Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Training around pain - My article at strengthsensei.com

Go check it out.


Minimalist vs Maximalist

Everything in lifting, bodybuilding, fitness, etc eventually comes full circle.  Mainly because there's nothing new under the sun in the ways of lifting and hasn't been in quite some time.  But as humans we get bored rather easily and need to constantly drum up topics to create discourse about.  Our little world of lifting weights is no exception to that rule.

Younger lifters who weren't around in the 80's or that weren't lifting in the 90's probably don't realize that all of the studies and debates and arguments they get into on the net, have already been hashed out a multitude of times in the past.

All of the "unique" and new training programs that pop up are just recycled versions of routines and programs that existed 20, 30, even 40 years ago.  And all of the arguments and debates you see raging today were already raged many years ago.

Yet the arguing continues.  SERENITY NOW!

Lately, the argument against "minimalist training" has popped back up, which of course can't happen unless "minimalist training" is being used, and used effectively.  Because anytime something works, it has to be torn down and shown to be largely ineffective.  Even if it's effective.

One of the issues I have with the entire debate is...what is minimalist training?  

Is it limiting the number of movements you perform?

Is it limiting the number of days you train?

Is it related to volume, i.e. how much you do or how little you do?

Is it training that means one is not doing enough to obtain results?

Is it simple all of the above?

And what about "maximalist" (I totally just made that word up) training?  What the hell is that?

Is it doing more than you need to do?

Is it going above and beyond the requirements for growth and strength?

Is it training 5 days a week?  10 times a week?

Is it doing volume within a particular range?

Because a training program or method has several moving parts (the principles that define it), I think it's hard to completely nail down a specific property in a program that wholly defines what minimalist or maximalist training is.

For example, in Base Building, on bench day you generally bench, perform a pulling movement, then some support work (though not a lot).

The lifters that follow a method that has them doing two, three, or even four compound pressing movements in a single session might call that minimalist training.  Even though, depending on what model you are using in Base Building, you could be doing upwards of 10 sets of bench press.

To the guy that does 1 or 2 working sets of bench press, he might call that "maximalist" training.

I could go on and on and on all day about this and offer examples then counter examples, but the fact is, one mans maximalist training is another mans minimalist training, and vice versa.  

So we'd really have to define it from a principles perspective.

From my friend and ultra-freak Alex Viada...

"See, to me, minimalist training is really just doing what's effective. Honestly, doing the minimum needed for the intended result - targeting a specific training effect in each workout, and ending once that effect is reached. Not simply doing additional work for the sake of work."

The key word there is "effective".  I think at the heart of the matter, the principles behind "minimalist" training for many, is to do the least amount of work to achieve the greatest degree of effectiveness.

On the flip side, I believe the people that espouse maximalist training believe that they too are looking for what is most effective.

So who is right?  

It appears to me, they both are.  

The people who oppose doing the minimal amount to reach a desired result might throw out words like "lazy" or draw some kind of unsubstantiated parallel like "great workers don't show up for a job and just do the minimal amount.  They go above and beyond."

The problem there is that going above and beyond at Office Max doesn't have physiological factors that are part of the training equation.

"Johnny, can you scan these documents for one of our customers?"

"Sorry Boss.  I've done all the copying I can for the day.  If I scan one more document my CNS is going to be fried, and I doubt I'd be able to scan effectively tomorrow."  

"I understand, Johnny.  You're doing a bang up job.  Get some rest and food in you, maybe some BCAA's, and come back hard in the paint tomorrow.  Be looking for a sit down next week to talk about that promotion."  

I feel like that's just not a conversation that is ever going to happen in a work setting.  So let's cut the ridiculous comparisons and bullshit.

A better non-lifting comparison would be akin to that of someone trying to climb a mountain.  If the goal is to reach the pinnacle of the mountain, my guess is (and I'm only guessing because I've never climbed a mountain) the mountain climbers plot the most effective and efficient way to climb the mountain.  I assume they didn't try to figure out the most difficult way to get to the top, i.e. the path that took the greatest amount of energy, supplies, effort, and time, and offered the greatest amount of resistance.

Training should mirror that mode of thinking.  If you have a goal, then your entire plan should be focused on reaching that goal with the least amount of energy, effort, and time spent.  This does not mean there isn't great effort applied, or very little energy spent.  It means, you do what it takes to get from point A to point B, without traveling to point C and D first.

And here's how we arrive at the problem.  The two words there that people end up arguing about are, "least amount."

The "least amount" could be a LOT of work.  It could mean training six times a week, or more.  It could mean doing an inordinate amount of volume.  It could mean training twice a day at times.  Depending on the goal, it might require an enormous amount of work and effort.  Yet at the heart of it all, that enormous amount might have been the minimal amount required in order to reach said goal.  Less than that might not have yielded the desired effect the trainee was wanting.

So aren't both camps simply asking what is the most efficient and optimal way to train to reach results as quickly as possible?

I believe they are.

You see, I don't think the maximalist camp is saying you need to find the most difficult way up the mountain. I don't believe they are espousing that you need to go to point C and D in order to get from A to B.  I believe they want you to ask yourself how much you can do in order to become the very best you can be.

At the heart of the matter, it's really semantics.

"Do the least amount to achieve the most efficient results."

"Do the maximal amount you can withstand to achieve the most efficient results."

But what if the same conclusion can be arrived at from answering both statements?  

For example, when Stan Efferding broke the powerlifting total in the 275 class he said he trained twice a week.  He deadlifted one week, and squatted the next week.  At his age, and level of strength and muscular development, he couldn't train more often than that.

Was he doing the minimal amount required for success?

Was he doing the maximal amount he could take?

The answer to both questions appears to be..."yes."

My thinking is, there's not always a disconnect between these ideologies.  Where the disconnect comes into play is when someone under performs because they didn't train enough, or trained too much.

At that point, the minimalist training zealots scream "see, you overtrainined!"

And the maximalist training zealots scream, "you didn't train enough!"

What both sides are missing is that the athlete simple didn't train efficiently.  He or she could have trained too much or too little.  Or there could be a myriad of other factors that caused the person to under perform, or not progress.

Let's find the common ground both sides can agree upon.

You can train so little that results or progress is null, or negligible.

You can train so much that results or progress is null, of negligible.

Stating the obvious, neither are desirable.  More is not always better, and less isn't always better either.  Efficiency won't always be defined by quantity, or lack of it.  It is defined by the results produced.  At times, that will require more work, and at other times, less work.

Finding what is most efficient, and the most optimal is really what both sides are looking for.  So how do we arrive at that conclusion?

There are a few factors we need to look at in regards to how to structure our training.  

Trial and error - The only way to really find out how effective or ineffective something is, is to try it.  And it must be given a fair period of time in order for you to give a truly fair opinion about it.  There's nothing worse than reading that someone tried a particular routine or program for three weeks and that it sucked.

Any program or routine you plan on trying has to be given a fair chance to succeed or fail.  A legitimate time frame in my opinion is a minimum of six weeks.  Ten to twelve weeks is probably more ideal but most guys these days can't even read an article half the time without writing "tl;dr".

Sustainability and duration -  Any training program or method should be done with specific goals in mind.  When deciding on those goals, a time frame should be part of making that determination.  The sustainability will often dictate the time frame in which you can stay dedicated to a particular training method.

For example, if the training method you decide upon is skull fucking brutal, then you might not be able to stay dedicated to it for a lengthy period of time without needing to take more time off here and there.

If you are running a peaking cycle that lasts for 5-8 weeks, then you may be training with more volume and intensity than usual.  If you're planning a cycle that is much longer, you may need to adjust the frequency, intensity, and volume of the program so that it will be more result producing.

If your routine is filled with tons of perceived intensity techniques such as forced reps, drop sets, giant sets, and rest/pause then you'll probably need to deload from it more often than a routine with straight sets that leave a few reps in the tank.

Either way, sets specific goals and then base your training around reaching those goals within a specific time frame.  This should give you a far better idea of what training should look like, or how it should be phased.  This is a great first step in creating an efficient training model.

Drive/Desire/Buy in - No matter what, if you don't believe that a training method will be effective, it won't be.  Call it placebo effect if you want, but there's clearly some evidence to support the notion that if you believe something will work, then it will.

I've seen the training programs of some dudes that looked like total shit on paper that they made great gains from.  Because they BELIEVED it would work.  Their desire and drive to make it work was very strong.  So guess what?  It did.

I don't know why someone would be running a training program they didn't think would work, but it does happen.  I also don't know why someone would have a crazy hard on for a training program that wasn't based in sound principles, but that happens as well.  I mean Zumba classes are filled up all across the country with women who want that "long, lean muscle look." who fail to understand that shit is obtained out in that weight room area.

Regardless of those factors, you need to fully believe in your training program or routine, and pour yourself into it.  If not, then it's going to be difficult to understand if the training program itself had flaws that made it ineffective, or if it was just your lack of effort and desire that was the problem.

Experience, age, injury history, and ability of the athlete - One of the biggest factors in determining how much or little someone needs, is the qualification of the athlete.  Novice lifters with little strength can usually train far more often, with far more volume in a higher intensity range than very experienced lifters that efficient in their movements.  In other words, less qualified lifters need more time "practicing" the movements, where very strong people may need less time in that area.

A very novice lifter may be able to do a lot of work in the 90+% range of his max, multiple times a week.  Where a guy that is squatting over 800 probably isn't going to be able to do that.  And no, exceptions do not count.

The age of a lifter is going to come into play as well.  There were methods of training in my 20's that were highly productive that I could not use today.  Likewise, the way I train today probably isn't what I needed the most during my early 20's.

Injuries will also play a significant role in regards to training efficiency.  At this stage in my training I cannot press heavy multiple times a week because of my geriatric elbows.  Yet my pressing is stronger than it has ever been.  My guess is, having to train in a way that keeps my elbows from hurting hasn't kept my press down, but actually helped it.  When I was younger, I needed to train my press more often for it to progress.  Now that I'm approaching 40, with 90 year old elbows, that's not "right" for me.

This comes back to the old adage that we all need different things at different times.  The guy chasing his first 405 squat is going to need very different things than the guy chasing his first 800 pound squat.  Trying to apply the same principles to both lifters doesn't make a great deal of sense.

You as a lifter have to be introspective and honest enough with yourself to understand where you are at in your training ability, and make sound decisions based on that in order to program effectively.  If you're trying to go from squatting 350 to 400, then mirroring the training style of a guy that is trying to go from 800 to 850 is probably not what you need.  Just because it's 50 pounds for each of you doesn't mean it requires the same training model.

Asking the right questions to get the right answers - You can't end up with the correct answers if you aren't asking yourself the right questions.

For example, if you ask yourself why you are front squatting, and the answer is "well so-n-so does, and he squats a zillion." then that's not a great answer.  You are not so-n-so, and as I addressed, modeling your own training after that of someone else, who is in a very different stage of training is not a great idea.

You need to have an individualized answer for all of the right questions.

"Why am I doing front squats?  Because I need more quad development."

"Why do I need more quad development?  Because strong legs help the deadlift off the floor, and of course, helps you squat more."

Have a solid reason for why you are doing everything you are doing.  Sets, reps, movements, volume, frequency, and intensity.  Everything in your training should exist for a specific reason.  Not because you picked it out of a hat, or just arbitrarily put something down on paper.

The most important question is "am I training efficiently, and optimally?"

That may mean at times you need to do less, and at other times you need to do more.  There is no cookie cutter answer here.  Sometimes optimal training could require you to do very little.  And at other times, you may have to do more than you've ever done before.  But all of that revolves around the things I wrote about above.  Your age, ability, experience level, injury history, recovery ability, and a host of other factors.

Conclusion - 

Everyone is looking for the same thing.  Which is the best way to train to reach their goals in the fastest manner possible.  The problem is, the answer to that question is going to vary throughout the course of training life.  What you need today, may not be what you need next year, or five years from now.

Don't get caught up in the mode of thinking that you have to constantly do more work, because that may not be what you need.  And don't think that doing less is always the proper answer either.  Those are moving targets that on the surface, offer baseless answers.  You should really be in search of the quickest way to reach the small goals that add up to the big ones.  Along the way, training will evolve and change.  No one has an answer locked down here, and anyone that tells you they do is being terribly disingenuous.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Base Building Excerpt - Training too light vs too heavy

When your training is so light that it doesn’t reflect how your body is forced to move under heavier loads, the fact is you’re not really practicing that “thing”. Even if you think you’re putting

“700 pounds of force into 300 pounds” It is just not the same. I don’t care what any guru or strength coach tells you about that. There has to be an appreciable amount of weight on the bar to both allow for proper force transfer into the bar in relation to how you actually move heavier weights.

In other words, when the weight is too light, your body will not actually mimic the technique you use when bar gets heavier. If the S.A.I.D. principle is violated, then there is no carry over. If you give a basketball player a lighter than usual basketball, or smaller than usual basketball, eventually he will adjust his motor skills to be able to shoot baskets with that ball.

It doesn’t help his shooting with the official sized ball. The same holds true if you give him a heavier ball. It doesn’t improve the mechanics he uses to shoot the official sized ball. He simply gets better at shooting the heavier/lighter ball. “But he will get stronger and thus have more power with the other ball.” This might or might not be true. The skill portion is negated, and then must be relearned. Any transfer of strength is also negated. Training TOO light is no different.

The “skill” practiced does not reflect that of the skill used to move heavier loads. The bar needs to be heavy enough that there is carry over into the big weights. This only happens if there is enough "likeness" to how you’re moving the weight in relation to those heavy weights. 

On the slip side, the bar doesn't need to constantly be so heavy that one finds themselves in the constant state of fatigue debt. There has to be a balance of “heavy enough” to impose demands to get stronger and light enough not to cause chronic fatigue in training.

This is not to say training should not be hard. It should be. Training with CAT is going to be very hard, and reducing the rest time between sets is also going to increase training difficulty. This is not about “not training hard” because sub-max intensities are used. It is about making those sub-max and intermediate intensity levels hard work through other means. Base building is not about avoiding hard work. It is not about “going light”. It is about “going optimal”.

Too light - no carryover

Too heavy too often - fatigue debt can become an issue (essentially overtraining)

Monday, July 14, 2014

8 reasons your deadlift is stuck

  • You're too fat - That's right, you're too fat.  When you have a big gut in the way of the pull, it makes it a lot harder to get down to the bar, and actually increases the ROM in the movement because you can't get long in the arms.  The deadlift isn't a lift that's impacted by weight gain or loss as much as the bench or squat.  So if you're a really fat guy or gal, and your deadlift sucks, drop the gut.  

  • You're trying to "pick the barbell up" - I know this sounds strange because all you ever read is "the deadlift is just picking shit up off the floor".  But that particular "mental cue" often keeps guys from understanding the importance of getting their legs involved in driving the weight off the floor.  If you watch someone pull and see that when they initiate the pull, their hips pop up and sort of stay in that one area throughout the pull until the very last second, it means they aren't allowing the legs to drive the weight off the floor, and are asking the low back and hamstrings to do ALL the work.  Once you learn how to get leg drive involved, or can think about the legs "pushing" the weight off the floor, your deadlift will jump rapidly, and your speed off the floor will improve tremendously.  This should also let you know that it's leg strength that helps with speed off the floor.  And that deficit movements aren't the key to improving speed off the floor.  It's leg drive that is lacking.

  • You aren't getting long in the arms - I sort of covered this in the "fat guy" one above.  Basically, you need to get long in the arms on the pull.  And a lot of people get so "tight" that they also bend at the elbow and get a small amount of scapular retraction before they pull, i.e. pull the shoulder blades back.  This is a big mistake.  The arms should actually be relaxed, but the grip should be tight.  Not only that, if you're bending at the elbow, then you're asking for a blown bicep eventually.  Let the arms hang, but keep tension in the glutes, hamstrings, lats, and grip.  

  • Your toes are killing your lock out - Lots of guys think they have trouble at lockout due to a lack of upperback strength (that's a different topic).  But many people have trouble at lockout because they can't get their hips through, or have lazy glutes.  Think about it, the last few inches of the deadlift is just getting the hips through and finishing scapular retraction.  The reason a lot of guys suffer with lockout is because their glutes are just sitting back there, and aren't engaged in the lift.  And for many of those guys, they can't get the glutes involved because they don't have enough external rotation of the hip, i.e. their feet are facing forward instead of pointing slightly out.  The glutes can't contract maximally without some external hip rotation, and that can't happen if your toes are facing straight ahead.  If you're having trouble at lockout, try pointing your toes slightly out and think about "getting your hips through" and see if that doesn't help tremendously.

  • You're training the deadlift too heavy - I spent years frustrated with my pull, and the common cycle with it would be something like this....It goes up quickly - It stalls - It regresses - Frustration sets in.  One thing I've said about the deadlift for a while is that it generally takes more than it gives back.  That means, for a lot of guys, training the pull heavy often takes a great toll on recovery, and fatigues the hips and erectors for an extended period that is difficult to recover from.  When I was developing Base Building, I quit training the pull heavy, and took a cue from Andy Bolton and really started focusing on speed with weights in the 75 - 85% range, and stayed away from 90%+ for a long time.  It wasn't that long after that that my deadlift resumed progress again when I did decide to test it.  I would feel fresh, and strong in the pull.  Now I'm at a point where I am stiff legged deadlifting my former rep PR's from a deficit.  If you're built for pulling, you can get away with heavy deadlifting far more often than a guy not built for it.  So if you're not built to pull, try getting away from pulling heavy all the time, and pull lots of triples in that 75 - 85% for a while emphasizing getting faster with those weights, and test after a few months.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  

  • You're not training the deadlift - I went through this for a long time as well.  "If you want a big deadlift, don't deadlift."  Maybe that works for a guy here and there, but for the majority of lifters, they will actually need to train the deadlift.  And by train the deadlift, I don't mean rack pulls and shit, I mean the pull from the floor.  

  • Your hips are too low - If your hips are too low and you're trying to start the pull with your hips low, then you're actually not in position to have leverage over the bar.  Someone may point to a guy like Misha or Capt. Kirk and point out their huge drop in the hips, but if you watch the bar doesn't start coming off the floor until the shoulders are over the bar, and the hips are higher.  And that's the position you have to be in before you can get leverage over the bar.  The shoulders OVER the bar, and the hips higher.  I've read before that you need to get the shoulders behind the bar, but you literally cannot deadlift off the floor with the shoulders behind the bar.  I have no idea how that idea got circulated but it's literally bio-mechanically incorrect in every way.  Have someone video your pull from the side.  If your shoulders are not over the bar, then it means your hips are too low to really be able to apply maximal force to initiate the lift.  Get your hips higher, and get a higher pull.

  • Your posterior chain is weak - To pull big you need strong glutes, hamstrings, erectors, rhomboids, and traps.  So you need to do support work to strengthen any of those areas that may be holding you back.  You don't have to go bananas in finding support work to do that, i.e. doing 15 movements to accomplish this.  A stiff legged deadlift will hammer the hamstrings, glutes, and upperback tremendously.  Throw in a solid row and for the most part, you're covered.  If you're really a support movement whore, then add in chins or pulldowns to the mix.  At that point, you're literally covering all the musculature involved in the deadlift on the backside of your body.  
This may not cover every single issue as to why your deadlift isn't moving as well as you'd like, but it generally covers the most common things I see or have seen as to the reason why a dudes deadlift has been stuck.  

Thursday, July 10, 2014

How much protein do you REALLY need?

About 13 minutes after you pick up your first weight, you're going to be told "you gotta pound that protein, brah.  That's how you grow.  Protein!"

Back in the 80's and early 90's if you picked up a bodybuilding magazine without reading an article or interview with someone where it was reiterated over and over again that to grow you needed "1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight."

Over, and over, and over again.

As the 90's wore on, it eventually turned into about 1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight.  Then 2 grams, and eventually of course, it was more than that.  How much was true, and how much was bravado I don't know.  But "pounding the protein" was reinforced on a consistent basis.

And let's be honest here, protein is important.  After all, amino acids are the "building blocks of muscle".

You'd read that last statement a million times in magazines too.

So now that I've made a very obvious statement that protein is important, the next thing to ask is, how MUCH protein is important to eat in order to grow?

Rather than blather on, let's get right into the studies....

If you want the tl;dr version, it's at the very bottom.

From this one.....


Dietary protein for athletes: from requirements to optimum adaptation.
Opinion on the role of protein in promoting athletic performance is divided along the lines of how much aerobic-based versus resistance-based activity the athlete undertakes. Athletes seeking to gain muscle mass and strength are likely to consume higher amounts of dietary protein than their endurance-trained counterparts. The main belief behind the large quantities of dietary protein consumption in resistance-trained athletes is that it is needed to generate more muscle protein. Athletes may require protein for more than just alleviation of the risk for deficiency, inherent in the dietary guidelines, but also to aid in an elevated level of functioning and possibly adaptation to the exercise stimulus. It does appear, however, that there is a good rationale for recommending to athletes protein intakes that are higher than the RDA. Our consensus opinion is that leucine, and possibly the other branched-chain amino acids, occupy a position of prominence in stimulating muscle protein synthesis; that protein intakes in the range of 1.3-1.8 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) consumed as 3-4 isonitrogenous meals will maximize muscle protein synthesis. These recommendations may also be dependent on training status: experienced athletes would require less, while more protein should be consumed during periods of high frequency/intensity training. Elevated protein consumption, as high as 1.8-2.0 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) depending on the caloric deficit, may be advantageous in preventing lean mass losses during periods of energy restriction to promote fat loss.
Basically, in layman's terms this says that an athlete that is training hard may need about 1.3 to 1.8 grams of protein per kilo of bodyweight.  In 'Murica terms that means a 200 pound cat would need anywhere from 117 grams to 162 grams of protein.  If he or she is dieting, it'll need to be more like 200 grams a day.

"Well that's too low!"  You say.

Sure.  Let's continue then.

This study is long as a mother fuck.  So I will provide the link and some excerpts from it.....


In recent years an explosion of research papers concerning protein consumption has been published. The need to consolidate this information has become critical from both practical and future research standpoints. For this reason, the following paper presents an in depth analysis of contemporary issues in protein requirements and consumption for resistance trained athletes.

the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), meant to suffice for 97.5% of the population is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight [8,9]. However, strength training athletes generally consume a great deal more than the RDA [11-14], with the rationale that their protein requirements exceed that of the general population [12]. Therefore, a number of studies have examined athletes' protein requirements based on the nitrogen balance technique [13-15].

It is also critical to recognize that a minimal protein requirement does not equate to an optimal protein intake. Indeed, strength athletes and bodybuilders are interested in stimulating muscular hypertrophy well beyond levels required for maintenance [1]. Further, evidence suggests that nitrogen balance may be able to occur at protein intakes which fall below those needed to optimize body composition and performance measures [1,23].

Ok, ok, we got it.  Let's get to the meat and potatoes.....

While there was no significant difference in 1-RM bench press performance, the high protein group improved their 1-RM squat (23.6 ± 13.6 kg) to a greater extent than the low protein group (9.09 ± 11.86 kg). In a similar study by Vukovich et al. [29] divided 51 male and female participants into two groups. Group one received a 40 gram whey protein supplement twice daily, while group two received a carbohydrate placebo during a six month resistance training program. Participants in the supplemented group averaged twice the protein intake (2.2 g/kg body weight) as the placebo group (1.1 g/kg body weight). The protein supplemented group experienced significantly greater strength gains than the placebo group in bench press and hip sled tasks (see Figure ​Figure11).

Awesome. The group that took in about 1 gram per pound of bodyweight got stronger than the group that drank some carbohydrate placebo drink. Sweet.

Tell me more....

Recently Burke et al. [30] randomly assigned 36 individuals to a whey protein (WP) supplemented group, a whey protein and creatine supplemented group (WPC), or a placebo group. Whey protein was given at 1.2 grams per kg of bodyweight in addition to the participants' normal diet. It was found that lean tissue increased to the greatest extent in the WPC group compared to other groups, and that the WP group gained more lean muscle mass than the placebo. This same trend was found in indexes of strength as well.

The above studies indicate that protein requirements for athletes far exceed the daily recommended allowance. In fact, a number of reviews from respected authorities have surfaced on dietary protein requirements which have ranged form 1.2–2.2 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight (see Table ​Table1)1) [1,7,14,23,24,31-33].

So not only did the group that got 1 gram per pound of bodyweight increase strength at a far greater rate than the lower protein group, they also grew more mass. Again, another win for more protein. BUT, we're still at 1 gram per pound of bodyweight.


Again, those are grams to kilo's of bodyweight. So basically, top to bottom it averages about to about....0.8 to 1 gram per pound of bodyweight. Hmmmmm.......

Protein timing. Yeah it does matter.

In 2001 a perspectives paper was submitted by the eminent scientist Michael J. Rennie [4]. Amusingly enough the paper was entitled "Grandad, it ain't what you eat, it depends when you eat it – that's how muscles grow! [4]"The paper was a brief review of a study published by Esmarck and colleagues [2]. Esmarck et al. [2] investigated the effect of immediate and 2 hour delayed feedings of protein on muscular hypertrophy and strength over a 12 week period of resistance training in elderly males. An oral supplement of 10 grams of protein, 7 grams of carbohydrate, and 3 grams of fat was administered. Results indicated that both mean fiber area of the m. vastus lateralis and cross sectional area of the m. quadriceps femoris increased in the immediate protein condition, where as no significant increases were found in the 2 hour delay condition. Both dynamic and isokinetic strength increased, by 46 and 15%, respectively in the immediate condition, whereas the delayed condition only improved in dynamic strength, by 36%.

These results indicate that immediate feeding after exercise is an important factor regulating muscle growth, at least in elderly individuals. There are a number of possible explanations for these results. The first is related to the observation that protein synthesis is stimulated in response to resistance training [53]. Phillips et al.[53] found that these effects were inversely related to time (see Figure ​Figure2).2). Therefore, one possible explanation proposed by Esmarck et al. [2] was that the substrate provided to participants and its interaction with the contraction-induced stimulation of protein synthesis was used to a lesser extent for the formation of muscle tissue in the delayed condition compared to the immediate condition.

Now here is what I hate about studies. People will latch onto the words there "at least in elderly individuals." as if that means it ONLY works for them. I don't think I'm breaking my arm in reaching for the conclusion that if it works for elderly people then it PROBABLY has some benefits for younger people as well.

A bit more....

As an additional comparison, Levenhagen et al. [3] administered an oral protein supplement (10 g protein, 8 g carbohydrate, 3 g fat) either immediately (EARLY) or three hours after moderate intensity exercise (LATE). Results indicated that Net balance was significantly more positive during EARLY, compared with LATE, for the amino acids measured. In fact, while there was a net uptake of amino acids with the EARLY condition, there was a net release of amino acids in the LATE condition. Further leg protein synthesis was more than 3 times greater in the EARLY condition than the LATE condition. Finally whole body protein deposition was greater in the EARLY condition than the LATE condition.

Alright just wanted to drive that point home.  Ingesting protein, preferably a fast acting protein, immediately after training helps to create a more anabolic environment.  

I'm losing track....oh yeah, how MUCH protein you need in a day.  

The effect of the composition/quality of a protein on lean tissue gains

Results found a significant increase in fat free mass and a decrease in fat mass in the omnivorous condition. However, there was a decrease in fat free mass in the vegetarian condition and an increase in fat mass. These results indicate that a diet with the majority of its protein from meat products is more effective for supporting the goals of a resistance training program then a vegetarian diet.

Basically, vegetarian lifters, you're short changing your gains by not eating meat.  But the rest of us alreayd knew that shit.  

Milk does a body good - 

In a study from McMaster University, Phillips et al. [7] had participants consume 1 of three drinks immediately and one hour after exercise. The drinks consisted of 500 ml of milk (18.2 grams of protein), an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic soy protein mixture, or a maltodextrin energy control condition. After 12 weeks of resistance training it was found that the milk consumption condition gained significantly greater lean muscle mass than the energy control, while there were no significant differences between the energy control and soy protein conditions.

So for all you people who don't drink milk because "other animals don't drink milk from other animals..." well, you're missing out on gains too, and you're wrong.  Because other animals will drink some mother fuckin milk if it is supplied to them dammit.  

I'm still not at my original point....DAMMIT.  Oh wait....

Recent Trends in Protein Requirements

Further, there is evidence that nitrogen retention increases as nitrogen uptake increases [16]. Hegsted [16] presented a series of studies which suggested that 20% of the nitrogen above maintenance is retained. However, these results have not directly translated to enhanced lean body mass [13,15,16]. There are two rationales for these findings. The first is that nitrogen retention is inherently overestimated [16], largely because nitrogen losses are underestimated [16]. A second rationale is that the overall length of most nitrogen balance studies do not allow for a statistically significant measure of LBM increases [1].

Note the bolded part.....

While there was an 8.6% increase from moderate to high (2.4) protein intakes, these results did not reach significance. The authors suggested that this non significant trend appears to support the suggestion that the real protein requirements of athletes were closer to the 1.8 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight daily.

Wait, what?  Significantly higher protein uptakes did not result in more significant gainz?  

That the real protein requirements for athletes were indeed closer to 1.8 grams per kilo?

Recently there have been a number of studies which have investigated higher protein intakes on indexes of performance and body composition [28-30]. A number of these studies have supported the efficacy of higher protein intakes, and yielded greater indexes of strength, and enhanced lean body mass [28-30]. This led Wolfe to conclude that increasing protein intake "will increase muscle mass, with all other variables remaining constant [40]."

It is further known that a number of other variables affect protein intake. Perhaps the most critical of these is energy intake. When an individual is in a caloric deficit, protein needs are greater than when the individual is in maintenance or a caloric surplus [34]. Finally it has been recently postulated that a true general protein requirement may be impossible to find considering that studies strongly suggest that different results will be obtained with the same protein intake when a number of variables are manipulated [1]. The remainder of the paper will provide an in depth analysis of a number of these variables.

NOW THIS, is what I was looking for.  But before we move on, I want to make a point about the part in BOLD.

The evidence suggests that someone who is dieting, i.e. in a calorie deficit, needs more protein than someone who is in a calorie surplus, i.e. bulking.  This SHOULD make sense to anyone.  You probably don't need as much protein as you think when you're also ingesting a significant amount of carbohydrates and fats along with it.  So the guy that's bulking and trying to cram in 400+ grams of protein a day isn't really doing anything that the gram per pound of bodyweight wouldn't do for him.  

So let's look at that study.....

Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes

Ok let's cut to the shit and let the healing begin!

Average daily dietary intake is shown in Table 2. No significant difference in daily caloric intake was seen between the groups. However, significant differences in total and relative protein intake were seen between all three groups. Significant differences were also observed in carbohydrate intake between BL and AL. The protein and carbohydrate composition of the diet was also significantly different between all three groups.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether protein intakes above recommended levels (> 2.0 g·kg-1·day-1) provided any additional benefit for strength and body composition improvements in strength/power athletes.

Now you're speaking my language!

The results of this study do not provide any support for protein intakes greater than recommended levels in collegiate strength/power athletes for body composition improvements, or alterations in resting hormonal concentrations. Inadequate energy intakes likely contributed to these results. Although elevated protein content did not produce significantly greater strength improvements, results suggest that further study is warranted on the effect of high (> 2.0 g·kg-1·day-1) protein intake on strength and lean tissue accruement. However, future research needs to insure appropriate caloric consumption in the examination of strength/power athletes.

Wait, what?  Oh, this only showed that the standard 1.8kg per kilo of bodyweight requirement was sufficient.  

Well God damn.  

Wait, here's a study from Vandy.  Perhaps it will shed some light....

What evidence is there to support or disprove claims that high intake levels of protein help build muscle mass and better athletes? Muscles are made mostly of protein, so logically one would think that the more protein in the diet, the more muscle one should have. Certain types of exercise, weight lifting for example, do stimulate muscle growth. So, a combination of weight training and large amounts (the more, the better) should be beneficial, right? Not exactly. The most recent indications are that dietary protein in excess of the current recommended dietary allowance (0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day) is likely needed for optimal muscle growth (5.) "The current recommended dietary allowance doesn't seem to be enough for elite athletes who are training every day, who are growing, or who are training especially hard right before an event" (6.) However, the benefit appears to plateau at intakes well below the levels typically consumed by many athletes. Thus, for best results, a diet high in protein is beneficial for muscle growth, but only to an extent. Once a certain intake level is reached, any additional protein taken in will not help build muscle mass any more.

There's that pesky 0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight shit again.  

A study done by Fern et. al (1991) showed that greater gains in body mass occur over four weeks of heavy weight training when young men consumed 3.3 versus 1.3 grams if protein per kilogram of body mass. In addition a study done by Meredith et al. (1992) found that a daily dietary supplement containing 23 grams of protein combined with weight training can enhance muscle mass gains relative to similar subjects who trained with out the supplement. Both of the studies show support for the belief that increased protein in the diet can help increase muscle mass, but it should be noted that these effects were found with a combination of intake and training. These two studies further indicated that a protein intake of about 1.7 - 1.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, when combined with weight training will enhance muscle development compared with similar training with an intake of 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (5.) However, it is important to note that there is little good evidence that the very high protein intakes (more than 2 grams per kilogram of body weight per day) typically consumed by strength athletes are beneficial.

The Fern study led me to a mikementzer page (yes, but keep reading...)

In another study, Consolazio, Johnson, Nelson, Dramise, and Skala (1975) monitored young men over a 40 day period while they engaged in a "vigorous" physical conditioning program, which consisted of a variety of physical activities including "treadmill walking, riding the bicycle ergometer, calesthenics [sic], isometric exercises, and other sporting activities." (Calisthenics are exercises that use the body as its resistance, such as push-ups and abdominal crunches. Isometrics are exercises in which a muscle tenses but does not shorten, such as when a muscle attempts to contract against an immovable object or an individual flexes his muscles and holds a pose. Thus, for the purpose of this report, calisthenics and isometrics constitute resistance training.) The exercise time duration per workout was not reported. The 8 subjects averaged 21.5 years of age and consumed diets providing about 48.7 kcal/kg to balance energy intake with expenditure. Consolazio and colleagues observed greater nitrogen retention (0.533 g/day vs. 1.60 g/day) in resistance-trained athletes over a forty day training regimen when protein intake was 2.8 g/kg/day versus 1.4 g/kg/day.

Also supportive of these findings is a study which followed for four weeks two groups of young men whose average age was 24.5 years old (Fern, Bielinski, and Schutz, 1991). Both groups began whole-body strength training 3 times per week, with each session lasting for one hour. One group consumed their normal protein dietary intake of 1.3 g/kg/day while the higher protein group consumed this amount plus a protein powder supplement of 2 g protein/kg/day, giving a total of 3.3 g/kg/day. "Crude" nitrogen balance was determined to be 0.01 g N/day and 3.4 g N/day, respectively. It is insinuated that only urinary nitrogen was actually monitored.

Another study of four champion weight lifters ranging in age from 21 to 34 years old suggested an average protein intake of 2.2 g/kg/day resulted in a positive nitrogen balance of 1.85 g N (Laritcheva, Yalovaya, Shubin, and Smirnov, 1978). One lifter who consumed the least protein at 1.85 g/kg had a negative nitrogen balance of -0.88 g N. The weight lifters exercised 90-150 minutes per workout, and energy balance was approximately neutral. Nitrogen losses through the integumenta were not taken into consideration. It is assumed that the nitrogen retention data are from a single observation day for each weight lifter.

Somehow from there, I ended up reading this shit from The Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine.....

If you don't want to read that text via a pic, basically it says that they came to the conclusion that a safe and effective intake of protein was about 1.76 grams per kilo of bodyweight, and that there was no evidence or studies to show that anything over 2 grams per pound of bodyweight were more effective at increasing muscle mass.  Now we know from studies later (as linked above) that higher than that did show a far greater positive nitrogen balance.  But it was only significant compared to people on the very lower end of protein intake in the study.  Which should be expected.  

I could keep linking and linking but all I came across over and over again was the following....

  • Most of the benefits of protein top out at around 2.2 - 2.5 grams per kilo of bodyweight.  For American's that's the standard of about 1 gram per pound of bodyweight, or just slightly more.
  • If you're dieting you may need a little more than this.  Perhaps 1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight.

All this shit let me to ask two experts I know, so I could balance this out a bit.

From Trevor Kashey of Complete Human Performance.......

How much protein is too much? That depends on the nature of the question. As far as compromising health of already full functioning organs? I'm not convinced there has been a demonstrated upper limit in healthy individuals, nor has their been an upper limit established by the medical community. There was a recent study published in the ISSN with 2g/kg intake with no ill effects on health.

If one wants to set an upper limit on intake in order to maximize their anabolic response? I'm hard pressed to believe that a typical athlete would need more than 30-50g per meal depending on the quality of the proteibn source. Or approximately 5g leucine for a LEAN 225lbs man. To put that into perspective, higher quality sources are approximately 10% leucine per gram of protein.

I would argue enhanced athletes need even less, but that would lead to serious digression.

So depending on the person, if he's doing the usual 5 meals a day, that's between 150-250 a day.  Yeah, quite the range but my guess is Trevor is covering anyone from the 155 pound guy trying to gain mass, to the 275 pound guy trying to do the same, or even diet.  

Which brings me to my next point.  The other part in all of this, is that you should also be going by LEAN pounds of bodymass.  If you're 300 pounds, but are 25% bodyfat, you don't need 300 grams a day.  Just throwing out a roundabout figure, 10% bodyfat is always a safe place to start.  So for that guy, we're talking 255 grams of protein a day or so.

I also asked my buddy, Dr. Mike Israetel about the proper amount of protein intake.  And well, he just reiterated what all the studies showed....

The research on the protein needs of strength/power atheltes is quite expansive. The general consensus is that athletes can benefit from up to 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight per day. This is the highest number seen in replicated studies with athletes that train with high volumes. In some situations, particularly conserving muscle mass during bodybuilding diet and training with lower bodyfats, up to 1.5g may be beneficial, but this is as yet inconclusive. What is conclusive it is that peak benefits have been consistently reported of values as low as 0.6g, especially in athletes putting on weight via a high calorie diet. Thus, the recommendation of 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight per day covers nearly all cirucmstances in bodybuilding and especially powerlifting. Arguments that much more protien is beneficial are left highly lacking in evidence or conjecture.

Closing - 

tl;dr version - If you're a hard training athlete, a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight is ENOUGH.  Period.  You can easily get away with less if you're eating to mass and are taking in sufficient amount of carbs as well.

If you're a hard training athlete, and you're dieting, maybe slightly more.  But the gram per pound of bodyweight will probably still suffice.

There's no magic in overdosing on protein.  

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Training - Press

Bodyweight - 264

Incline Press -

bar x 40,30,20
135 x 12
185 x 5
225 x 4
275 x 3
315 x 2
365 x 2

405 x 4
315 x 12, 9, 7

Flat Db Flyes - 40's x 15, 60's x 15,15
Flex Incline Press - 1 x 12, 1 x 8, x 1 x 6  No idea on the weights and really, who cares?

Notes - I thought today was the day.  The day I'd finally get 5 reps @ 405 on incline.  The first two reps felt like it would happen.  Then I felt the third slow DRAMATICALLY and I knew the 4th would grind.  Fuck.

Oh well, back to volume..........