Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training.

[poopy pants]

Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training.

Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, Tarr JE, Jones DA.

Chelsea School Research Centre, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, UK. j.folland@bton.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: High resistance training enhances muscular strength, and recent work has suggested an important role for metabolite accumulation in this process. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of fatigue and metabolite accumulation in strength gains by comparing highly fatiguing and non-fatiguing isotonic training protocols. METHODS: Twenty three healthy adults (18-29 years of age; eight women) were assigned to either a high fatigue protocol (HF: four sets of 10 repetitions with 30 seconds rest between sets) to maximise metabolic stress or a low fatigue protocol (LF: 40 repetitions with 30 seconds between each repetition) to minimise changes. Subjects lifted on average 73% of their 1 repetition maximum through the full range of knee extension with both legs, three times a week. Quadriceps isometric strength of each leg was measured at a knee joint angle of 1.57 rad (90 degrees ), and a Cybex 340 isokinetic dynamometer was used to measure the angle-torque and torque-velocity relations of the non-dominant leg. RESULTS: At the mid-point of the training, the HF group had 50% greater gains in isometric strength, although this was not significant (4.5 weeks: HF, 13.3 (4.4)%; LF, 8.9 (3.6)%). This rate of increase was not sustained by the HF group, and after nine weeks of training all the strength measurements showed similar improvements for both groups (isometric strength: HF, 18.2 (3.9)%; LF, 14.5 (4.0)%). The strength gains were limited to the longer muscle lengths despite training over the full range of movement. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue and metabolite accumulation do not appear to be critical stimuli for strength gain, and resistance training can be effective without the severe discomfort and acute physical effort associated with fatiguing contractions.

[Jean-Paul]

Bumping this for more discussion. It was posted a while ago, before we had all the registered posters we have now.

Comments? Does this jive with what all of you have learned?

[poopy pants]

Are you bumping this for Tensko?

[Jean-Paul]

Not even sure if he can read this page anymore now that he has been banned. Maybe he can lurk, but just not post. Dunno!

[Jean-Paul]

The main reason I bring this thread back up is it seems to be applicable to aging trainees who may think that they have to train like they did back in their 20's to get or stay in shape. I personally don't train to total fatigue anymore... This study seems to support that.

[Bill Hartman]

The problem is that untrained individuals will demonstrate "significant" and similar progress on just about any initial training program of sufficient intensity.

Also, the study lasted 9 weeks doing the same protocol. Lack of variation is great way to limit gains. If you note that the fatigue group showed better gains 1/2 way through and the non-fatigue didn't really improve all that much after that point either. You would normally alter your training program to continue to promote adaptation/improvement.

It also appears they only addressed fatigue from an energetic/metabolite accumulation standpoint. This doesn't address neurologic demands.

It could be that the frequency was too high (3 times per week) for either group to maximize strength gains.

They are comparing apples and oranges in my opinion. Perhaps using the same set/rep protocol with short (30 sec) vs. longer (3 min) rest periods would have been more appropriate.

It would be interesting to see how the entire study progressed and why they came to such a conclusion.

Bill

[bryanc]

What Bill said.

Plus: "LF: 40 repetitions with 30 seconds between each repetition"

Just read that line over and over until it becomes absurd. Because that's an absurd protocol.

[Jean-Paul]

So then, what would be a proper protocol to study this?

Also, Bill, based on your experience and readings, do you support some sort of change in training style with the "over 30" crowd? As I recall from our last conversation, you acknowledged that as you continue to train into your 30's and 40's, your joints can really take a beating and training may need to change. Do you have any particular protocol for age-specific training? What factors, other than age do you look for and how would you train someone who is 40 differently than a 25 year old. Particularly if that 40-something person has been an active lifter in the past (like me). If I were to train to total fatigue level my muscles would probably be fine, but I don't think my joints would hold up.

When I start a new client who is in their 40's and up, and they have never been in a gym, I tend to avoid training to failure until such time as I have them "broken in", and not every set. I generally do full body workouts for the first 2 months... longer if they need it. If they adapt well then I start splitting their workouts up. Is this an acceptable approach, or would you recommend that I move them up faster?

[dos]

CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue and metabolite accumulation do not appear to be critical stimuli for strength gain, and resistance training can be effective without the severe discomfort and acute physical effort associated with fatiguing contractions.

Gee....this is all we need. More excuses for people to train like pussies. Come on folks....remember the MAIN principle in conditioning..OVERLOAD?! From where I come from, overload comes with a price....usually the price is some sort of frickin' discomfort...yeah, and I AM talking about grandpa TOO.

BTW, this probably validates all of the trainers in my gym who have their clients pressing 5 lb. DB's over head as they one leg balance on the bosu right? My philosopy is that if you can have a full-on conversation during your sets, you're just not working hard enough Not according to this study though.....

[Bill Hartman]

With older folks you still need to follow the "Statute of Fitness Limitations" as you would someone recovering from an injury especially if there are joint related issues.

That doesn't imply wimpy workouts but rather intensity and volume appropriate.

You may need to use the clients perceived exertion as a guide for level of effort.

Also a valid point by Dos...there must be overload. Now for an absolute beginner that is anything. The real key is understanding how much fatigue you create in a training session and then optimize frequency based on recovery abilities.

More later...must go apply overload to an unsuspecting client.

Bill

[Jean-Paul]

Thanks for all the info guys, as usual. We have a lot of good topics that went on undiscussed from the early days of the forum when there were very few posters in here.

[bryanc]

Originally posted by Jean-Paul:
So then, what would be a proper protocol to study this?

Also, Bill, based on your experience and readings, do you support some sort of change in training style with the "over 30" crowd? As I recall from our last conversation, you acknowledged that as you continue to train into your 30's and 40's, your joints can really take a beating and training may need to change. Do you have any particular protocol for age-specific training? What factors, other than age do you look for and how would you train someone who is 40 differently than a 25 year old. Particularly if that 40-something person has been an active lifter in the past (like me). If I were to train to total fatigue level my muscles would probably be fine, but I don't think my joints would hold up.

When I start a new client who is in their 40's and up, and they have never been in a gym, I tend to avoid training to failure until such time as I have them "broken in", and not every set. I generally do full body workouts for the first 2 months... longer if they need it. If they adapt well then I start splitting their workouts up. Is this an acceptable approach, or would you recommend that I move them up faster?

For the first question: A protocol that is actually something that someone would do would be a good start (a neither here nor there answer I know, but I'm allowing myself a short break from writing right now, and the rest of this post might get long).

What's the difference between a 40 year old and 25 year old? 15 years! Bwahahahaha. Ahem.

If joints are the "problem", you have to consider what a joint actually is, and what limits a joints performance. A joint complex consists of 5 main tissues: bone, cartilage, ligament, tendon and muscle. There is a 6th, and a 7th: nerves and fluid (in some cases). Most people consider "joints" to refer primarily to the bone and cartilage components--and when referring to joint health concerns, usually only to the cartilage component. Proper weight lifting technique should not put cartilage at risk. Even explosive manoevers do not exceed the loading capacity of cartilage. That extracellular matrix can take a lot of beating when it's absorbing compressive loads. Cartilage doesn't have a whole lot of tolerance for shear forces though (where two contacting surfaces travel in opposite directions relatively to one another while maintaining contact). This is why ACL deficient individuals are at high risk for developing osteoarthritis. The ACL isn't there to prevent the femur from sliding anteriorly along the tibial plateau. Hence, the cartilage is damaged, cells die, etc, etc.

But, what makes the difference between a 25 year old and a 40 year old is really regenerative ability. Bone, cartilage, ligament, nerves, muscle, tendon--these can all take a fair amount of work. The key, as Bill has already pointed out, is to stress the tissues enough to force adapation, but not enough to cause damage (even in small quantities). Simple enough of a key, difficult to assess where that point actually lies. But remember, an injury can only occur if you're exposed to the cause of an injury. Injury probably doesn't happen because you work to fatigue. It happens because you go back to the gym to work to fatigue before you're ready to do that. Muscles are weaker, neural impulses aren't as keen--so there's a greater chance that you will stress a tissue beyond its physical limits, or put it in a situation in which it is maladapted to work (eg. shear forces on cartilage because your quads and hams aren't activating sufficiently). If you lift to failure and then don't lift for days afterwards, you could probably do another workout to failure. Whether this is productive in terms of results for effort/time spent, is another question altogether.

Personally, I don't think there needs to be any rush to a split schedule. Remember, that the primary purpose of a split schedule is to give each body part more time than would normally be possible with a whole-body workout BECAUSE THE WORKLOAD THAT IS FEASIBLE IN A REASONABLE WHOLE-BODY WORKOUT IS INSUFFICIENT TO CAUSE ADAPTATION. It's the classic, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If your clients are continuing to see/experience results from a whole-body workout (that can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time) for weeks, or even months, there's no reason to stick them on a split schedule--you can just vary the components of the whole body workout.