. The study set out to standardize proper lifting techniques for building muscle mass.
• A single repetition of an exercise should ideally last between two and eight seconds, with more time spent in the eccentric (or lowering phase) of an exercise.
• According to the study, spending more time in the lengthened portion of any exercise (think the bottom of a skull crusher) elicits superior hypertrophy gains compared to time spent in the shortened position and, in some cases, even a full-range-of-motion rep.
• Although this research is compelling, don’t consider it muscle-building law. Try one or both of these techniques for your next training block and judge the results yourself.

More Training Resources

• Try These 8 Intensity Techniques to Turn Your Bodybuilding Workouts Up a Notch
• Use These Bodybuilding Technique Tips to Unlock New Gains
• How to (Safely) Miss Your Lifts as a Strength Athlete

Reference

1. Androulakis Korakakis P, Wolf M, Coleman M, Burke R, Piñero A, Nippard J, Schoenfeld BJ. Optimizing Resistance Training Technique to Maximize Muscle Hypertrophy: A Narrative Review. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology. 2024; 9(1):9.

Featured image: ALL best fitness is HERE / Shutterstock

The post A New Study Reveals 2 Training Techniques to Maximize Muscle Growth appeared first on BarBend.

A Dec. 2023 study in Nutrition & Diabetics assessed six months of weight loss intervention, including time-restricted feeding, alternate-day fasting, and straight caloric restriction. To measure quantitative and qualitative data, they interviewed participants two months after the six-month weight-loss period. (1)

Is motivation alone enough to achieve long-term weight loss? Not really. Nutrition scientist Dr. Layne Norton dove into the study’s findings in a YouTube video published on Dec. 27, 2023, reviewing the assessment of behavioral changes necessary to maintain weight loss long-term. Check it out below:

[Related: The Side Effects of Probiotics for Strength Athletes to Look Out For]

Losing Weight

This 2023 study focused primarily on the psychological changes necessary to promote consistent and effective fat loss. The most significant mental factor for success was the development of feedback loops. 

The amount of feedback or accountability at the beginning of the six months was directly related to whether participants stuck with their diets. “Frequent check-ins with the researchers or the support staff had a really big benefit for them being adherent,” says Dr. Norton. In fact, many of the subjects didn’t enjoy the diets at the start, noting that motivation alone isn’t a foolproof initial jumpstart for long-term diet success.

Behavior change sparks motivation, not the other way around. If the participants adhered to a diet and noticed changes to their health and physiques, they became motivated about the whole process and to continue it. When they committed to the process for long enough, they experienced the aesthetic benefits, which motivated them to continue.

In short, feedback and accountability fuel self-efficacy and, eventually, self-ownership.

Self-ownership is basically, ‘I have the power. I have the responsibility.I believe I can do this because I’ve seen these changes happen over time.’

[Related: 4 Ways Stress Is Killing Your Gains]

Fitting the Diet Into the Lifestyle

Dr. Norton says that adaptation is another key indicator of diet sustainability. Using meal delivery services or changing grocery lists to low-carb or extra protein can shift one’s lifestyle or diet to accommodate one’s health goals.

Small changes, sustained via help from others, can lead to more confidence and motivation. The frequency of feedback communication is important; touchpoints throughout the week can help better navigate the first month. Then, when physical changes are noticeable, confidence skyrockets.

Remodeling a lifestyle, staying accountable to a diet coach, receiving feedback from specific biomarkers, gaining self-efficacy, and taking self-ownership are necessary for a successful weight loss journey. Motivation waxes and wanes, but according to this study, changing one’s behavior is the key to changing one’s physique.

Reference 

1. Liu, K., Choi, T. S. T., Zhao, L., Teong, X. T., Hutchison, A. T., & Heilbronn, L. K. (2023). A qualitative exploration of behaviour change and maintenance experience in people with overweight or obesity in a dietary intervention. Nutrition & dietetics: the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 10.1111/1747-0080.12855. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12855

Featured image via Shutterstock/Laborant

The post Is Motivation Enough to Achieve Long-Term Weight Loss? appeared first on BarBend.

In a video shared on Dec. 21, 2023, natural bodybuilder-turned-powerlifter and nutritional scientist Dr. Layne Norton delved into a scientific review published in Nov. 2023 in Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders that examined whether fasting during the morning or evening leads to different outcomes in metabolic markers like HbA1c (hemoglobin A1C (blood test)), HOMA-IR (homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance), fasting blood insulin, and glucose. [2]

Check out the video below, courtesy of Norton’s YouTube channel:

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

Understanding Time-Restricted Feeding (TRF)

Time-restricted feeding (TRF), a form of intermittent fasting, involves consuming food within a specific time window each day. The study in question categorized TRFs into two types: 

• Early time-restricted feeding (eTRF) — 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Late time-restricted eating (lTRF) — 12 noon to 8:00 p.m.

[Related: 8 Types of Magnesium and Which One You Should Add to Your Supplement Stack]

Study Findings and Analysis

The meta-analysis revealed that, overall, TRF led to a reduction in HbA1c levels. However, it did not significantly affect fasting glucose or insulin levels. Norton was not surprised by these findings as calorie restriction, a common outcome of TRF, typically leads to HbA1c improvements. 

However, the meta-analysis resulted in a notable finding: the eTRF and lTRF subgroup analysis showed that eTRF was more effective in lowering fasting blood glucose and appeared slightly more beneficial in reducing fasting blood insulin levels.

Norton expressed skepticism about these findings as well, arguing that if eTRF had a long-term effect, it would be reflected in the HbA1c data, which was not the case.

HbA1c was not better for early time-restricted feeding versus late time-restricted feeding.

[Related: 4 Ways Stress Is Killing Your Gains]

The Importance of HbA1c

HbA1c is a site on hemoglobin, the molecule that can become glycosylated. Since red blood cells take about 120 days to turn over, the amount of glycosylated hemoglobin is a good indicator of long-term blood glucose levels; the higher the overall blood glucose, the more glycosylated hemoglobin will be. 

Norton opined that the researchers didn’t find a difference in glycosylated hemoglobin because they took the fasting blood glucose measurements at the same time in the morning for both TRF groups. 

“If you are early time-restricted feeding and your final meal is at 4 p.m. versus late time-restricted feeding where your last meal is at 8:00 p.m., you’ve had 4 hours extra to fast,” Norton said. 

To validate that eTRF is more effective in lowering fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, Norton suggested staggering the blood glucose measurement times in future studies to account for the difference in fasting duration.

Dr. Layne Norton’s Takeaway

Despite the study’s findings, Norton emphasized the importance of adhering to a feeding window that aligns with an individual’s lifestyle and preferences, whether eTRF or lTRF.

The slight fasting blood glucose differences observed in the study, if legitimate, should not override the importance of following a fasting pattern that fits an individual’s lifestyle and can be maintained over the long term.

References

1. Albosta M, Bakke J. Intermittent fasting: is there a role in the treatment of diabetes? A review of the literature and guide for primary care physicians. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021;7(1):3. Published 2021 Feb 3. doi:10.1186/s40842-020-00116-1
2. Rovira-Llopis S, Luna-Marco C, Perea-Galera L, Bañuls C, Morillas C, Victor VM. Circadian alignment of food intake and glycaemic control by time-restricted eating: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s11154-023-09853-x. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37993559.

Featured image via Shutterstock/vetre

The post Should You Fast In the Morning or Evening? appeared first on BarBend.

The randomized clinical trial from the lab of Christopher D. Gardner explored the different metabolic effects of the two aforementioned diets on 22 sets of identical twins, which helped reduce genetic variability and provided genuinely solid data. One twin from each set was assigned a vegan diet or omnivore diet for eight weeks. The scientists measured a handful of health markers, including LDL cholesterol. (1)

On Dec. 6, 2023, Dr. Layne Norton shared his analysis of the study’s findings on his YouTube channel. Check it out below:

[Related: 4 Ways Stress Is Killing Your Gains]

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous Vs. Vegan Diets

After eight weeks, those on the omnivorous diets saw no real change in biomarkers. However, those on the vegan diets “saw a reduction in LDL cholesterol by about 14 mg/dl…a reduction of fasting insulin…and bodyweight by about a kilo and a half.”

HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol — touted as the good kind of cholesterol — was also reduced. However, Dr. Norton mentioned HDL is more of a complete metabolic biomarker that is not directly related to heart disease and other risks (unlike LDL cholesterol).

Results Breakdown 

While vegan diets appear superior in lowering “bad” cholesterol and improving other biomarkers, Dr. Norton isn’t surprised by the results. The twin participants on the vegan diet ate about 200 fewer calories than the omnivore diet group. Spread that across eight weeks, a 200-calorie deficit could result in a kilo and a half in weight loss.

Those given vegan diets weren’t told to eat less – both diets were structured for maintenance — but it was a natural occurrence, possibly due to vegan diets comprised of higher-satiety foods. That said, the body weight reduction wasn’t enough to cause the reduction in LDL and fasting insulin levels.

During the first four weeks of the study, those on the vegan diet consumed less saturated fats and about 15-20 percent more polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). This swap from saturated to polyunsaturated should lower LDL, regardless of the other factors. In the final four weeks, the difference was more drastic. Reducing saturated fat intake is the most significant change one can make to one’s diet to positively affect their LDL cholesterol levels.

Another potential influential factor is the increase in dietary fiber featured in the vegan diet. The twins adhering to the vegan diet consumed 33 percent more fiber, which has been shown to decrease LDL and improve insulin sensitivity. Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a metabolite that has been shown to increase cardiovascular risk, is also affected by fiber and saturated fat. In short, consuming more fiber, fewer saturated fats, and more PUFAs are related to the improved biomarkers.

Dr. Layne Norton’s Takeaways

Dr. Norton found it unfortunate that this trial misinterpreted vegan diets as “better” than omnivorous diets.

It isn’t that the vegan diet is somehow magical or that meat has some inherent component to it that causes an increase in these risk factors.

The energy deficit, less saturated fat consumption, and more polyunsaturated fat and fiber consumption are the keys to a more sustainable diet and a healthier lifestyle.

Norton suggested that an omnivorous diet that is low in saturated fats, comprised of high-quality sources of lean meat, and provides enough daily fiber would likely lead to similar positive biomarker outcomes. While it might be easier to achieve that nutritional breakdown via a vegan diet, one can still eat meat and achieve proper nutrition.

Reference

Landry, M. J., Ward, C. P., Cunanan, K. M., Durand, L. R., Perelman, D., Robinson, J. L., Hennings, T., Koh, L., Dant, C., Zeitlin, A., Ebel, E. R., Sonnenburg, E. D., Sonnenburg, J. L., & Gardner, C. D. (2023). Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA network open, 6(11), e2344457. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44457

Featured image via Shutterstock/Tatjana Baibakova

The post Vegan or Omnivore Diets – Which Is Better for Cholesterol Levels? appeared first on BarBend.

[Related: Dana Linn Bailey’s 4 Meal Prep Tips for Beginners]

Editor’s Note: The content on BarBend is meant to be informative in nature, but it should not be taken as medical advice. When starting a new training regimen and/or diet, it is always a good idea to consult with a trusted medical professional. We are not a medical resource. The opinions and articles on this site are not intended for use as diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of health problems. They are not substitutes for consulting a qualified medical professional.

Are Carbs or Calories to Blame for Weight Gain? 

Nearly 137,000 men and women were analyzed across three studies spanning an average of 24 years. The studies looked at associations between carbohydrates and body fat and found that, on average, those who ate more carbs gained more weight. (1)

Increases in glycemic index and glycemic load were positively associated with weight gain.

However, Dr. Norton stressed that this finding was more of a caloric issue than a carbohydrate issue. Breaking down the data regarding carbohydrate type, “those who ate more sugary foods, more high GI [glycemic index] vs. low GI, and more starchy vegetables” had approximately “one kilogram greater increase in body weight per year.” So those who ate those ‘bad’ carbs had higher body weights.

In stark contrast, those who consumed 100 grams of non-starchy vegetables daily resulted in three kilograms less body weight intake yearly. What this tells Dr. Norton is this is a caloric density problem. As a cohort study, precision isn’t 100 percent because those who eat more vegetables are likelier to have other healthy habits, such as exercising, prioritizing better sleep, not smoking, and less alcohol consumption. There are too many lifestyle factors not accounted for.

Dr. Norton concluded that sugar and high GI foods aren’t satiating, and people who eat these kinds of foods regularly consume more calories on average. That doesn’t mean that foods like fruit should be avoided, as they provide fiber and antioxidants. Norton suggested that you can do almost anything dietarily if you have the “appropriate caloric intake for your activity level and your energy expenditure, enough protein to support the lean mass that you want, and enough fiber to…reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.”

Dr. Norton recommends eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and filling the rest of the caloric intake with foods you enjoy if the macros support it.  In the end, there’s no cookie-cutter approach to dieting. The best diet is likely what is most sustainable.

Reference

1. Wan, Y., Tobias, D. K., Dennis, K. K., Guasch-Ferré, M., Sun, Q., Rimm, E. B., Hu, F. B., Ludwig, D. S., Devinsky, O., & Willett, W. C. (2023). Association between changes in carbohydrate intake and long term weight changes: prospective cohort study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 382, e073939. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-073939

Featured image via Shutterstock/marilyn barbone

The post Do All High-Carb Diets Lead to Weight Gain? appeared first on BarBend.