Muscle Factor Training

A New Paradigm
You may be familiar with the old adage heavy weights / low reps build strength & size, light
weights / high reps build endurance. This belief about the effects that different numbers of
repetition have on the body has been repeated for many, many years. I started lifting weights in
1982 and it was accepted as truth at that time. This belief is even accepted wisdom in the
exercise physiology community. The exercise physiology textbook in my library, published in
1996, states, Performing an exercise between 3-RM (repetition maximum) and 12-RM provides
the most effective number of repetitions for increasing muscular strength.(1) The bottom line is
that there is little to no debate as to the effect different numbers of repetitions have on the body.
If you want to increase strength and size, heavy weights and low reps is the universally agreed
upon prescription.
From a practical perspective this has resulted in most or all resistance training programs
recommending heavy weights and low reps exclusively. Basically every strength training or
bodybuilding program recommends repetitions of 20 or less. During 15 years of following
popular strength training literature I can recall only 2 instances where reps higher than 20 have
been discussed and in only one of those instances was it even seriously recommended as a viable
training method.
In the first case, in the early 1980s or so a professional bodybuilder (Johnny Fuller, if my
memory serves me correctly) revealed that he preferred to train using 32 repetitions for most or
all of his exercises. At the time this was used as an example of the recommendation that each
trainee needs to find what works best for him/herself, but I dont recall that the article
recommended such high reps for anyone else. Nor did any follow on articles I ever saw suggest
that trainees might experiment with reps in that high range.
In the second case, Muscle and Fitness magazine ran a few articles in the late 1980s about 100
repetition training. This series was run after one bodybuilder in particular revealed that he used
100 reps for brief training periods a few times a year. After that series of articles, I dont recall
ever hearing about this type of training again.
So, while the adage says heavy weight/low reps build strength and light weights/high reps build
endurance, I do not believe that high rep strength training is commonly used or seriously
considered as a viable training method by most trainees or their coaches. It isnt commonly
recommended to those who are most interested in increasing strength and/or size, nor does it
seem to be a part of the serious endurance athletes training methods.
Since the adage says light weights / high reps building endurance, and increasing endurance is a
goal of endurance athletes, I began wondering why high rep strength training was not commonly
used by endurance athletes. Even though the primary goal of endurance athletes is to improve
endurance, heavy weight / low rep strength training is what is most often recommended to them.

The reason strength training is believed to be beneficial for endurance athletes is that it increases
the amount of force produced during contraction, resulting in an increase in power output and,
presumably, endurance performance. What about the second part of the adage though? The part
that says light weights / high reps build endurance. One of the muscle factors contributing to
power output is fatigue resistance. Increased resistance to fatigue is just another way of saying
that the muscles endurance increased. I reasoned that if high rep resistance training really did
increase endurance then perhaps it might be a beneficial training method for endurance athletes.
With that thought in mind I started searching the available research to see what had been done on
this topic. I found some exciting and surprising research for us to review. Lets get to it.

Heavy weight/low rep vs. medium weight/medium rep vs. light weight/high rep
The first thing I wanted to know was whether research supported the belief that heavy weights /
low reps build strength and that light weights / high reps build endurance. After all it wouldnt
be the first time that someone discovered that conventional wisdom was not completely
accurate. I thought it best to be sure.
The classic research on this topic was conducted by Thomas DeLorme in 1945 (3). DeLormes
research indicated that heavy weights do indeed build strength while higher reps build
endurance. DeLorme is even credited with the axiom that heavy weights / low reps build
strength and high reps / light weights build endurance. Quite a few other research studies on this
topic have supported DeLormes findings hence the reason it is now accepted as conventional
wisdom.
This is not to say that DeLormes original axiom has gone unchallenged though. Several
research studies (4,5) that have found that the primary adaptation to either high or low reps is an
increase in muscular strength. So even though it is accepted today that heavy weights / low reps
builds strength and light weights / high reps builds endurance the fact is that some research has
challenged this belief, suggesting that high reps primarily build strength, not endurance and
resulting in conflicting data on the topic.
In 1982 two researchers from the University of Kentucky set out to resolve this conflict (6).
Specifically, they wanted to determine the effects of three different resistance training protocols
heavy weights / low reps (6-8 reps), medium weight / medium reps (30-40 reps), and light
weights / high reps (100-150 reps).
They recruited forty-three untrained, healthy subjects and trained them with the bench press
exercise three times per week for nine weeks with one of three training protocols. The low rep
group performed 3 sets x 6-8 reps maximum, the medium rep group performed 2 sets x 30-40
reps maximum, and the high rep group performed 1 set x 100-150 rep maximum. Resistance
was adjusted as needed to ensure each subject stayed in the appropriate rep range through
the training program.
Before training began each subject was tested for their individual 1 rep maximum (1-RM),
relative endurance and absolute endurance. Relative endurance was determined by the
maximum number of bench press repetitions they could complete with 40% of their 1-RM and

adjusted as 1-RM changed, while absolute endurance was measured by how many reps could be
completed with 27.23 kilograms.
At the end of the study all subjects were tested again for maximum strength, relative endurance,
and absolute endurance. All three groups improved maximum strength and absolute endurance.
The heavy weight / low rep group decreased in relative endurance while the other two groups
increased relative endurance significantly. The results of this study are shown in table 1.
Table 1: Percent changes in max strength, absolute endurance, and relative endurance
following strength training at three distinct repetition ranges

Training Group

% Change in Max
Strength

% Change in Absolute % Change in Relative

Endurance
Endurance

Heavy weight /
20.22

23.58

-6.99

8.22

39.23

22.45

4.92

41.30

28.45

low rep

Medium weight /
medium rep

Light weight /
high rep

As can be seen from the data in table 1, the results of this study support DeLormes axiom.
Heavy weight / low reps do build strength, while light weights / high reps build endurance.
However, in contrast to DeLormes axiom, note that all 3 rep ranges resulted in increases in
maximum strength. And all 3 rep ranges resulted in increases in endurance, with the exception
of the relative endurance of the low rep group. So while low reps increase maximum strength
more than do high reps and high reps increase endurance more than low reps the point is that
resistance training significantly increases both strength and endurance. The researchers
commented on this same point.
The reader should note, however, that with the exception of the relative endurance task for the
high resistance low repetition group, all training protocols demonstrated significant
improvements on each of the three criterion tests.

Anderson and Kearneys research went a long way to resolving the conflicting data on
DeLormes axiom heavy weights increase strength the most, high reps influence endurance the
most, but all resistance training results in improvements in both strength and endurance.
In 1994 Stone and Coulter modeled a study after Anderson and Kearneys study with the
exception of using a less extreme rep range for the high rep group (7). Stone and Coulter had
their subjects perform either 3 x 6-8 reps, 2 x 15-20 reps, or 1 x 30-40 reps. The results of this
program supported the findings of Anderson and Kearney. Strength and absolute endurance
increased for all three groups. The low rep group improved strength more than the other 2
groups and the high rep group improved endurance more than the lower rep groups.
The bottom line is that while DeLormes basic axiom is generally supported by this research, the
fact is that resistance training results in improvements in both strength and endurance but to
varying degrees depending on how many repetitions are performed.
What about alternating rep ranges?
The studies cited above have compared one rep range to another, high reps vs. low reps for
example. In every study researchers had subjects perform just one rep range and in each case
heavy weights / low reps increased strength the most. What the researchers never examined was
how a program of multiple rep ranges compared to a program consisting of a single rep
range.
In 2004 a group of researchers tackled this very question in a fascinating study of varying
combinations of high and low rep training (8). This group speculated that a combination type
program that included both low and high reps would be more effective than a periodized
program consisting of single repetition scheme during each training period or phase.
To test their hypothesis they recruited 17 untrained subjects, divided them into two groups, and
then trained each group twice per week for 10 weeks. Subjects were tested for maximum
strength and muscular endurance pre- and post-training. The first 6 weeks of training was
designated as phase 1 and both groups trained exactly the same during this phase. Workouts
consisted of two exercises (leg extensions & leg presses) for 3 sets x 10-15 reps. At the end of
this first phase of training there was no difference between the groups; both had significantly and
equally improved strength and endurance. This is not surprising since both groups trained
exactly the same during phase 1.
During the final 4 weeks of the study, both groups conducted 5 sets x 3-5 reps of each exercise.
One group, the combi-type group, added a single set of 25-35 reps following their final low
rep set. At the end of the training program the combi-type group had increased their strength
58% more than did the other training group (14.7% vs. 9.3% respectively). The results are
displayed in table 2.
Table 2: Set and rep ranges for 2 training phases and percent change in strength following
phase 2.

Training Group

Phase 1 training

Phase 2 training

% Change in strength
after phase 2

Strength type group

6 sets x 10-15 reps

5 sets x 3-5 reps

9.3 %

5 sets x 3-5 reps,

Combo type group

6 sets x 10-15 reps

14.7%
1 set x 25-35 reps

In their discussion of these findings, the researchers wrote,

This suggests that the combi-type regimen caused a larger increase in dynamic muscular
strength than did the strength-type regimen when combined with the hypertrophy-type regimen
in a periodized fashion This effect appears to be inconsistent with the classical principle
operating in resistance-exercise training, in which low-repetition protocols are used for muscular
strength and low-intensity, high-repetition protocols are used for muscular endurance. Sensible
combinations of high- and low-intensity protocols may therefore be more important to
optimize the strength adaptation to resistance training.
There were also significant differences in endurance between the two groups. During phase 1
both groups increased endurance with no significant difference in the percent change. However,
the combo type groups endurance continued to increase during phase 2, while the strength type
groups endurance decreased 4.2%. The results are displayed in table 3.
Table 3: Percent change in endurance following each phase of training and total percent
change in endurance.

Training Group

Change in endurance, Change in endurance,

phase 1
phase 2

Total Change in
Endurance

Strength type group

28.5 %

-4.7 %

24.3 %

Combo type group

20 %

18.8 %

38.2 %

In summary, this study found that a combination program consisting of heavy weights / low
reps and light weight / high reps was more effective for improving both strength and

endurance than a traditional periodized training program consisting of a single rep range
during each training phase. This is truly a fascinating finding.

What Does All This Mean?

What are we to make of all this data on low and high rep strength training? Based on this data I
suggest that the evidence supports that resistance training consisting of a combination of reps is
superior to a more traditional lower-rep strength training program. While Id like to see more
research on this topic this data is enticing enough that I strongly recommend giving a
combination of low rep / high rep training serious consideration.
Personally, I adopted a combination high and low rep program in 2007. At that time I had
been strength training consistently for 25 years (I started in 1982) and had tried pretty much
every training program that had come down the pipe. Changing to a combination program
was the single best change Ive ever made in terms of increasing strength. Despite being in
my mid-40s and many years past my prime I was able to increase my strength to the level it
had been at during my mid-20s. Too bad I didnt discover this 25 years earlier.
What explains the results of a combination program? What physiologically is happening within
the body that produces such large strength gains? Why does the addition of high rep training
training that has been conventionally viewed as endurance training to a traditional low rep
program produce greater gains in strength than a low rep program only? I pondered this question
for about a year until I finally arrive at the muscle factor model as the physiological
explanation. I believe this new model for how muscles function during exercise and how they
adapt to exercise explains why a combination program is superior to single rep range training.
Based on this I chose the term Muscle Factor Training to describe combination training.
If you would like to try muscle factor training I suggest starting with the following. In addition to
the low rep training you are already doing, add:

one set of 20 reps (range of 17 23 reps)

one set of 40 reps (range of 35 45 reps)

For example, lets say your current training program includes 4 x 8-10 reps in the bench press.
You would replace 2 of those low rep sets with 1 set of 20 reps and 1 set of 40 reps. Your new
bench press program would look like this:

2 sets x 8-10 reps

1 set x 20 reps
1 set x 40 reps

Summary

The old adage is that heavy weights / low reps build strength while light weights / high reps build
endurance and a review of the research shows that the adage is basically true. However, while
that adage is basically correct it does not reveal the complete picture. Strength increases from
reps as high as 150 but if you are only doing one rep range then lower reps increase strength the
most.
A combination of both high and low reps what I call Muscle Factor Training has been
shown to increase strength significantly more than a traditional low rep, periodized type
training program. For those who are most interested in maximizing muscular strength and size
this finding is significant and should be seriously considered when designing a strength training
program.
Reference:
1. Katch, Katch, McArdle, Exercise Physiology, Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance,
1996, Williams & Wilkins, pg. 427
2. Muscle Limit Performance, Muscle Contractility
3. DeLorme, Thomas L., Restoration of muscle power by heavy resistance exercise, Journal of
Bone and Joint Surgery, 1945, 27:645-667.
4. Stull G, Clarke D., High-resistance, low-repetition training as a determiner of strength and
fatigability, Research Quarterly, 41(2), 189-193
5. Clarke D, Stull G., Endurance training as a determinant of strength and fatigability, Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 19-26
6. Anderson T, Kearney J., Effects of Three Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength
and Absolute and Relative Endurance, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1982, 53:1, 17.
7. Stone WJ, Coulter SP., Strength/endurance effects from three resistance training protocols
with women, J Strength Cond Res 8:231-234.
8. Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K., Muscular Adaptations
to Combinations of High- and Low-Intensity Resistance Exercises, J Strength Cond Res, 2004,
18(4),
------

Muscle Factor Model

How muscles function during and adapt to training

In the early 1970s a man named Arthur Jones introduced a revolutionary strength training
method to the bodybuilding and strength training world. Jones had been studying muscle
physiology for about 30 years and had long understood that the standard training methods of the
day were not completely consistent with what was known about how muscles function during
exercise or how they adapt to exercise. Many of the training practices of the day were rooted in
tradition and contradictory to known physiological facts. Jones, a lifetime strength trainee
himself, believed that training would be more effective if it were modified so that it worked in
accordance with what was then known about muscles. He figured that a training program based
on how the body really functioned would produce much better results than those training
methods that ignored, denied, or were ignorant of the true workings of the body.
Utilizing his understanding of muscle physiology Jones spent many years testing and
experimenting with different training methods, constantly seeking to discover training methods
that produced the best results. Being independently wealthy afforded Arthur both the time and
money required to test his ideas and he ultimately spent 20+ years and millions of dollars in his
quest. The end result of all his work was a revolutionary training method High Intensity
Training and a completely new type of exercise machine Nautilus Training Equipment.
However, there was a problem; Arthurs high intensity training method was not just
revolutionary; it was contradictory to the conventional training wisdom of the day. Humans,
being only human, are usually reluctant to abandon long-held beliefs and so many were resistant
to Arthurs methods. Controversy broke out about Arthurs high intensity training method and
two opposing camps formed one group supporting high intensity training and one supporting
conventional (high volume) training. These two groups spent lots of time and effort defending
their methods and attacking those of the opposing camp. Even today, more than 35 years after
Arthur first introduced high intensity training, the two camps still exist and the debate still rages.
In fact, one of the the primary debates in the bodybuilding world is still centered around which
method high intensity or high volume is best.
Of significance is that Arthurs high intensity training method was basically the first time that
exercise physiology was used as the foundation of a training program. Before Arthur, training
was mostly based on tradition and what the top champions of the day were doing. Arthur
completely ignored tradition and the training of the top champions of the day and focused on
designing training based completely on the functioning of muscles. The fact that his methods
continue to be widely used today is a testament to the effectiveness of his physiology-based
training method.
The Problem of Two Opposing Theories
All this is not to say that the entire world has embraced high intensity training. As noted above,
today the strength training and bodybuilding world basically consists of two opposing training
methods high volume and high intensity. Both methods are currently used and promoted as the
best training method by their respective proponents.
The reason both training methods still exist is because both are known to work, at least for some
number of people. And therein lies the problem. In science, anytime a theory is shown to be

contradicted by even a single observation, then, by definition, that theory is inaccurate. When a
theory is shown to be inaccurate it must be abandoned or modified. The high volume training
theory and high intensity training theory are, in essence, opposing theories as to how the body
works. Since these two theories contradict each other it means that both theories are wrong, at
least to some degree.
The body works in one way, not in two contradictory ways. Or, said another way, there is one set
of principles/laws by which the body functions, not two contradictory set of principles/laws. We
know that both training methods produce results for some people. We also know that, by
definition, both theories are wrong to some degree since they contradict each other. What all this
tells us is that we are missing some important information as to how muscles function during and
adapt to training. Once this missing physiological information is filled in, both of the competing
theories will be assimilated and replaced by a new training theory. The missing physiological
information is what has allowed the two competing training theories to continue to exist for more
than 35 years and has prevented further advances in training methods.
Enter the Muscle Factor Model
In 2006, while conducting background research for an article on strength training for endurance
runners, I came across a strength training study whose results were quite startling. The study
compared a non-traditional training method to a standard periodized training program and found
that the non-traditional method produced 50% greater increases in strength than did the
periodized program. The researchers themselves were unable to explain why the non-traditional
program produced the best results and noted that the results were contradictory to both current
beliefs about the functioning of muscles and classical training methodology.
That particular study caused me to rethink some of what physiology currently teaches about
muscle activation during exercise and its adaptation following exercise. In turn, this led to a
breakthrough in muscle physiology; a breakthrough I have termed the Muscle Factor Model. I
suggest that this new model more accurately explains how muscles function during and adapt to
exercise. Furthermore, this new model suggests some significant modifications in training
methods for any sport in which strength, power, or endurance is important. I believe the muscle
factor model is a key piece of the missing physiological information and will ultimately result in
the integration of high volume and high intensity training. The muscle factor model may lead to
the most significant changes and refinements in training since the introduction of periodization in
the United States back in the 1980s. I realize those are bold claims so lets have a look at this
new model. We begin with a discussion of muscle contractile properties.
Muscle Fiber Contractile Properties
Physiologists generally divide muscle fibers into three basic types Slow Twitch, Fast Twitch A,
Fast Twitch B each with its own distinct contractile properties.
Slow twitch fibers are the weakest of fibers, contract relatively slow, and have very high levels of
endurance.

Fast Twitch A fibers are stronger than Slow Twitch fibers, contract relatively fast, and have high
levels of endurance.
Fast Twitch B fibers are the strongest of fibers and have the fastest contraction speed but have
the least amount of endurance.
The above description of the contractile properties of each muscle fiber type might lead you to
believe that each type of fiber has distinct contractile properties. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Muscle fibers of any type are not all alike; they dont all contract the same; they are not
homogenous. Instead there is a broad continuum of contractile properties in all the muscle fibers
of any type. Physiologists have measured up to a 129x range of contractile properties in muscle
fibers of the same type. What this means is that in any specific fiber type you will find fibers that
contract much slower or faster than other fibers of the same type; fibers that contract much more
or much less forcefully than other fibers of the same type; fibers that possess much more or
much less endurance than other fibers of the same type. For example, physiologists measured the
time to exhaustion in a group of fast twitch fibers and found some of the fast twitch fibers
fatigued in as little as 16 seconds while other fast twitch fibers were able to contract for 34
minutes before reaching fatigue. The contractile properties discussed earlier tell us what the
average contractile properties are for each type of muscle fiber. The average Slow Twitch fiber is
slower, weaker, and has greater endurance than any of the Fast Twitch fibers. The average Fast
Twitch B fiber is stronger and faster but less enduring than other fiber types. But the broad range
of contractile properties across all muscle fibers means that fibers of the same type do not all
have the same level of strength, endurance, or speed.
A very important point about muscle fiber contractile properties is that there is a strong inverse
relationship between a muscles strength and its endurance. The stronger a muscle fiber the less
endurance it has and vice versa. Weaker fibers possess much greater endurance than do strong
fibers. Stronger fibers possess much less endurance than weaker fibers. This point is critical to
understand.
Muscle Activation During Exercise
Not all muscle fibers are activated during exercise because the body only activates the minimum
number of fibers required in order to get the job done. Muscle fibers are activated in a very
specific order, from weakest to strongest. Physiologists have termed this the size principle of
activation. Basically, muscle fibers are recruited based on the amount of force required to
complete the task at hand. Recall that there is a wide variation in the strength of muscle fibers;
every whole muscle has fibers with different levels of strength, from very weak all the way up to
very strong. The weaker fibers are recruited first with the strongest of fibers only being recruited
during the heaviest of tasks. Fibers are generally recruited in the following order based on the
level of force required to perform the task:
Slow twitch Fast Twitch A Fast Twitch B
There are 2 important points to understand about muscle fiber activation 1) it is a team sport
and 2) total force is the sum of the force of all the active fibers.

1. Its a team sport: Muscle fiber work together. Activation proceeds from Slow Twitch Fast A
Fast B. It is NOT the case that Slow Twitch fibers exclusively handle the easy tasks, Fast
Twitch A exclusively handle the moderate tasks and Fast Twitch B exclusively handle the heavy
tasks. Instead, as the load increases from easy to moderate to heavy an increasing number of
fibers are activated and all are working together to complete the task.
2. The total force produced by a whole muscle during a task is the sum of the force of all the
individual fibers. All active fibers, whether Slow Twitch, Fast A, or Fast B, contribute force
during movement and the total amount of force generated by a muscle is the sum of the force of
every active fiber. During a really heavy lift, even though the Fast A and Fast B fibers are
activated and doing the bulk of the work, active Slow Twitch fibers are producing force and
helping lift the weight.
In practical terms this is what it means:
If you pick up a light weight, then only Slow Twitch fibers will be activated because little force
is needed to pick up the weight.
If you pick up a heavy weight then both Slow Twitch + Fast Twitch A fibers will be activated
because more force is required to lift the weight. Note that the Slow Twitch fibers are still active
during this exercise, but since they are unable to generate enough force to get the job done by
themselves, some Fast Twitch A fibers are also required to help out.
Pick up an even heavier weight and now you are using Slow Twitch + Fast Twitch A + Fast
Twitch B fibers to lift the weight. The Slow Twitch and Fast Twitch A fibers did not possess
enough strength to lift the weight by themselves, so the strongest of fibers, the Fast Twitch B
fibers, were activated.
The same thing applies to any activity. For example, running at a slow pace activates only Slow
Twitch fibers because the force required to run slowly is small enough that the Slow Twitch
fibers are strong enough to handle the job themselves. Running at a faster pace activates Slow
Twitch + Fast Twitch A fibers because running faster requires more force to be generated. Very
fast running (i.e. intervals and sprints) and fast or steep uphill running activate the Slow Twitch +
Fast Twitch A + Fast Twitch B fibers due to the high level of force required to run at very fast
paces.
Muscle Fiber Activation at Exhaustion
As an exercise proceeds it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a set amount of force
production because of fatigue. The first repetition of an exercise might be reasonably easy but
repetition 20 with that same weight might be an all-out effort. Are all fibers activated during the
hard to all-out effort that athletes routinely reach during intense workouts? Only in some cases;
in most cases not all fibers are activated.
During exercise as a persons active muscle fibers fatigue some inactive muscle fibers are
recruited to assist those active fibers that have fatigued. However, there is a limit to the amount

of additional fibers that are recruited. Not every muscle fiber is activated during exhaustive
exercise. Instead, the person reaches exhaustion or terminates the exercise. About the only time
that all fibers are active is during the heaviest of tasks, such as during very heavy weight lifting
(i.e. about 6 or less reps). Less forceful tasks, such as high rep strength training or distance
running, do not result in 100% activation of all available muscle fibers, even at the end of the
exercise when the trainee is working as hard as they can in that particular exercise. For example,
one study found a little less than 70% leg muscle fiber activation while running to exhaustion on
a level treadmill and a bit more than 70% activation during exhaustive running up an inclined
treadmill.
Overload and Intensity
One of the primary principles of training is the overload principle. Exercise physiology generally
describes overload like this the application of an activity specific overload in order to cause
physiologic improvement and bring about a training response. What this means is that muscles
must be trained with a sufficient level of intensity in order to cause adaptation to occur. There is
nothing earthshaking in the concept of overload as it has been a principle of training for more
than a century.
However, we need to carry the concept of overload a bit further and apply it to individual muscle
fibers; what is true for a whole muscle is also true for individual muscle fibers. In order to cause
a training response in any individual muscle fiber that muscle fiber must be trained with a
sufficient level of overload, with a sufficient level of intensity. This is accomplished by training a
fiber reasonably close to its maximum capacity. Or said another way you must sufficiently
fatigue a fiber in order for it to adapt and improve. This point is critical in understanding how
muscles fibers work and adapt to training.
Lets examine this principle in training terms.
You put weights on a bar so that you are only able to lift the bar a maximum of 10 times. Since
the bar is very heavy you will activate Slow Twitch + Fast A + Fast B fibers while lifting it. After
10 reps (about 30 seconds of lifting) you are no longer strong enough to lift the weight an
additional repetition so you set the bar down, ending the exercise. Which fibers did you
overload?
You only overloaded some of your Fast B fibers. Specifically, you overloaded those Fast B fibers
that fatigued in 30 seconds or less.
There were a whole bunch of fibers that you didnt overload. Which ones? Those fibers that take
longer than 30 seconds to fatigue were not fully overloaded when the set ended.
At the end of the set some of your Fast B fibers were exhausted and couldnt continue to
contract. But a lot of your Fast B and all your Fast A and Slow Twitch fibers were not exhausted
at rep 10 because they posses more endurance than the strongest of the Fast B fibers (remember,
it has been shown that it can take several minutes to exhaust all the Fast B fibers). The reason

you terminated the exercise at rep 10 is because the whole muscle lacked the strength to lift the
weight, but only some of the Fast B fibers were fatigued.
This set fatigued, and therefore overloaded, some of the Fast B fibers and those are the fibers that
will get stronger. But the remainder of your Fast B and all your Fast A and Slow Twitch fibers
were not particularly overloaded and will adapt little to none.
When those few Fast B fibers adapt you will be stronger but you will not be as strong as you
could get. Why? Because lifting a heavy weight is a team effort and all your Fast B, all your Fast
A and all your Slow Twitch fibers contribute to the total strength of the muscle but you didnt
adequately train all your Fast B or your Fast A and Slow Twitch fibers to get stronger. Only when
you train all your fibers to overload will you get as strong as you are genetically capable of
getting.
Putting it All Together = Muscle Factor Model
When we put all the above facts together, we arrive at the Muscle Factor Model. In order to
cause an adaptive response in a muscle fiber, that muscle fiber must 1) be active and 2) be
overloaded; failure to accomplish both of these results in little to no adaptation in that muscle
fiber.
Recall the inverse relationship between a muscle fibers level of strength and its endurance
capacity the higher the strength the less the endurance, the lower the strength the greater the
endurance. If you are going to overload a muscle fiber you must work it to a reasonable level of
fatigue. Considering that muscle fibers posses widely varying levels of endurance, this means
that only a relatively few muscle fibers are fatigued at the end of any normally conducted
exercise session.
In training terms this means:
In order to overload weak muscle fibers with abundant endurance requires long training sessions
conducted at low levels of force production.
In order to overload stronger muscle fibers with moderate levels of endurance requires moderate
duration training sessions conducted at moderate levels of force production.
In order to overload the strongest of muscle fibers with poor endurance requires short duration
training sessions conducted at high levels of force production.
If you want to maximize your performance, then you have to train all the muscle fibers that
contribute to force production during your chosen activity. You have to train your weak fibers,
your moderate fibers, your strong fibers, and your strongest fibers. Since force production is a
team effort any untrained fibers detract from the overall performance of the team (in this case the
team is the whole muscle).
Summary

The muscle factor model provides a more complete explanation for how muscle fibers work
during and adapt to exercise. Only muscle fibers that are active and overloaded during exercise
will adapt and grow. The only way to overload a muscle fiber is to train it to a sufficient level of
fatigue. Normally performed exercise programs usually do not train all or most of the fibers in a
whole muscle due to the way muscle fibers are activated during exercise and because muscle
fibers have widely varying levels of endurance. The only way to maximize performance is to
train all the muscle fibers that are active during the event; any untrained muscle fibers prevent
the athlete from reaching his/her maximum potential.
I submit that reps in the 3 100 probably get the strength athlete in the ball park.
Minimally I think reps of 3-40 will likely get the strength athlete 98% of all the
strength they are capable of gaining. Thats my recommendation for training as
many fibers as can be reasonably trained for strength athletes in order to
maximize gains.
-------

Single set versus Multiple Sets new research

There has been an ongoing debate in the strength training and bodybuilding communities for
about 40 years as to whether a single set of an exercise is superior for building size and strength
than training with multiple sets. The idea that a single set of an exercise might be more effective
than traditional multiple set training was first popularized in the 1970s by Arthur Jones, inventor
of Nautilus strength training equipment. Based on his training observations, Jones believed that
a single set per exercise taken to the point of failure- a training method that is commonly known
as high intensity training (HIT)- was the most effective type of training for improving both
strength and size. In a series of published bulletins widely circulated throughout the strength and
bodybuilding communities, Jones made his case for the superiority of single set training,
sparking heated debate on the issue that continues to this day.
The debate drew the attention of exercise physiologists around the world, resulting in a growing
body of research data examining the issue. However, despite an abundance of research studies
physiologists were not able to resolve the issue. The main problem was that the research was
equivocal; some studies supported the idea that a single set was more effective than multiple sets,
other studies found multiple sets produced greater increases in strength and size, but most studies
found no statistical difference in results between the two training methods. In short, there was no
consensus in the research.
In general most research indicates that multiple sets tend to produce somewhat larger increases in
strength and size. However, the issue is that the difference in results between the two has not
been large enough to definitively say that multiple sets are superior. On average multiple sets
produce a few percentage points greater increase in strength and size, usually in the range of 210%, but this difference has not been large enough to be statistically significant (statistical
significance is important to show that the results are not just a matter of chance).

With research unable to declare a clear winner the debate continued unabated. Despite the lack
of consensus the physiological community generally accepted multiple sets to be superior to a
single set, which drew some very vocal and deserved criticism from a few scientists.
In response to these critics a number of meta-analyses have been conducted by researchers in
recent years to see if the conflict could be resolved. A meta-analysis is essentially a study of
studies. It is a way of analyzing the results of multiple studies on the same research hypothesis
to see what can be learned by looking at the entire body of research data as a whole versus the
examining the results from individual studies. A meta-analysis can often more powerfully
estimate the effect size, the true difference in results, in comparison to the smaller effect size
of a single study. Measuring statistical significance is different than measuring effect size.
The advantage of measuring effect size via a meta-analysis is that it may reveal actual
differences that were missed by examining the statistical significance of the results of the
individual studies comprising the meta-analysis.
Lets have a look at these meta-analyses and see if they have finally put to rest the whole single
set versus multiple set debate.
Strength Studies
The first meta-analysis was conducted by Rhea et al (4) in 2002. Examining 16 studies Rhea
reported that 3-set training produced superior results to 1-set training. In 2003 Rhea et al (5)
conducted another meta-analysis, this time of 140 published studies, and concluded that 4-sets
produced maximum strength gains in both trained and untrained subjects. Both of these studies
received some criticism due to the criteria Rhea used for study inclusion and also for his
statistical analysis methods.
A third meta-analysis conducted in 2004 by Wolfe et al (6) of 16 studies found multiple sets to be
superior to a single set in trained subjects and in programs lasting 17 to 40 weeks. As in both
Rheas meta-analyses, Wolfes study received some criticism for his statistical analysis methods.
Aware of the criticism of the previous three analyses, Kreiger (3) conducted a fourth metaanalysis in 2009 specifically designed to improve upon the limitations of the previous studies.
He examined 14 studies with 92 effect sizes measured across 30 groups of subjects comparing 1set, 2-3 sets, and 4-6 sets. He found that 2-3 sets produced 46% greater increases in strength
than 1 set in both trained and untrained subjects. Interestingly, he also found no difference in
results between 2-3 sets and 4-6 sets. Performing more than 3 sets did not produce a greater
increase in strength. Kreigers study strengthens the findings of both of Rheas previous studies.
There were some differences between Wolfes findings and Kreigers findings in terms of the
effect of volume of training but Kreigers study also strengthened Wolfes finding that multiple
sets produce superior results to a single set. Finally, a 2010 meta-analysis of 72 studies by
Frohlich et al (1) found single set training to be the equal of multiple set training for short
training periods but multi-set training to be superior over longer periods of training.
In summary, there is now a consensus in the research literature supporting the idea that multiple
sets are superior to single set training for increasing muscular strength.

Size Analysis
All of the meta-analyses cited above examined differences in strength gains; none examined the
issue as to whether single or multiple-set training elicited greater muscle size gains. Increases in
strength are caused by both neural and hypertrophic changes and it is possible that the superiority
of multiple sets for increasing strength might be due to a greater neural effect and not
hypertrophy. It is possible that multiple sets might be superior for increasing strength but not
size so this issue needed to be resolved also.
In 2010 Kreiger (2) addressed this topic with another meta-analysis designed to determine if
multiple set training elicited greater muscle hypertrophy compared to single set training.
Examining 55 effect sizes across 19 groups in 8 studies he found that multiple sets produced
40% higher increases in muscle hypertrophy regardless of the training status of the subjects or
the length of the training program. Kreiger also concluded that the 46% greater increase in
strength from multiple sets revealed in his earlier meta-analysis was largely due to greater
hypertrophy and not neural factors.
Interestingly, while Kreiger found no significant difference in hypertrophy from 2-3 sets or 4-6
sets he did find a trend for greater hypertrophy with 4 or more sets. One weakness of his
analysis was a limited number of studies that utilized 4 or more sets so he stated that no
definitive conclusion could be reached as to whether 4 or more sets was superior to 2-3 sets for
inducing muscle growth.
Summary
The debate as to the superiority of single versus multiple set training has been on-going for
around 40 years. High intensity training (HIT), originally popularized by Arthur Jones in the
1970s, promotes the idea that single set training is superior to traditional multi-set training for
improving both strength and size. Until now research on this topic has been equivocal and
unable to resolve the dispute. However, six recent meta-analyses have confirmed that multiple
set training produces greater increases in both strength and size than single set training in both
trained and untrained subjects.
-----Training Research
In his paper Dr. Caprinelli (2008) conducted a narrative review of 21 training studies, 20 of
which showed no statistically significant difference in increases in strength across a broad range
of repetitions (2 20 reps). In fact, the preponderance of resistance studies reported no
significant differences in strength gains as a result of training with heavier loads.
However, a narrative review may not be the best method for determining results across a body of
research data. The challenge is that many of the research studies were performed with small
numbers of subjects and consequentially have low statistical power. Plus challenges with
methodological controls may also exist in these studies. Due to this it can be difficult to identify

accurate differences or trends in the data solely through a narrative review and only by
measuring statistical significance.
A different analysis technique, known as a meta-analysis, provides a process by which treatment
effects from various studies can be statistically combined and evaluated. In essence, a metaanalysis is a study of studies. By combining the results of many studies and specifically
analyzing the magnitude of the treatment effects a greater understanding of the differences is
gained while overcoming the limitations and consequences of narrative reviews of studies with
small numbers of subjects.
A 2003 meta-analysis by Rhea and colleagues was conducted to determine the dose response for
strength development in recreationally trained and untrained subjects. This team of researchers
examined 140 studies with 1433 effect sizes. The results showed that untrained individuals
(those with less than 1 year of resistance training experience) made maximal strength gains when
their average training intensity was at 12RM (i.e. 60% 1RM). Untrained individuals experience
maximal gains with a mean training intensity of 60% of their 1RM However, recreationally
trained individuals gained the most strength when their average training intensity was at 8RM
(i.e. 80% 1RM). In trained individuals, a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM elicits the
greatest strength increase.
A meta-analysis by Peterson and colleague in 2004 examined maximum strength development in
competitive athletes. Drawing 370 effect sizes from 37 studies this meta-analysis found that an
average training intensity of about 5-6 reps (i.e. 85% 1RM) elicited the most strength gains.
Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train
at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM
Of importance is that Petersons meta-analysis did not find enough training studies using loads
heavier than 85% 1RM to determine the effectiveness of very high intensity training. Because
of the lack of sufficient effect sizes for a mean training intensity above 85% of 1RM it is unclear
if higher intensities would result in greater strength improvements.
These meta-analysis studies tell us a number of important things but the most applicable to this
article is that the research data generally supports the belief that heavy weights and low reps are
necessary for maximum strength gains. In contrast to Dr. Carpinellis claim that the
preponderance of studies strongly suggests that effective resistance training simply requires the
selection of a desired range of repetitions (e.g. 3-5, 6-9, 10-12RM) these meta-analysis
studies show that different rep ranges are more effective or less effective at increasing strength.
While the training research is not definitive that an average training intensity of 3-5RM is best it
does show that an average training intensity of 6-8RM increases strength more than higher reps
schemes in trained and athletic populations.
Summary
A debate exists in the strength and physiological communities as to whether the stimulus for
strength gains is intensity or effort. Those espousing the intensity side of the debate believe that
heavy weights and low reps (i.e. 3-5RM) are required in order to maximize increases in strength.

Those on the effort side of the debate suggest that any rep scheme between 3 and 20 reps will
increase strength equivalent amounts.
Motor unit activation studies have been used to determine the level of active motor units during
both maximal and sub-maximal exercise. Activation levels are often not 100% during brief, allout efforts such as a 1 repetition maximum test. Research on motor unit activation levels during
sub-maximal exercise taken to the point of failure show that in many or most cases motor unit
activity is less than 100%. The claim that maximum effort is the key factor for eliciting 100%
muscle fiber activation is not supported by the preponderance of motor unit activation studies.
A meta-analysis is a method of comparing and quantifying the results of multiple research
studies. Two meta-analysis of the available body of strength training research revealed that
strength increased most at an average training intensity of 12RM in untrained subjects, 8RM in
recreationally trained subjects, and 5-6RM in competitive athletes. Insufficient research is
available to determine the relative effectiveness of an average training intensity of 3-5RM.
These meta-analysis reveal that different rep ranges are more effective or less effective at
increasing strength.
In summary both the motor unit activation research and the training research indicate that for the
question of whether it is intensity or effort that is the key for building strength, intensity is the
answer.
------

The Effect of High Rep Training on Strength and Size

In a recent research study(1) a group of researchers set out to explore the impact of lighter
weight and higher rep training on muscle mass and function. They designed a study to compare
the adaptive changes in muscle size, contractile strength, and MHC (fiber type) composition
evoked by resistance training performed at either low or high contraction intensity (i.e. low or
high reps) while equalized for total loading volume
Specifically, this study compared 10 sets x 36 reps using 15.5% 1RM to 10 sets x 8 reps using
70% 1RM. The study ran 12 weeks, with 3 workouts each week.
How did the 108 program do? It produced a 7.6% increase in muscle size (hypertrophy) and a
35% increase in 1RM (one rep maximum).
Not bad. Not bad at all. And, candidly, not the least bit surprising. Heavy weights and low reps
has long been the accepted way to maximize strength and size.
How about the 1036 reps program? Many would predict that such a high rep range would
build endurance and, if it didnt cause an outright decline in strength and size, would surely not
increase strength and/or size. Remember, standard physiological and training wisdom is that
more than 20 reps is endurance training and endurance training does not increase strength and

size. This belief is reflected in the following quote I read on a bodybuilding forum. Anything
beyond 20 reps is high, and not good for strength gains.
Anyone who would predict that high reps are good for endurance only would be wrong.
The 1036 program produced a 19% increase in 1RM and a 2.6% increase in muscle size. Pretty
impressive for a program many would call endurance training.
There are a couple of things to be learned from this study. First, this study clearly shows that a
program consisting exclusively of heavy weight and low reps produces greater increases in
strength and size than a program consisting exclusively of lighter weights and higher reps. This
isnt any sort of surprise research over the past 80 years has very consistently shown this same
thing.
But there is more to the story than just heavy weights and low reps wins. The most glaring point
to consider is that high reps increased strength levels 19% and muscle size 2.6%. This
naturally brings up two questions. Is this the only study that has shown high reps increase
strength and size? And from a physiological standpoint how do higher reps cause strength and
size to increase?
There have been multiple studies comparing changes in strength and size from different rep
ranges and, despite what conventional wisdom teaches, these studies have consistently shown
that higher reps cause increases in both strength and size. Yes, heavy weights and low reps
increase strength and size the most. But that doesnt mean higher reps dont also build strength
and size. Conventional wisdom has incorrectly interpreted the research as heavy weights and
low reps build strength; light weight and high reps build endurance. The first lesson from the
research is that light weights and high reps do increase strength, just not as much as lower rep
schemes.
It is important to note that the research has shown that the higher the rep range the smaller the
increase in strength and size. So while reps in range of 25- 35 can build strength an impressive
amount, the higher above this that you go the smaller the increases in strength.
There is no getting around the fact that a program of only heavy weights and low reps builds
significantly more strength and size than a program of only lighter weight and higher reps. So if
you are trying to decide what reps you should exclusively be doing, pick reps less than 20. But,
this study also clearly shows that that conventional strength training thought is inaccurate to
some degree. Higher reps do increase strength and size.
This brings us to the second question. What logical explanation can we come up with to explain
these results? By what physiological mechanism could high reps build strength?
The most logical answer is that what conventional physiological and training wisdom call high
and endurance really arent particularly high, nor are they really endurance. It appears that
high and endurance start somewhere far beyond 20 reps. Exercise doesnt suddenly
transform from strength to endurance within a matter of a few reps. Going from 12 reps to

24 reps in the same exercise doesnt somehow turn the exercise into an endurance workout.
Instead, strength and endurance exist on a continuum, with both elements being trained at all
reps. Training at the strength end of the continuum, training between 1-15 reps, increases
strength the most and endurance the least. As you increase the number of reps strength is less
affected and endurance is more affected, until at some point you are doing so many reps that
changes in strength are no longer measurable. That point happens somewhere above 150 reps,
according to the research.
What the research hasnt told us is how higher reps built strength and size. What physiological
mechanism is at play that causes higher reps to build both strength and size? If there are
different physiological reasons for how low reps build strength and how higher reps build
strength, then it raises a fascinating question. What if you combined low reps with higher reps?
What would the results be? If different physiological mechanisms are responsible for the
increases in strength and size at different reps then would a combination program of different
reps result in better results than single rep programs? As we have seen higher reps do increase
strength and size and if they build strength due to a different mechanism than lower reps there
may be some advantage in combining lower rep training with higher rep training.
This study doesnt answer the question but this one does. In the meantime, the point is that light
weight and high reps are not really endurance exercises; high reps are both strength and
endurance training and the degree to which they affect strength or endurance depends on the
number of reps being performed.
Reference:
Holm L, et al, Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise
with heavy and light loading intensity, Journal of Applied Physiology, Nov 2008, 105:1454-1461
-----

Is Training To Failure Necessary?

Recent research casts light on an old debate
When Arthur Jones unleashed his training ideas upon the bodybuilding / strength training scene
back in the 1970s, he started a firestorm of controversy. His high intensity training prescription
really stirred things up and they havent settled down since.
One of the key components of Arthurs high intensity training was his insistence that in order to
make maximum gains the trainee must train to failure. What Arthur meant was that you had to
perform an exercise to the point where you could no longer lift the weight in proper form. For
example, if you were performing an exercise with a weight that you could lift a maximum of 10
times, Arthur believed that you would have to lift that weight for all 10 repetitions in order to
maximally stimulate growth. If you ended the set before reaching 10 repetitions you would not
grow as much as you would if you had lifted the weight for as many reps as you were capable

of. Strength coach and high intensity advocate Matt Brzycki summed up the argument for
training to failure this way in his book A Practical Approach To Strength Training, Simply, a
submaximal effort will yield submaximal results.(1)
Is training to failure as important as Arthur believed? Does a submaximal effort really yield
submaximal results? Today, nearly 40 years after Arthur first began preaching training to failure,
the debate continues. In 2006 an international group of strength and conditioning researchers
teamed up in an effort to definitively answer this question and their work casts some new light on
an old debate. Lets have a look at that research.
The Research
The researchers believed that one of the reasons the question of training to failure was still
unanswered was that all the research that had been previously done had failed to consider and
control all the important training variables. They hypothesized that if all the training variables
except training intensity were controlled that it would definitively show whether training to
failure was better than training not to failure.
They recruited 42 competitive Spanish Basque ball players (Basque ball is the name for a variety
of court sports similar to handball, raquetball, & jai lai). These athletes had been training and
playing Basque ball competitively for an average of 12.5 years and had been strength training
twice weekly for at least 5 months prior to the start of the study.
Subjects were divided into three groups one group that trained to failure, one group that trained
to non-failure, and one control group and began the 16 week training program.
Both training groups strength trained twice weekly and performed the same exercises, used the
same weight (% of RM), and number of reps. The training to failure group performed their
exercises to failure, using 3 sets of 10 reps the first 6 weeks, 3 sets of 6 reps to failure the next 5
weeks, and 3 sets of 2-4 reps to failure during the final 5 weeks. To keep total intensity and
volume the same, the researchers had the non-failure training group perform 6 sets of 5 reps with
the 10RM during the first 6 weeks, 6 sets of 3 reps during the next 5 weeks, and 3 sets of 2-4
reps during the final 5 weeks. Table 1 sums up the sets, reps, and intensity for both training
groups.
Table 1: Training variables for each training group
Group

Phase 1, 6 weeks

Phase 2, 5 weeks

Phase 3, 5 weeks

Training to Failure

3 x 10 reps,10RM
weight

3 x 5 reps,5RM weight

3 x 2-4 reps85-90%
1RM

Non-failure training

6 x 5 reps,10RM
weight

6 x 3 reps5RM weight

3 x 2-4 reps85-90%
1RM

RM = repetition maximum, i.e. the heaviest weight that the subject can lift for a specific number
of repetitions.

The subjects were tested multiple times throughout the study on a variety of measurements,
including maximum strength and power, endurance, body composition, and basal hormonal
balance.
The Results
What were the results? Did training to failure produce greater increases in strength than not
training to failure as is preached by high intensity advocates? No, it did not.
There was no significant different at the end of the study in the maximum strength of the two
groups. In conclusion, both training to failure and training not to failure resulted in similar
gains in 1 RM strength, muscle power output of the arm and leg extensor muscles, and maximum
number of repetitions performed during the parallel squat.
There were two significant difference between the groups at the end of the study. First, the
training to failure group improved local muscular endurance in the bench press (maximum
number of repetitions they could perform with a fixed weight) significantly more (85% vs 69%)
than the non-failure training group. Second, the non-failure group significantly increased muscle
power during the final phase of training while the training to failure group did not.
Summary
Despite the claims of high intensity proponents, this study demonstrates that training to failure is
not more effective for increasing strength than training hard, but not to failure. When other
training variables (volume, frequency, training weight, total reps, etc.) are held constant, training
to failure is only as effective as non-failure training.
Training Application
The training lesson to be taken from this study is training to failure is not necessary in order to
maximize strength. Training hard but terminating a set prior to failure is as effective for
increasing strength as is training to failure.
References:
1. Brzycki, M, A Practical Approach To Strength Training, Masters Press, 1995, pg 38
2. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Hakkinen K, Ratamess N, Kraemer W, French d,
eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga E., Differential effects of strength training leading to
failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains, J Appl
Physiol, 2006, 100:1647-1656
-----

How Frequently Should You Lift?

The Nautilus North Study

How often should you lift? What is the optimal training frequency? Most lifters, at some point
in their training lives, contemplate this question. The answer to the question depends upon who
you ask and what particular training philosophy they follow. For example its not uncommon to
see the top champions training six days per week. On the other hand, some programs suggest
training as infrequently as twice per week. Thats a pretty big difference 6 days a week vs. 2
days per week. How do you go about figuring out which program is right?
John Little, a monthly columnist for Ironman magazine, inventor of the Max Contraction
Training method and the author of over 30 books on bodybuilding, martial arts, history, and
philosophy, wondered the same thing. To answer the question he conducted a research study at
the Nautilus North Strength & Fitness Centre in Bracebridge, Ontario, Canada, a study focused
on answering questions about just how much and how fast bodybuilders can gain muscle mass.
Dubbed The Nautilus North Study, the results were published in the November 2005 issue of
Ironman magazine. (1) Lets have a look at what he found.
Research
Eleven strength training experienced subjects were recruited for this study. These individuals
strength training histories ranged from six months to 20 years and were described as being
fairly well developed in terms of their genetic potentials for mass and strength. Since the
subjects were not beginners nor were they regaining previously held muscle the researcher
believed that, any gains if they were genuine lean tissue, a.k.a. real muscle would be
noteworthy.
Accurately measuring body composition in the past has not always been easy, convenient, and
accurate. Scientists have employed several different methods over the years with some methods
being more accurate but less convenient and others being more convenient and easy but less
accurate. Underwater weighing was the acknowledged gold standard for determining body
composition for many years. It was the most accurate method available, with an error of less
than about 2%, but, unfortunately, was not widely available. In recent years a new method has
been introduced the Bod Pod capsule which operates on the same principle as underwater
weighing, but measures displaced air instead of water. The Bod Pod is not only quick (under 5
minutes) but accurate to plus or minus 2%, making it of similar accuracy as underwater
weighting.
In practical terms, using the Bod Pod researchers can determine within .1 of a pound if a subject
is gaining or losing lean or fat and whether a particular training and recovery protocol is
producing lean tissue. Even better, the Bod Pod capsule allows researchers to determine exactly
to the day when the gain or loss in lean tissue or fat occurs. Luckily, a Bod Pod capsule was
available to the researchers for the Nautilus North study.
All subjects were pre-tested to establish their baseline body composition. Following pre-testing
all 11 subjects trained just once and then their body composition was tracked every day for 14

days. The single workout was a high intensity type program and the subjects were instructed to
abstain from additional resistance training for the remainder of the study period.
Results
The subjects gained an average of 3.27 pounds of muscle from the single workout. It took an
average of 6.5 days for the gains in lean tissue to fully manifest. The largest increase in lean
tissue was 9.3 lbs by one subject while the smallest increase was 1.5 lbs by one subject. The
fastest increase in lean tissue was 1 day by two subjects while the longest time to fully realize
lean tissue increases was 11 days by one subject. Averaging the middle nine subjects by
dropping the high and low in each category reveals an average lean tissue increase of .733
pounds and an average of 6.6 days to fully manifest. The results are shown in table 1.
Table 1: Individual, average, and range of changes in lean tissue and days to peak lean for
11 subjects.

Subject

Greatest Change
in Lean Tissue

# of Days to
Peak Lean

3.9 lb

10 days

2.1 lb

5 days

4.9 lb

1 days

2.4 lb

6 days

1.9 lb

1 days

2.1 lb

7 days

1.5 lb

10 days

2.2 lb

11 days

1.7 lb

5 days

10

9.3 lb

6 days

11

3.3 lb

9 days

Average

3.2 lb

6.5 days

Range

1.5 9.3 lbs

1 11 days

Discussion
What are we to make of this study? There are two very important things to learn from this
study. First, note the wide range of changes in lean tissue in response to the single workout. One
subject gained more than 9 lbs from a single workout, while 3 subjects gained less than 2 lbs
from the exact same workout. That is a range of 620%. What does this mean to you? It means
there is a broad range of response the magnitude of response is very large within the human
species. If two lifters conducted the exact same workout it is possible (and very likely) that one
will improve significantly from that workout and one wont.
Admittedly, this is a strength training workout focused on building lean tissue. Does the lesson
here the large magnitude of response across the human species apply to other sports too?
Absolutely! Other studies have found a range of response in aerobic capacity of 58% 100%.
The range is not as great as that found in the above study, but the lesson still applies. There is a
very broad range of response. Some individuals improve a lot, some improve a little, and
everyone else is in the middle between the two extremes. Can you get bigger and stronger?
Perhaps. If, however, after several years of training you havent gotten as big and strong as you
want despite consistent, hard training then its likely not due to your training but to your bodys
natural, limited response to training.
As important as the first lesson is another more important lesson is found in the above study.
Most lifters wont argue much if you suggest people have different levels of inborn talent and
that, consequently, some will get stronger and bigger than others. However, you will likely get a
LOT of objections if you suggest that there is a broad range of optimal training frequency.
The second, most important, lesson is this there is a broad range in rate of adaptation to
training. Some will adapt very quickly to training. Some will take a very long time to adapt.
Everyone else falls in between these two extremes. Note that the range of response was from 1
day to 11 days, which is a huge difference. A few lucky individuals had completely absorbed

and responded to the training in just 1 day. On the opposite extreme, one individual took 11 days
to fully realize the improvements to the workout and two individuals took 10 days to fully adapt.
What a huge range in rate of response!
Typically the argument presented to me is that since elites are the best bodybuilders on earth that
their training program is obviously the best. Elites are known to train daily, often training with
high volume. This is interpreted to mean that generally high volume training is the best training
method. This study indicates otherwise. This study shows us that people adapt to training at
widely different rates. If you were an individual who recovered in 1 day, would there be any
benefit to you in training once every 11 days? Of course not. If you were an individual who
required 11 days to fully recover and improve from a workout, what would happen if you
decided to train every day? You would badly overtrain. The researchers made this exact same
point when they wrote,
Knowing how soon a mass increase shows up tells you exactly how often you should train. If,
for instance, a gain in mass took two weeks to be produced, what would be the point of training
more than once every two weeks? All that would do is postpone or preempt the growth process.
If, however, the gains showed up in 24 hours, then waiting two weeks could possibly delay the
gains.
Heres the main point there is no 1 training frequency that works for everyone. Instead there is
a broad range of optimum training frequency, much broader than most realize or acknowledge.
Trying to train too frequently will likely result in sub-optimal performance and may end in
overtraining and injury. Dont base your training frequency on how often someone else is
training. You must find your own optimum training frequency, despite how often anyone else
trains.
What this study doesnt teach us
The main thing this study doesnt tell us is if rate of adaptation changes with training. Is it
possible that peoples rate and magnitude of response changes with training? While this is
possible, the study doesnt address this point. Other studies do provide some indication of
answer, but not this particular study. Without going into details, I suggest that peoples rate of
adaptation does NOT improve significantly with training, but in any case, we cant prove or
disprove this point from the data in this study.
Summary
How frequently should you lift? Rate and magnitude of response to a single strength training
workout was studied in 11 experienced subjects. Rate of response ranged from 1 11 days, with
an average of 6.5 days, and magnitude of response ranged from 1.5 9.3 lbs, with an average of
3.2 lbs. The two major lessons to be learned from this study are that the rate and
magnitude of adaptation in the human species is very large, much larger than many realize
or acknowledge. Some people improve a lot, some improve very little. Some people improve
very rapidly fully adapting to training in just 1 day while others take many days to realize the
benefits of a workout. Training too frequently or infrequently results in sub-optimal

improvement, with too frequent training likely resulting in overtraining and/or injury. Each
person must find their own individual optimal training frequency, despite what the optimal
training frequency of any other person may be.