Weightology Research Review January 2020

RESEARCH REVIEW
JA N UA RY 2020
The latest science on By James Krieger

muscle gain and fat loss
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MUSCLE GAIN FAT LOSS
4 20
Volume or training to failure: Does plate size impact calorie
which is more important to intake?
building muscle?
MUSCLE GAIN MUSCLE GAIN
28 41
Training to failure: the load Muscle confusion: more psy-
matters! chological than physiological
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
MUSCLE GAIN FAT LOSS
53 72
More volume = more muscle? Highly palatable foods: we
It may depend on the train- know them when we see
ing structure! them...or do we?
PAST BLAST: FAT LOSS PAST BLAST: FAT LOSS
83 97
NEAT reduction: a matter of Breakfast: metabolism boost-
efficiency er or buster?
3
MUSCLE GA I N
Volume or training to failure: which is
more important for building muscle?
BY JAMES KRIEGER
T he debate on whether you need to

train to failure to maximize muscle
growth has raged for years. A number of
studies have been performed trying to ad-
dress the question (see past Weightology
Research Reviews here, here, here, and here).
There have been a lot of limitations to exist-
ing studies, but so far the evidence seems to
suggest the following:
4
• There is no difference in hypertrophy be-
tween when subjects train to failure com-
pared to when they decide to terminate a
set (probably 0-3 reps from failure) (see this
Weightology Research Review).
• Stopping well short of failure (approximate-
ly 50% through a 10+ rep set to failure) re-
sults in inferior hypertrophy (see Weightol-
ogy Research Reviews here and here). An
exception may be when using solely com-
pound and power movements for low reps
(5 or less per set).
" you need to train hard, but not

necessarily all the way to failure
to maximize muscle growth "
Overall, this data indicates you need to

train hard, but not necessarily all the way
to failure to maximize muscle growth. The
question is how close to failure you need
to get. In this study that I previously men-
tioned, subjects decided when to terminate
5
the set. We know they didn't train to failure
on all sets because they didn't experience as
much drop-off in reps from one set to the
next. However, we don't know exactly how
short they stopped. We can only guess that
it was probably around 1-3 reps short on
some sets, while hitting failure on some oth-
ers. Thus, there's a need for research con-
trolling just how short of failure you train.
Fortunately, a study published ahead of print
in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research helps give us some answers.
THE STUDY
Ten men between the ages of 18 and

30 participated in the study. They had no
weight training experience for at least the
past 6 months. The subjects did single leg
extensions for 14 weeks. Each leg was rand-
omized to a different training program. One
leg was trained to failure, while the other
was not. Thus, this was a within-subjects de-
sign, meaning each subject was compared to
himself. This removes the impact of genetic
variability in how people respond to different
training programs. Subjects trained 5 times
per week, alternating legs from one day to
6
the next. Thus, each leg was trained 2-3
times per week.
In the first three weeks of training, sub-
jects did 3 sets at 50 % 1-RM. At week 3,
the load was increased to 60% 1-RM. At
week 9, a fourth set was added. Starting the
third week, 1-RM was tested every 2 weeks
to allow for load adjustments and progres-
sion. Subjects took 3 minute rests between
sets. Each rep involved a 3-second concen-
subjects 10 UNTRAINED MEN

conditions failure (one leg)
no failure (other leg)
total reps matched to failure leg
exercise leg extension
sets and load 3-4 sets @ 50-60% 1-RM
frequency 2-3 days per week
tempo 3-sec concentric
3-sec eccentric
tric (positive or raising portion of the lift) and

3-second eccentric (negative or lowering
portion of the lift). In the failure leg, subjects
continued until there were unable to com-
plete a 70 degree range of motion (knee go-
ing from a 30 degree angle to a 100 degree
angle, then back). In the non-failure leg, sub-
jects performed the same number of total
reps, but the reps per set were established
to be equal for each set so that most sets
7
would be short of failure. This was done by
taking the total number of reps and divid-
ing by the number of sets. For example, if a
subject did 1 set of 8 reps to failure, 1 set
of 6 reps to failure, and 1 set of 5 reps to
failure in the failure leg, then that's 19 total
reps (8 + 6 + 5). Over 3 sets, that's approxi-
mately 6 reps per set (19 reps / 3 sets). Thus,
the subject would do 3 sets of 6 reps in the
non-failure leg. To minimize hitting failure, if
the subjects reported having no reps left in
• MUSCLE SIZE (RECTUS FEMORIS AND VASTUS LATERALIS)

• MAXIMAL VOLUNTARY ISOMETRIC CONTRACTION (MVIC)
• 1-RM
measurements • MAX REPS @ 70% 1-RM
• RATE OF PERCEIVED EXERTION (RPE)
• ESTIMATED REPS TO FAILURE
• muscle activation (emg)
reserve on the 2nd to last set, a rep was re-

moved from the final set.
During each training session, the sub-
jects reported their estimated reps to failure
at the end of each set. This ranged from 0
(failure) to 11 (10 or more reps in the tank).
They also reported how hard they felt like
they were working on a 7-19 scale (Rate of
Perceived Exertion or RPE). Before and af-
ter training, muscle size of the rectus fem-
oris and vastus lateralis (two muscles of the
8
thigh), maximal voluntary isometric contrac-
tion (MVIC, where the subjects contracted
their legs maximally against an immovable
leg extension), 1-RM, max number of reps at
70% 1-RM, and muscle activation (electro-
myography or EMG) were assessed.
THE RESULTS
Muscle Size. There were no statistically sig-

nificant differences in the change in mus-
cle size between the protocols, although the
percentage changes favored the non-failure
condition (Figure 1). For the rectus femoris,
4 subjects (40%) responded better with no
failure training, 3 subjects (30%) responded
Figure 1: Impact of Failure vs. No Failure

Training on Change in Muscle Size
25
20
15
%
10
0
Rectus Femoris Vastus Lateralis
Failure No Failure
From Lacerda et al. (2019)
9
better with failure training, and the remain-
ing 3 subjects (30%) showed no difference
(Figure 2). For the vastus lateralis, 4 subjects
(40%) showed better results with no-failure
training, while the other 6 subjects (60%)
showed no difference (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Individual Responses From Lacerda et al. (2019)
60
55
in Changes in Muscle Size: 6055
50 Failure vs. No Failure 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
% Change
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
Failure No Failure Failure No Failure
Rectus Femoris Vastus Lateralis
Strength, Endurance, and Muscle Activation.

Similar to the results for muscle size, there
were no statistically significant differences
between conditions for 1-RM, MVIC, or reps
to failure at 70% 1-RM (Figure 3). Howev-
er, percentage changes tended to favor the
no failure condition (Figure 3). For 1-RM and
MVIC, 20% responded better with no failure
training, 10% with failure training, and the
other 70% showed no difference. For reps
10
to failure at 70% 1-RM, 50% responded bet-
ter with no failure training, 10% responded
better with failure training, and 40% showed
no difference. Changes in muscle activation
were similar between the conditions.
Figure 2: Impact of Failure vs. No Failure

On Changes in Strength and Endurance
35
30
25
% Change
20
15
10
5
0
1 RM MVIC Reps to Failure @ 70% 1-
RM
Failure No Failure
From Lacerda et al. (2019)
RPE and Estimated Reps to Failure. RPE was

significantly higher for failure training (RPE of
19 on all sets) versus no-failure training (RPE
of 17, 17, and 18 for sets 1, 2, and 3-4, re-
spetively). Estimated reps to failure was 0 in
all sets for failure training, and 2, 1, and 0 for
sets 1, 2, and 3-4, respectively, for no failure
training.
11
WHAT'S THIS MEAN TO YOU?
This study showed statistically similar size

and strength improvements in the quads
when training to failure was compared to
training just short of failure. Thus, on aver-
age, training to failure didn't offer any advan-
tage to training just short of failure (1-2 Reps
In Reserve or RIR). In fact, percentage gains
favored the no-failure condition.
" training to failure didn't offer

any advantage to training just
short of failure "
Keep in mind that this was based on av-

erages. Individual results varied quite a bit
as you can tell from Figure 2. For the rectus
femoris, 40% did better with no failure train-
ing while 30% did better with failure training.
For the vastus lateralis, 40% did better with
no failure training while nobody did better
with failure training. The remaining subjects
didn't show much difference. Since most
subjects had either no advantage of failure
12
training, or a slight disadvantage, this sug-
gests most people would benefit from leav-
ing a rep or two in the tank with most sets.
The remaining percentage of people might
get better results from failure training.
Some individuals experienced large differ-
ences in gains between failure and no failure
training. In the rectus femoris, one person
had a ~15% gain with failure training, and a
~35% gain with no failure training. Anoth-
er person experienced the opposite, with
a ~35% gain with failure training but only
" there's a genetic component to

training to failure "
~10% gain with no failure training. There
may be some randomness at play here (you
can get random differences even within the
same person). However, it also suggests that,
like responses to training volume, there's
a genetic component to training to failure.
Some people might get more benefit from
training to failure, but others may get more
benefit from leaving some reps in the tank.
Others may not see any difference.
So how would you know which camp you
13
fall into? You could do your own personal ex-
periment with unilateral training (training one
limb at a time). Pick a muscle group or two
and choose a unilateral exercise for it. For
example, you could do single leg extensions
and single arm chest flyes on the flye ma-
chine. Train one side with every set to failure.
Train the other side with the same load and
same number of total reps divided among
the same sets (so that you leave a few reps
in the tank on initial sets). See which side ex-
periences more progress over time.
" do your own personal experi-

ment with unilateral training "
Speaking of genetics, this study shows the
wide variation among people in how they re-
spond to the exact same training program.
Muscle gains ranged from less than 5% to
40% or more. Thus, while training variables
play a role in how much muscle you'll gain,
genetics play the biggest role.
So why would leaving a few reps in the
tank be slightly advantageous for hypertro-
phy for some people? You would think that
14
such a small difference in reps wouldn't make
a difference in outcomes. One possibility is
that the last rep to failure may cause a lot of
fatigue compared to the stimulation it pro-
vides (the stimulus to fatigue ratio often de-
scribed by Mike Israetel). In other words,
with that last rep to failure, you get a huge
jump in fatigue, but very little additional
stimulation (if any) of hypertrophy. This could
limit effort on subsequent sets, or increase
the stress hormonal response to training
" while training variables play a

role in how much muscle you'll
gain, genetics play the biggest role
"
which might impact gains. It could also lead
to cumulative fatigue over time. This is all
speculative and we need more research.
One strength of this study is the within
subjects design. Another strength is that the
no failure group still trained hard. This gives
us important info over other studies where
subjects left way too many reps in reserve.
This is the best evidence to date that you
can get great gains (and perhaps slightly bet-
15
ter gains) when you leave a rep or two in the
tank on most of your sets. A third strength
is the analysis of individual results. A fourth
strength was that volume was matched be-
tween the conditions. A final strength is the
lower subjectivity in assessing how far the
subjects were from failure. Prescribing each
set with a certain RIR means each subject
would need to estimate how close he was
" this is the best evidence to date

that you can get great gains (and
perhaps slightly better gains)
when you leave a rep or two in the
tank "
to failure before terminating a set. Other re-
search has shown that beginners can be off
in their assessments of how close to failure
they are. By taking the total reps performed
with the failure leg and dividing by set vol-
ume, it provides a better way of ensuring
subjects train hard enough for most sets, but
not to failure.
This study has limitations too. The first
is the small sample size, which can make it
16
tough to statistically detect differences be-
tween groups. Another is the use of un-
trained subjects. It's possible results could
be different with trained subjects. Also, sub-
jects just did leg extensions. It's possible re-
sults might be different with other exercises,
like compound movements. A third limitation
is that the results are specific to the load-
ing scheme. The subjects trained with 60%
1-RM for most of the study. Muscle protein
synthesis tends to plateau beyond this load
• small sample size

• untrained subjects
• leg extensions used (results could be different
LIMITATIONS for compound movements)
• results are specific to the loading scheme (60%+
1-RM)
even when sets aren't taken to failure. In

contrast, stopping short of failure with light
weights (like 30% 1-RM) results in inferior
muscle protein synthesis and possibly infe-
rior gains. However, this is if you stop well
short of failure with light weights. Training
fairly close to failure with light weights ap-
pears to be just as effective as training all the
way to failure.
17
PRACTICAL APPLICATION

When trying to get bigger, some people
might do better by leaving a rep or two in
the tank on most sets. The last set can ap-
proach failure as a "test" to assess progress.
If the last set ends up with reps left in the
tank, then you can try increasing the weight
the next session. This approach allows you
to train sufficiently hard to maximize hy-
pertrophy, yet progress while managing fa-
tigue. However, individual results may vary,
and certain people might do better with fail-
ure training. You can try the unilateral train-
ing experiment mentioned earlier to see
how you respond to no-failure versus failure
training. Regardless of whether you train to
failure or not, your training needs to be hard
to maximize hypertrophy. That means not
stopping 50% of the way before failure on
your sets.
If you're trying to set up a no-failure train-
ing program but you struggle estimating RIR,
then do a test session where you do all sets
to failure. Take the total reps you do and di-
vide by the number of sets. That number will
be your reps per set at your next session.
For example, if you do 10, 6, and 5 reps to
18
failure (21 total reps over 3 sets), you'll do 3
sets of 7 at the next session. You can then
use this as your baseline to progress from.
• some people might do better by leaving a rep or two in the tank
on most sets.
• the last set can approach failure as a test of progress.
• individual results vary, and a few people may do better training
to failure.
• you can test how you respond to failure vs. no-failure training
using unilateral training (one side to failure, one side not to
failure, while keeping total reps the same).
• your training needs to be hard to maximize hypertrophy, regard-
less of whether you train to failure or not.
• if you struggle with estimating rir, but want to do hard subfail-
ure training, do a test session with all sets to failure. take the
total reps and divide by the number of sets. that number will be
your reps per set on the next session.
REFERENCE
Lacerda et al. Is performing repetitions to failure less

important than volume for muscle hypertrophy and
strength? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
search. December 4, 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
19
FAT LOSS
Does plate size impact calorie intake?
BY JAMES KRIEGER
I n the November 2019 issue, you

learned that reducing portion size may
help reduce calorie intake. Some peo-
ple think that one way to reduce portion
size is to reduce plate size. While it seems
intuitive that smaller plates means small-
er portions, the only way to know for sure
is through controlled research. The results
of past studies have been mixed. One me-
20
ta-analysis indicated there wasn't any con-
sistent effect of plate size on food intake. A
different meta-analysis showed a small to
medium effect of plate size on food intake. A
third meta-analysis showed a large effect of
plate size on food intake, but only when food
was self-served.
One problem with these meta-analyses
is that the consisted of poor quality stud-
ies with small numbers of subjects. Many
DID YOU KNOW?

a meta-analysis is where scientists pool a bunch of studies to-
gether. they analyze them as a group to get an idea of the overall
trend.
were done on college students, which may

not represent the general population. A final
problem is that some of the studies in these
meta-analyses were conducted at the Cor-
nell University Food and Brand Lab. A lot of
research from this lab has been scrutinized
for scientific misconduct. Thus, there's still a
lot we don't know about how plate size im-
pacts calorie intake. To address some of the
limitations of existing studies, researchers
from the UK performed a study on plate size
21
and food consumption. Let's take a look at
what they did and what they found.
THE STUDY
The researchers recruited 134 adults be-

tween the ages of 18 and 61. The sub-
jects were randomly assigned to one of two
groups. One group had a large plate, and the
other had a small plate. The subjects didn't
know the study was comparing large plates
to small plates (i.e., they were blinded to
subjects 134 adults

• ages 18-61
groups • large plate
• 29 cm diameter
• small plate
• 23 cm diameter
meal vegetarian cheese and tomato
pasta bake, or chicken korma
curried rice
the study conditions). There was a 46% dif-

ference in the size of the plates. The large
plate was 29 cm in diameter, and the small
plate was 23 cm in diameter. Both groups
consumed a lunch where they served them-
selves. The lunch was a vegetarian cheese
and tomato pasta bake. If the subjects didn't
22
like that choice, they were offered a chicken
korma curried rice. The eating sessions were
filmed and food intake was measured. The
subjects also rated their hunger and fullness
levels. The researchers also looked at wheth-
er factors like impulsivity, education level, in-
come, or response inhibition (the choice to
ignore stimuli that would detract from atten-
tion to eating) modified the results.
THE RESULTS
There was no clear impact of plate size on

food consumption (Figure 1). The average
difference in food intake between the plate
sizes was only 19 calories, and wasn't statis-
tically significant. Removal of outliers didn't
Figure 1: Impact of Plate Size on Calorie

Intake at Lunch
700
680
660
640
620
Calories
600
580
560
540
520
500
Small Plate Large Plate
From Kosite et al. (2019)
23
alter the outcomes. The only difference be-
tween groups was the amount of food left
on the plate. With the large plate, subjects
left an average of 8.6 grams more food.
There were no effects of modifying variables
on the outcomes.
There wasn't any clear effect of plate size

on food consumption. While the average cal-
" plate size probably doesn't

meaningfully impact food intake "
orie intake did tend to be a bit higher with
the larger plate, the difference was tiny at
only 19 calories. The confidence intervals
(the range of values that are compatible with
the data) were wide and included possi-
ble effects in either direction. These results
would imply that plate size probably doesn't
meaningfully impact food intake, at least on
average. It can't rule out possible individual
differences in how people might respond to
plate size. To tease out individual differenc-
24
es, you would need a within-subjects design
(where subjects would be exposed to both
large and small plates).
One strength of this study is that it was
well designed compared to previous re-
search. It included people that are represent-
ative of the overall population. The people
were blinded to the purpose of the study.
The researcher who analyzed the data was
blinded to which group the subjects were in.
The researchers pre-registered their study,
meaning they publicly outlined the study de-
" previous meta-analyses overes-

timated the effects of plate size "
sign before the stuy took place. All of these
factors minimize risk of bias.
The results of this study suggest previous
meta-analyses overestimated the effects of
plate size. This is probably they included low
quality studies and studies out of the Cornell
lab.
There are limitations to this study. It's pos-
sible that results might be different with dif-
ferent plate size comparisons. Previous stud-
ies have used a very wide range of plate
25
sizes. However, there isn't clear evidence
that this would make a difference. One study
had a very large 9 cm difference in plate size
and showed no effect. Another limitation is
the study was done in a highly controlled lab
setting. It's possible that results could be dif-
ferent in a real-world setting. Results also
might vary by the type of food consumed,
such as lunch versus dessert.
• better design than previous studies

• subjects representative of overall population
STRENGTHS • subjects blinded to study purpose
• analyst blinded to groups
• pre-registered
• real world outcomes may differ from lab out-
comes
LIMITATIONS • results may not apply to all plate sizes
• results might vary with different types of food
While it's popular for people to recom-

mend reducing plate size to reduce calorie
intake, it's probably not useful. Better strat-
egies for reducing calorie intake would be
reducing portion size and reducing intake
of highly palatable, highly rewarding, energy
dense foods.
26
• reducing plate size probably isn't an effective strategy for re-
ducing food intake.
• better strategies for reducing food intake include reducing por-
tion size and reducing intake of highly rewarding, highly palata-
ble, energy dense foods.
REFERENCE
Kosite et al. Plate size and food consumption: a

pre-registered experimental study in a general popula-
tion sample. International Journal of Behavioral Nutri-
tion and Physical Activity. 16:75, 2019
27
MUSCLE GA I N
Training to failure: the load matters!
BY JAMES KRIEGER
I n the first article of this issue, you

learned that training to failure wasn't
better for hypertrophy than leaving
a few reps in the tank. In fact, most people
might do a bit better by training a bit short of
failure on most sets. However, that study in-
volved moderate loads of around 60% 1-RM.
It's possible that things could be different
with lighter loads. We know that stopping
28
well short of failure with light weights (like
30% 1-RM) results in inferior muscle protein
synthesis. This would suggest that it would
be inferior for building muscle too. Howev-
er, there hasn't been any research on the
effects of training well short of failure with
light weights...until now. Let's take a look at a
recent study on this topic.
" stopping well short of failure

with light weights results in infe-
rior muscle protein synthesis "
THE STUDY
Twenty five untrained men (ages 19-34)

completed the study. They were physically
active but hadn't done any resistance train-
ing for at least 6 months. The subjects were
randomly assigned to either a high load or
low load group. They trained twice per week
for 8 weeks. The high load group trained
with 80% 1-RM and the load load group
trained with 30% 1-RM. Within each group,
each subject trained one leg for 3 sets to
failure on a leg extension with 2 minutes
29
rest between sets. The average reps per set
was calculated (the total repetitions divid-
ed by the number of sets). The subjects then
trained the other leg using 60% of the aver-
age reps of the failure leg for each set. The
subjects performed additional sets of the
non-failure leg until the load volume (sets x
reps x load) was equal to that of the failure
leg. For example, if a subject did 15, 12, and
subjects 25 untrained men

groups high load (80% 1-RM)
low load (30% 1-RM)

training one leg: 3 sets to failure of leg extensions
other leg: sets using 60% of the average reps per

set of the failure leg. more sets were done to
make load volume equal between the legs
rest intervals 2 minutes

frequency 2 days per week
duration 8 weeks
9 reps to failure with 50 kg, then the aver-

age reps per set was 12 and the load vol-
ume was 1800 kg. That subject would do 5
sets of 7 reps (60% of 12 reps) at 50 kg with
the non-failure leg. Thus, the subject would
have done 1750 kg in load volume with the
non-failure leg, closely matching the failure
leg. Each set was well short of failure. Av-
30
erage sets x reps was 3 x 12.4 for the high
load failure condition, 5.5 x 6.7 for the high
load no-failure condition, 3 x 34.4 for the
low load failure condition, and 5.4 x 19.6 for
the low load no-failure condition. Rate of
Perceived Exertion (RPE, a measure of how
hard the subjects felt like they were working)
was assessed every training session. Quadri-
ceps muscle size and 1-RM leg extension
were measured before and after the study.
THE RESULTS
Muscle Size. Muscle size increased simi-

larly in both heavy load conditions (Figure
1). Muscle size also increased by a similar
amount in the light load to failure condition
Figure 1: Impact of Training to Failure

With Heavy or Light Loads on Quadriceps
Muscle Size
10
8
% Change
6
4
2
0
80% 1-RM 30% 1-RM
Failure No Failure (60% of max total reps)
From Lasevicius et al. (2019)
31
Figure 2: Impact of Training to Failure
With Heavy or Light Loads on 1-RM
Strength
40
30
% Change
20
10
0
80% 1-RM 30% 1-RM
Failure No Failure (60% of max total reps)
From Lasevicius et al. (2019)
(Figure 1). However, muscle size did not sig-

nificantly change in the non-failure light load
condition (Figure 1).
Strength. Strength improved in all groups

(Figure 2). However, strength gains were
greater in the high load versus low load con-
ditions (Figure 2). There weren't any differ-
ences in strength gains between training to
failure and not training to failure (Figure 2).
RPE. RPE was significantly higher when

training to failure. It ranged between 9 and
10 in the failure condition and 6-7 in the
non-failure condition.
32
Muscle gains were similar whether 80%

1-RM loads were taken to failure or not.
Light loads also resulted in similar muscle
gains, but only when taken to failure. This
indicates that the lighter the load you train
with (i.e., the more reps you can do with a
weight), the closer to failure you need to
train. These results are supported by re-
search showing that muscle protein synthe-
" the lighter the load you train

with, the closer to failure you need
to get "
sis is inferior when light loads are stopped

well short of failure.
Average reps per set in the 80% 1-RM
condition were 12 for training to failure and
about 7 for no-failure. Thus, the non-failure
group trained with about 5 Reps In Reservie
(RIR) on average. Since 5-6 sets were com-
pleted the non-failure condition, the RIR like-
ly started higher than 5 in the initial sets and
moved closer to around 1-2 in the final sets,
33
so that the average was 5 RIR. This is impor-
tant, as this is different than training with 5
RIR across all sets. I would've liked to have
seen the researchers report the average reps
for each individual set, rather than the aver-
age reps across all sets. I would've also liked
to see the average RPE for each individu-
al set. This would've given us a better idea
of how cumulative fatigue influenced the
RPE and RIR for each individual set in the
non-failure group. For example, if you did 15,
" the last set in the non-failure

condition was probably challeng-
ing even if it wasn't to failure "
12, and 9 reps to failure in one leg, that's an
average of 12 reps per set. In the non-failure
leg, you would do 5 sets of 7 reps to volume
match it. That's 5 RIR on average. Howev-
er, the RIR would start off as 8 for the first
set and progress to around 2-3 by the fi-
nal set so that you average out around 5.
The same would be true with RPE. The RPE
would be quite easy the first set, and much
more difficult the last set, so that it averages
out around 6-7 across all sets. Thus, the last
34
set in the non-failure condition was probably
challenging even if it wasn't to failure. There-
fore, this study compares very hard training
(all sets to failure) to challenging but-not-
very-hard training (initial sets are fairly easy
while the last set starts getting closer to fail-
ure with a few reps in the tank).
This brings up the question regarding just
how close to failure you need to train. Aver-
aging about 60% of your max reps (with in-
itial sets probably around 40 and final sets
" averaging about 60% of your

max reps did not impair hypertro-
phy "
closer to around 80) did not impair hypertro-
phy compared to doing all sets to failure in
this study. In a study by Eric Helms and col-
leagues, muscle gains were similar between
a group that ranged between 60 and 90% of
their max reps, and 55-70%. One common
factor between these studies is the load-
ing, with loads averaging around 80% 1-RM.
Combined together, these studies would
suggest you can average as low as 60% of
your max repetitions (6 out of 10 RPE) when
35
training with heavy loads (around 80% 1-RM)
and gain just as much muscle as training
to failure. Keep in mind this is an average,
though, and you still will probably need some
sets that get within 1-3 RIR.
It's clear as the load gets lighter, you have
to start pushing closer to failure. In the
study described earlier in this issue, subjects
trained with 60% 1-RM and got close to fail-
ure on all sets (around 1-2 RIR or around 80-
95% of max reps). In that case, leaving a few
" as the load gets lighter, you

have to start pushing closer to
failure "
reps in the tank was just as good, if not a bit
better, than going all out. However, the sets
were still very hard and close to failure. Oth-
er research using lighter loads has indicated
you need to get close to failure. In a study
by Goto and colleagues, subjects did either
10 reps to failure or two sets of 5 reps with
a similar load, taking a 30 second rest be-
tween the two mini-sets. Thus, one group
trained to failure and the other group trained
far from failure. The initial load was around
36
75% 1-RM, but subjects did multiple sets
and the researchers lightened the load each
successive set. Thus, there wouldn't have
been much cumulative fatigue in the group
that took 30 second rests in the middle of
their sets. Muscle gains were superior in the
group that didn't have any intraset rest. In
a study reviewed at Weightology, subjects
who did 3 sets to failure with 70% 1-RM
gained more muscle than subjects who did
4 sets of 7 reps with 70% 1-RM. While we
" the effectiveness of sub-fail-

ure training will depend upon the
load "
don't know the RPE of the subjects in this
study, it was likely well short of failure. And
of course, when loads get really light (like
30% 1-RM), the study discussed in this arti-
cle shows you need to hit failure (or at least
1-2 reps shy). Overall, the effectiveness of
sub-failure training will depend upon the
load. With heavier loads of 75-80%+ 1-RM,
you'll do just fine with an average RPE of
6-8, with perhaps the occasional 9-10. With
loads lighter than 75%, you'll need to train
37
with a higher RPE of 7-9 on average, with
some 10's sprinkled in. With really light loads
(30-40% 1-RM), you'll want to be mostly in
the 9-10 range.
Strength gains were similar between failure
and sub-failure training. This was true even
with the light loads. Thus, you don't need to
train to failure to maximize strength gains.
However, you do need to train with heavier
loads, as strength gains were superior with
the heavy loads over light loads. This is in
agreement with past research.
" you don't need to train to fail-

ure to maximize strength gains "
One strength of this study is the with-

in-subject design. This helps remove genet-
ic variability from the results. There are also
limitations. Subjects were untrained, and re-
sults might be different with trained subjects
(although research by Eric Helms would hint
that it wouldn't be different). The subjects
only did leg extensions, and results might not
apply to other exercises or muscle groups. on
mood. Finally, I would've liked to have seen
reporting of individual results to see if some
38
people responded differently between failure
and non-failure training (like they did in the
study discussed earlier in this issue).
strengths • within-subject design

• untrained subjects
• leg extensions only
LIMITATIONS • no reporting of individual results
• no reporting of average reps and rpe for each
individual set
When it comes to gaining muscle size, the

effectiveness of sub-failure training will de-
pend upon the load. With heavier loads of
75-80%+ 1-RM, you'll do just fine with an
average RPE of 6-8, with perhaps the oc-
casional 9-10. With loads lighter than 75%,
you'll need to train with a higher RPE of 7-9
on average, with some 10's sprinkled in.
With really light loads (30-40% 1-RM), you'll
want to be mostly in the 9-10 range.
For strength gains, you'll need heavi-
er loads. However, you won't need to train
to failure, and can do a large chunk of your
training in the 6-8 RPE range and get just as
strong as if you consistently trained to fail-
ure.
39
• effectiveness of sub-failure training for hypertrophy depends
upon load
• with loads of 75-80%+ 1-RM, you can maximize muscle size with
an average rpe of 6-8, with the occasional 9-10
• to maximize hypertrophy with loads 60-75%, you'll need to train
with an rpe of 7-9 on average, with some 10's sprinkled in
• to maximize hypertrophy with light loads (<50-60% 1-RM), you'll
need to be mostly in the 9-10 RPE range
• to maximize strength gains, loads need to be heavy (80%+ 1-RM),
but you don't need to train to failure
REFERENCE
Lasevicius et al. Muscle failure promotes greater mus-

cle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resist-
ance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
search. Dec 27, 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
40
MUSCLE GA I N
Muscle confusion: more psychological
than physiological
BY JAMES KRIEGER
T he late Joe Weider was famous for his

many principles of muscle building.
One of those principles was "muscle confu-
sion." The idea was that, by switching up ex-
ercises frequently, you could "confuse" your
muscles and better stimulate them to grow
as they would never get used to a single
stimulus. However, one problem with con-
stantly switching exercises is that whenever
41
you start a new one, some of your strength
gains are due to re-learning the exercise. If
you change exercises too much, you may just
be constantly relearning new exercises and
never achieve "true" progression.
In a November 2019 "Past Blast" article, I
reviewed a study that failed to show any no-
table benefit or detriment to varying exercise
selection. However, exercise selection was
constant from week to week in the varied
group. It wasn't randomly varied or frequent-
ly rotated, which is closer to what the mus-
cle confusion principle dictates. Research-
ers from Brazil recently published a study
on muscle confusion where exercises were
randomly varied throughout the training pro-
gram. Let's look at the study and the find-
ings.
THE STUDY
Nineteen men (average age of 23 years)

with at least 2 years training experience
completed the study. They were random-
ly assigned to one of two groups: a control
group and a varied group. Both groups did
3 sets of 6 exercises each training session.
The subjecs trained 4 times per week for 8
42
weeks, with 2 upper body and 2 lower body
exercises per week. The control group did
the same exercises each week. The upper
body workout involved bench press, pen-
dlay row, shoulder press, lat pull, dumbbell
subjects 19 trained men

groups control
• same exercises each week
varied
• exercises randomly chosen by an app at
each session
training split 2 upper and 2 lower body days per week
exercises control
• lower
• squat, dl, leg press, hip thrust, leg extension,
leg curl
• upper
• bench, row, shoulder press, lat pull, fly, pull-
over
varied
• lower
• 3 anterior and 3 posterior chain movements
• upper
• 3 push and 3 pull exercises
duration 8 weeks
sets x reps 3 x 6-12 rm, with repetitions periodized
rest intervals 2 minutes
fly, and dumbbell pullover. The lower body

workout involved squat, deadlift, leg press,
hp thrust, leg extension, and leg curl. Train-
ing load progressed every 2 weeks from 12
RM (repetition maximum, or number of reps
43
to failure) to 6 RM. In the varied group, ex-
ercises were randomly chosen each session
via a phone app. The app randomly chose 3
pulling and 3 pushing movements for upper
body, and 3 anterior chain (such as squat, leg
press, or leg extension) and 3 posterior chain
(such as deadlift, hip thrust, or leg curl) exer-
cises for lower body. No exercise was repeat-
ed in the same workout. Repetitions ranged
between 6 and 12 RM so that training vol-
ume (sets x reps) was equated with the con-
trol group. Before and after the study, the re-
searchers assessed muscle thickness of the
quadriceps, body composition, 1-RM bench
and squat, and motivation levels.
• muscle thickness (vastus lateralis, vastus in-

termedius, rectus femoris)
measurements • body composition (skinfolds)
• 1-rm bench and squat
• motivation and demotivation
44
THE RESULTS
Muscle Size. There were no statistically sig-

nificant differences in changes in muscle size
between groups (Figure 1). While percentage
change in rectus femoris thickness strong-
ly favored the control group, the 95% confi-
dence interval (a range of values that is most
Figure 1: Impact of Exercise Variation on

Quadriceps Muscle Size
14
12
10
% Change
8
6
4
2
0
Vastus Lateralis Rectus Femoris Vastus Intermedius
Control Varied
From Baz-Valle et al. (2019)
compatible with the data) was very wide and

suggested anywhere from a benefit to a det-
riment of varied training (-0.08 to 0.26 cm
difference). The results for each individual
subject suggested that this average differ-
ence was mostly driven by a single subject
who experienced a decrease in rectus femo-
ris size with varied training.
45
1-RM Strength. Both groups improved 1-RM
strength, with no statistically significant dif-
ferences between groups (Figure 2). Percent-
age changes favored the control group, par-
ticularly for bench press (Figure 2). The 95%
confidence interval for differences in bench
press improvement was skewed heavily in fa-
vor of the control group, ranging from -1.7

1-RM Strength
7
6
5
% Change
4
3
2
1
0
1-RM Squat 1-RM Bench
Control Varied
to 6.9 kg. Thus, while the data was compat-

ible with a slight potential benefit to varied
training, it was more compatible with a de-
teriment of up to 6.9 kg.
Body Composition. There were no signifi-

cant differences between groups for changes
in percent body fat, although the 95% con-
fidence interval was heavily skewed in favor
46
of the control group (-1.8 to 0.1 percentage
points).
Motivation. The varied group showed a sig-

nificant improvement in motivation, whereas
the control group did not (Figure 3). Changes
in demotivation were not significantly differ-
ent between groups, although the percent-

Motivation
20
15
% Change
10
-5
Motivation Demotivation
Control Varied
age change was less in the varied group (Fig-

ure 3).
This study showed that there wasn't any

muscle building benefit to "muscle confu-
sion." While there appeared to be a deteri-
47
ment for the rectus femoris, the confidence
interval was wide and the results appear to
be mostly driven by a single subject. The re-
sults are in agreement with another study re-
viewed in Weightology where there was no
advantage or disadvantage to exercise var-
iation for building muscle. Overall, "muscle
confusion" isn't going to help you build more
muscle, but it probably won't hurt you either.
This opens things up to personal preference
on how much you want to vary your exercise
" 'muscle confusion' isn't going to

help you build more muscle, but it
probably won't hurt you either "
selection if you're trying to maximize muscle

size.
Where "muscle confusion" might hurt you
is strength development in a particular ex-
ercise. While there were no significant dif-
ferences between groups, improvements
in 1-RM were favored in the control group.
This was particularly true with the bench
press. This isn't surprising. The Specific Ad-
48
aptation to Imposed Demands (SAID) princi-
ple dictates that to get better at an activity,
you need to do that activity. If you want to
get better at bench press, you need to bench
press. Also, whenever you start a new exer-
cise, some of the strength gains you get are
due to neural adaptation and learning the
exercise. Thus, if you're changing exercises
too frequently, you may not see as much im-
" if you're changing exercises too

frequently, you may not see as
much improvement in any particu-
lar exercise "
provement in any particular exercise.

While the confidence interval for changes
in body fat percentage was heavily skewed
in favor of the control group, I'm inclined to
believe this probably isn't meaningful, espe-
cially given the results on muscle thickness.
Skinfolds, which can be inaccurate, were
used to assess body composition. Also, while
the researchers had the subjects report their
dietary intake, self-report of diet can be ex-
49
tremely unreliable. Thus, random error or un-
detected differences in dietary intake could
contribute to the differences in body compo-
sition.
Where "muscle confusion" might help is in
motivation. Subjects in the varied group re-
ported higher levels of motivation. Using the
same exercises week-in and week-out can
become stale to some people. Thus, while
frequent variation may not help you build
more muscle, it may keep you more motivat-
" where 'muscle confusion' might

help is motivation "
ed to train. Over a long period of time, this
might translate to better muscle gains simply
due to better adherence and drive.
This study has limitations. Muscle thick-
ness was only determined in the quadriceps,
so we don't know what happened in the up-
per body. The researchers only measured
muscle thickness at one point along each
muscle. We don't know if "muscle confu-
sion" may have benefited hypertrophy in dif-
ferent portions of each muscle, as, there is
50
some evidence that different exercises may
impact regional hypertrophy differently. Fi-
nally, frequent variation in exercise selection
may make progressive overload more diffi-
cult, and thus progression may not be well
matched between the groups. However, giv-
en that both groups trained to failure, and
that there is no difference in muscle gains
between various loading schemes as long as
you train to failure, I'm inclined to think that
this isn't a major factor in the results. If the
• muscle thickness only measured at one point

along each muscle
• no measurements of upper body muscle size
LIMITATIONS • difficult to control for progression with fre-
quent varied exercises
subjects picked an exercise and didn't quite

know which load to choose, they would sim-
ply take the set to failure which would en-
sure maximum stimulation.

Frequently varying your exercise selection

won't help you gain more muscle, but prob-
51
ably won't hurt you either. It may help you
stay more motivated which could help with
your training effort and gains. How often
you vary your exercise selection can be up
to your personal preference. If you vary your
exercises a lot and have trouble deciding on
loads, simply take each set to near failure to
ensure adequate stimulation.
If you're looking to get stronger on a par-
ticular exercise, you'll want to avoid changing
exercises too frequently. Make sure you keep
that exercise as a core part of your training.
• "muscle confusion" won't help you build more muscle, but prob-
ably won't hurt you either
• frequent exercise variation may improve motivation
• if you vary exercises frequently, take sets to near failure to en-
sure adequate stimulation
• if you want to get stronger on a particular exercise, avoid
changing exercises too frequently, and make sure you keep that
exercise as a core part of your training
REFERENCE
Baz-Valle et al. The effects of exercise variation in mus-

cle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in re-
sistance trained men. PLOS One. December 27, 2019
52
MUSCLE GA I N
More volume = more muscle? It may
depend on the training structure!
BY JAMES KRIEGER
I n my Volume Bible, my meta-analysis

suggested that muscle size was max-
imized with an average per-session volume
of around 8 sets per muscle group. This was
based off an average across 21 studies, and
there was a huge amount of variation from
one study to the next. For example, at a ses-
sion volume of 6 sets per muscle group, ef-
fect sizes ranged from 0 (no effect) to 1.5 (a
53
very large effect). The radical differences in
results between studies can lead to confu-
sion regarding the impact of volume on hy-
pertrophy. Some studies (like this one and
this one) suggest that hypertrophy plateaus
or regresses beyond a certain volume. Oth-
er studies (like this one and this one) show
hypertrophy continuing to increase up to
very high volumes. Now we've got another
study showing the latter. Why the differenc-
" the radical differences in re-

sults between studies can lead to
confusion regarding the impact
of volume on hypertrophy "
es? Let's take a look at this most recent study

and see if we can start to tease out where
the differences are coming from.
THE STUDY
Twenty-seven trained men completed the

study. between the ages of 18 and 40 years
completed the study. They were of an aver-
age age of 27 years with an average training
54
experience of 3.3 years. Prior to the study
they had averaged anywhere from 12-45
sets per muscle per week, depending upon
the muscle group. They were randomly as-
signed to one of three groups:
• 16 weekly sets per muscle group or 4 sets

per exercise (9 subjects).
subjects 27 trained men

groups • 4 sets per exercise
• 16 weekly sets per muscle)
• 6 sets per exercise
• 24 weekly sets per muscle
• 8 sets per exercise
• 32 weekly sets per muscle
rest intervals 1 MINUTE
training frequency 2 times per week each muscle
group (upper/lower split)
training duration 8 weeks
repetition range 8-10 rm
exercises a workout
• bench press
• dumbbell fly
• cable triceps
• barbell back squat
• leg extension
b workout
• lat pull
• reverse fly
• biceps curl
• leg curl
55
Subjects trained each muscle group two
times per week using two A workouts and
two B workouts. They did two exercises (one
multi-joint and one single joint) per mus-
cle group per training session for sets of
8-10 reps to failure and 1 minute rests be-
tween sets and 2 minutes between exercis-
es. One exception was hamstrings, which
were trained with one single-joint exercise
(leg curl) and twice as many sets as other ex-
• 1-rm (squat and bench)

• muscle thickness (vastus lateralis, biceps, tri-
measurements ceps)
• diet (3-day food records)
• load volume (sets x reps x load)
ercises. Each concentric (positive) and ec-

centric (negative) portion of the lift took 1.5
seconds. Subjects tried to increase the load
lifted for the given rep range as the study
progressed. The training lasted 8 weeks. Be-
fore and after the study, the researchers as-
sessed muscle thickness (vastus lateralis in
the quadriceps, and biceps and triceps in the
arms) and 1-RM squat and bench. Diet was
assessed using 3-day food records before, in
the middle, and at the end of the study. Total
load volume (sets x reps x load) was tracked
through the entire study.
56
THE RESULTS
Muscle Thickness. There was a dose-re-

sponse relationship between training vol-
ume and hypertrophy (Figure 1). Hypertro-
phy increased with each successive level of
volume up to the highest level (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Impact of Set Volume on Muscle

Size
10
8
% Change
0
Biceps Triceps Vastus Lateralis
16 Weekly Sets 24 Weekly Sets 32 Weekly Sets

From Brigatto et al. (2019)
The dose-response was statistically signifi-

cant in the triceps and vastus lateralis. With
each higher level of volume, there were more
responders (individuals who exceeded the
smallest change considered worthwhile) (Fig-
ure 2).
1-RM Strength. There was a statistically sig-

nificant dose-response relationship between
57
Figure 3: Impact of Set Volume on 1-RM
Strength
35
30
25
% Change
20
15
10
5
0
1-RM Bench 1-RM Squat

training volume and squat 1-RM, but not

bench 1-RM (Figure 3).
Load Volume. Percentage improvements in

load volume were progressively higher with
each higher volume level (Figure 4).
58
Figure 4: Impact of Set Volume on
Improvement in Volume Load
40
30
% Change
20
10
0
Improvement in Volume Load

This study showed that hypertrophy in-

creased with increasing volumes up to 32
weekly sets per muscle group (16 sets
per training session). This is in agreement
with two other studies (here and here) that
showed increasing hypertrophy up to very
high weekly volumes (27+ weekly sets).
However, it's in disagreement with other
studies (such as here, here, and here) show-
ing plateaus at much lower weekly volumes
of 12-18 sets. So what gives?
I've seen some people argue that the sub-
jects in this study didn't get close to true
failure compared to other studies. The sub-
59
jects were supposedly doing up to 8 sets of
squats to failure with only 1 minute rests. If
you've ever tried to do squats to failure with
short rests, you know that it's extremely in-
tense. It's tough to do for only 3-4 sets, let
alone 8, especially with short rests. Thus,
some argue that the subjects would've held
back a lot and left quite a few reps in the
tank each set, despite the fact they were re-
porting RPE's of 9.5 to 10. If they're secret-
ly holding back, perhaps they would need
to do way more sets to get the same gains.
" if you've ever tried to do squats

to failure with short rests, you
know that it's extremely intense "
This might be why you see hypertrophy in-

creasing up to very high volumes. Howev-
er, this explanation seems insufficient. First,
we know that you can train with 60-80% of
your max reps with an 8-10 RM load and
still get the same gains. Thus, the subjects
would need to be leaving A LOT of reps in
the tank on each set in this study for it to
60
impact gains. This seems unlikely given that
every set was supervised. Also, it doesn't ex-
plain why a dose-response relationship was
observed in the biceps and triceps, as doing
upper body movements with short rests isn't
nearly as taxing as squats. Even if subjects
were leaving a bunch of reps in the tank on
the squats and not getting close to "true"
failure, it's unlikely they were doing so on the
upper body movements. This is particular-
ly true when we consider that the subjects
" it doesn't explain why a

dose-response relationship was
observed in the biceps and triceps
"
did their upper body movements first in each
training session when they would've been
most fresh. In fact, 66% of the exercises in
this study were isolation movements, which
aren't nearly as taxing even when using short
rest, and thus it's not implausible that sub-
jects came close to true failure on most of
the exercises. It's also been argued that we
can't know if subjects really hit failure be-
cause it's voluntary and self-reported. You
61
have to take the person's word for it. How-
ever, this is a limitation of ALL resistance
training research. In the absence of electrical
stimulation to try to stimulate further muscle
contraction upon failure, you are always tak-
ing the subject's word for it. Thus, this can't
be used as an argument to invalidate this
particular study, as it would invalidate every
single resistance training study where sub-
jects hit voluntary failure.
If the proximity to failure isn't a good ex-
" we see one notable distinction:

rest intervals "
planation for the results, then what is? If we

compare the study designs of the papers
that showed benefits of very high volumes
to the ones that don't, we see one notable
distinction: rest intervals. The studies that
showed increasing hypertrophy up to 27-
45 weekly sets all involved rest intervals of
1-1.5 minutes combined with a heavy dose
of compound movements. Most of the stud-
ies that showed a plateau at lower volumes
62
involved rest intervals of 3 minutes. The po-
tential impact of short rest intervals becomes
more apparent when we compare the gains
of the short rest and long rest studies at sim-
ilar weekly volumes. I've averaged the per-
centage gains from all muscle groups from
two short rest studies (here and the study
we're reviewing right now) and three long
rest studies (here, here, and here) that in-
volved a weekly volume of 9-18 sets. I chose
" at a similar weekly volume, the

percentage gains in the short rest
studies are roughly half that of
the long rest studies "
these studies as they had similar durations

(8-12 weeks) and consistent rest intervals,
unlike a few others (here, here, and here)
that lasted 6 months with inconsistent rest
intervals and thus aren't comparable. At a
similar weekly volume, the percentage gains
in the short rest studies are roughly half that
of the long rest studies (Figure 5). This is in
agreement with a 1 vs. 3 minute rest study
by Brad Schoenfeld, where gains were al-
63
Figure 5: Muscle Gains with Short or Long
Rest Relative to Weekly Volume
7
6
5
% Change
4
3
2
1
0
Short rest intervals (1 - 1.5 Long rest intervals (3 Short rest intervals (1 - 1.5
minutes), 9-18 weekly sets, minutes), 9-18 weekly sets, minutes), 27-32 weekly
average of Schoenfeld average of Ostrowski sets, average of Schoenfeld
(2019) and Brigatto (2019) (1997), Heaselgrave (2019), (2019) and Brigatto (2019)
and de Souza (2020)
Figure 6: Muscle Gains with Short or Long

Rest for a Given Set Volume
10
9
8
7
% Change
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Short rest intervals (1 minute) Long rest intervals (3 minutes)
From Schoenfeld et al. (2016)
Figure 7: Impact of 1 vs. 3 Minute Rests on

Muscle Protein Synthesis for a Given Set
Volume
160
140
120
% Change
100
80
60
40
20
0
Short rest intervals (1 minute) Long rest intervals (3 minutes)
From McKendry et al. (2016)
64
most cut in half with short rests versus long
rests (Figure 6). This is also in agreement
with research showing muscle protein syn-
thesis to be cut in half with 1 minute rests
versus 3 minute rests (Figure 7). It takes
a weekly volume of 27-32 sets with short
rests to see similar gains to the 9-18 week-
ly sets with long rests (Figure 5). Thus, the
likely reason why you see more gains with-
such high volumes in the short rest studies
is that the short rests are impairing gains at
" if you want to maximize hyper-

trophy, short rests aren't going to
save you any time "
the lower volumes. Therefore, you need to
do more sets to make up for it. With long
rests, you see plateaus in gains with set vol-
umes in the teens in most studies, but with
short rests, you don't see a plateau until you
get up around the 30's or even 40's. How-
ever, the gains around the 30's with short
rests are equivalent to the gains with long
rests in the teens. Thus, if you want maxi-
mal hypertrophy, short rests aren't going to
save you any time because you're going to
65
have to do more sets and higher volumes to
get the same gains. Also, if you're using com-
pound movements, you'll be training with a
lot more discomfort due to the high aerobic
demand of short rests. Unless you're a maso-
chist, there doesn't appear to be any advan-
tage to very high volume, short rest training.
One exception might be in the case of joint
stress. To maintain a rep range (like 8-10 RM)
with short rests, you'll need to dramatically
decrease the load from one set to the next.
" individual results showed more

responders with higher levels of
volume "
This could make training easier on joints.

Thus, if you're having some joint issues,
some higher volume, short rest training with
that particular muscle/joint combo might be
useful.
Individual results showed more responders
with higher levels of volume. This is in agree-
ment with the high volume Schoenfeld study.
In fact, no one in the lowest volume group
exceeded the smallest worthwhile change,
66
except for the vastus lateralis in some sub-
jects. Given that other studies with longer
rest periods have shown larger changes in
muscle size with the same volume, the rest
intervals may be a factor behind the lack of
gains with the lowest volume. Another factor
may be that the lowest volume represented
a dramatic decrease from what subjects had
previously done (a roughly 50% cut for upper
body volume). There is evidence that peo-
ple may be more responsive to increases in
training volume relative to what they used to
" improvements in load volume cor-

related to changes in muscle size "
do, rather than decreases.

The percentage gains in volume load pro-
gressively improved with higher volumes.
This is in agreement with the high volume
Schoenfeld study. The improvements in
load volume correlated to changes in mus-
cle size, which was also true for the Schoen-
feld study. Some other research has hinted
to correlations between improvements in
load volume and muscle size, at least in ma-
chine and low skill movements. This has im-
67
portant implications in terms of progression.
Most of us don't have access to ultrasound
or MRI equipment to assess changes in mus-
cle size. Changes in muscle size are agoniz-
ingly slow. It may take months for noticea-
ble changes in circumference measurements
and appearance. The best proxy we have for
hypertrophy is our performance in the gym.
While strength gains in the gym may not al-
ways correlate with improvements in size,
" improvements in performance

across multiple sets of an exercise
likely will correlate with getting
bigger "
improvements in performance across multi-
ple sets of an exercise (especially a low skill
or machine exercise) likely will correlate with
getting bigger. Thus, if you're progressing in
load volume over multiple sets of an exer-
cise over time, there's a good chance you're
getting bigger as well.
1-RM strength gains showed a dose-re-
sponse relationship for squat but not bench.
This is in agreement with a study where
16 weekly sets of squats resulted in better
68
1-RM gains than 4 or 8 weekly sets. Howev-
er, this is in contrast to other studies where
higher volumes didn't translate to better
strength gains any either upper lor lower
body. The authors speculated that the legs
are more responsive to volume. They also
speculated the subjects saw gains in 1-RM
squat with more volume because they had
previously trained legs with lower volumes
than used in the study (the subjects reported
" it doesn't explain why greater

strength gains weren't observed
with higher volumes in other stud-
ies "
doing 16-21 weekly sets on quads prior to
the study). In contrast, the subjects reported
training upper body with very high volumes
(20-42) prior to the study. This explanation
appears to be inadequate, as it doesn't ex-
plain why greater strength gains weren't ob-
served with higher volumes in other studies.
It also doesn't explain why the impact of vol-
ume appears to be similar between upper
and lower body in other high volume studies.
69
The relationship between strength gains and
hypertrophy is quite complicated due to the
variety of neural and other factors that affect
strength gains. Thus, it's difficult to discern
whether anything meaningful can be derived
from this study regarding 1-RM strength.
The biggest limitation of this study is the
training protocol itself. The highest volume
group did up to 40 sets in a session with 1
minute rest, including squats. Such training
• small sample size

• training protocol likely not sustainable over
LIMITATIONS long term, at least with compound movements
like squats
may not be sustainable far beyond 8 weeks.

It also brings up the possibility that subjects
were crying "uncle" on some of their sets
(at least for squats) before hitting true fail-
ure, although this probably didn't impact the
outcomes. Remember that most of the ex-
ercises were isolation movements (flyes, ca-
ble triceps, leg extension, reverse fly, biceps
curl, leg curl), so the protocol isn't as bad as
it seems, other than the squats.

There's an interaction between rest inter-
70
vals and "effective" training volume. If you
take short rests (90 seconds or less), you
have to do more sets than with long rests to
maximize hypertrpohy. This could mean up
to 30+ weekly sets per muscle group, ver-
sus the teens with long rests. Thus, there's
no advantage to short rest, very high volume
training. Exceptions may be if you're trying to
reduce loads by using short rests (such as in
the case of injury), or in the context of spe-
cialization where you're trying to do a very
high volume for a specific body part.
• there's an interaction between rest intervals and effective
training volume
• if you take rests of 90 seconds or less, your volume ceiling will
be higher than if you take long rests. HOwever, this won't trans-
late to better gains since you're simply making up for the ad-
verse effects of short rests
• weekly set volumes in the teens with long rests are roughly
equivalent to weekly set volumes of around 30 with short rests,
so there's no advantage of very high volume, short rest training
• high volume, short rest training may be useful in the context of
injury or specialization
• if you're progressing in load volume over multiple sets of an ex-
ercise over time, there's a good chance you're getting bigger
REFERENCE
Brigatto et al. High resistance-training volume enhanc-

es muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research. December 20,
2019 [Epub ahead of print]
71
FAT LOSS
Highly palatable foods: we know them
when we see them...or do we?
BY JAMES KRIEGER
T here's no doubt that highly palatable

(i.e., tasty), highly rewarding foods are
a major factor behind the obesity epidem-
ic. They disrupt our natural appetite regu-
lation and motivate us to consume more
food beyond our calorie needs. Despite the
overwhelming evidence that these foods
are driving weight gain, there hasn't been
a standard definition of a highly palatable
72
food in the scientific research. Definitions
have varied from fast foods or fried foods
to sweets or desserts to a variety of specif-
ic foods. This can make it difficult for both
scientists and consumers to identify highly
palatable foods. While we think we know a
highly palatable food when we see it (i.e., ice
cream is obvious), it's possible we may over-
look some foods. A group of scientists re-
cently recognized this gap in the literature,
and performed a study to help us objectively
identify highly palatable foods. Here's what
they did and what they found.
" while we think we know a highly

palatable food when we see it, it's
possible we may overlook some
foods "
THE STUDY
The scientists systematically searched the

literature for articles that provided descrip-
tive definitions of a full range of highly pal-
atable foods. Three types of studies were re-
73
viewed:
• Survey measures of food reward or appe-

tite that included a standard descriptive
definition of highly palatable foods
• Studies that used experimental surveys or

lab tasks to identifiy descriptive definitions
of highly palatable foods
• Review articles that provided an opera-

tional definition of highly palatable foods
and identified a range of specific foods
Studies had to be conducted on people and

focus on Western foods or diets. Out of
2,963 studies screened, the scientists iden-
tified 14 that met their inclusion criteria.
The scientists then used software to turn
the palatable food descriptions into numer-
ic data that could be analyzed. They focused
on fat, simple sugars, carbohydrates, and so-
dium as ingredients, since these are all used
to enhance palatability. The scientists calcu-
lated percentage of calories or weight from
these ingredients. They subtracted fiber cal-
ories from the carb calories since fiber can
enhance satiety. They then used this data
74
to identify clusters that could identify high-
ly palatable foods. They then examined how
many foods in the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Food & Nutrition Da-
tabase fell into these clusters.
THE RESULTS
Clusters. The scientists identified 3 clusters

that covered 93% of the food items.
Five foods high in sugar (jam, gummy bears,

licorice, hard candy, and fruit snacks) didn't
fit within any cluster and weren't sufficient in
number to form their own cluster.
Foods Meeting Criteria. A total of 62% of

the foods in the USDA Food & Nutrition Da-
tabase met at least one of the criteria. Of
those foods, 70% were in the fat & sodium
cluster, 25% were in the fat & sugar cluster,
and 16% were in the carbs & sodium cluster.
Less than 10% met the criteria for more than
one cluster.
Food Characteristics. Thirty percent of the

identified food items were grain products,
and 32% were processed/cooked meats
75
cluster food description
fat & sodium (fsod) meats, meal-based items with fat
• >25% calories from fat & carbs, and other foods high in-
• =>0.30% sodium by weight fat and sodium
examples:
• bacon
• hot dogs
• omelets
• cheese dips
• pancakes
• cookies
• buttered popcorn
• pizza
fat & sugar (fs) desserts, prepackaged foods,

• >20% calories from fat and other foods high in fat &
• >20% calories from simple sugars sugar
examples:
• cakes
• ice cream
• brownies
• pies
• sweet cereals
• sweet vegetables cooked in fats
carbs & sodium (cs) breads, snacks, and carb-based
• >40% calories from carbs savory items
• =>0.20% sodium by weight
examples
• crackers
• pretzels
• popcorn
• biscuits
• pizza
• pastas
• breads
76
and meat-based dishes. Only 7% were fruit-
based products.
While we generally think of highly palat-
able foods as being very calorie dense (i.e.,
the number of calories per gram of food), al-
most half had a low energy density of less
than 2 calories per gram. Also, of foods labe-
led as reduced or no fat, sugar, salt, or cal-
orie, 49% still met the criteria for being a
highly palatable food. In fact, 80% of items
labeled as reduced fat or reduced calorie met
the criteria for a highly palatable food.
Validity of the Clusters. The researchers

tested the validity of the clusters by making
sure foods that weren't supposed to be in
them weren't there. For example, the criteria
didn't capture any fresh or raw fruits, meats,
fish, unsalted nuts, oatmeal, and most beans.
The researchers also made sure the criteria
captured foods that should be there. For ex-
ample, the criteria successfully captured 86%
of foods labeled as fast foods or fried foods
and 88% of foods labeled as sweets and des-
serts.
77
The researchers in this study successful-
ly developed an objective, numeric way to
identify highly palatable foods. They also
identified that a substantial number of foods
in the U.S. food database could be defined
as highly palatable. Given the high preva-
lence of these foods, it's no wonder that
obesity is a major problem in the United
States. It also demonstrates the challenges
that people may have with their food envi-
ronment and constantly being surrounded
" your clients can learn to read

food labels and whether the food
meets the criteria "
by hyper-palatable foods which are easy to
overeat.
The criteria established in this study al-
low scientists to more objectively define hy-
per-palatable foods. It can also allow con-
sumers to make better decisions regarding
food choices. For example, when grocery
shopping, you or your clients can learn to
read food labels and whether the food meets
the criteria established in this study. It would
78
take a bit of math, but is fairly simple with a
cell phone calculator. For example, you can
determine the percentage of calories from
simple sugars by taking the grams of sim-
ple sugars on the label, multiplying by 4, and
then dividing by the calories per serving to
get the fraction. You can then convert this to
a percentage. For example, 1 gram of sugar
in a 230 calorie serving would be 4 / 230 *
100 = 1.7%. You can determine the sodium
percentage by taking the sodium content per
" it would be most useful to lim-

it it to foods that you're not sure
about "
serving, and dividing it by the serving size
(in grams) with a zero on the end. For exam-
ple, if the sodium content per serving is 160
mg, and the serving size is 55 g, the percent-
age by weight is 160 / 550 = 0.29%. Now,
it could be tedious to do this for every food
that you shop for. Thus, it would be most
useful to limit it to foods that you're not sure
about. Desserts, pizza, pretzels, etc. are all
obvious highly platable foods. Whole fruits,
vegetables, etc. are obviously not. There's no
79
need to do the calculations with these foods.
Where the calculation might be useful is if
you have a food advertised as low fat or low
calorie, such as a "healthy" version of a pop-
ular snack. It could also be useful for food
products that may have a "health halo" but
still be high in highly palatable ingredients,
such as frozen vegetables in a butter sauce.
One limitation is that the definition of
highly palatable foods was developed for sol-
id foods and not liquids. Thus, these crite-
ria can't be applied to liquid foods. Another
" there's more to overeating than

just palatability "
limitation is in the application of this data.
There's more to overeating than just palat-
ability. Food reward (the motivation of your
brain to obtain a certain food) and palatibility
are related, but still separate. The two tend
to go hand in hand, but not always. You can
sometimes have a food that is highly reward-
ing to the brain, but not hyperpalatable. Like-
wise, you can have a hyperpalatable food but
it may not be highly rewarding to the brain.
Energy density also plays a role in food re-
80
ward and overeating. You're more likely to
overeat a food that is hyperpalatable AND
energy dense, versus a food that is hyperpal-
atable but not energy dense. Just because
a food is hyperpalatable doesn't mean you'll
overeat it. Thus, hyperpalatability shouldn't
alone be used as a criteria regarding food
choice. Also, if a food does meet the criteria
in this study, it shouldn't be viewed as "bad"
or "off limits." There still needs to be flexibili-
ty in food choices. Black/white, rigid thinking
tends to contribute to overeating and diffi-
culties with adherence. Rather, the criteria
in this study are simply a tool, just like mac-
ros or the degree of processing, to help steer
food choices.
• doesn't apply to liquid food sources

• highly palatability doesn't automatically mean
LIMITATIONS you'll overeat a food
• high palatability shouldn't alone be used as a
criteria for food choice

While you don't need these criteria to
identify most highly palatable foods, it can
be useful for those foods that seem border-
81
line or that you're not sure about. It can be a
helpful guide to you or your clients when it
comes to grocery shopping and which foods
to choose to keep in your personal home en-
vironment. However, it should be used in
a flexible rather than rigid manner. Reduc-
ing intake of hyperpalatable foods is a good
idea, but there's more to overeating than hy-
perpalatability. A flexible diet plan can have
room for some hyperpalatable foods, espe-
cially if they're not energy dense (another
factor in overeating). Appropriate use of this
tool may vary from one person to the next.
Personal preferences and the needs of the
individual need to be taken into account.
• this hyperpalatable food categorization tool can be useful to
identify hyperpalatable foods that you seem borderline or that
you're not sure about
• It should be used in a flexible, not rigid, manner
• reducing intake of hyperpalatable foods is helpful, but there's
more to overeating than hyperpalatability
• A flexible diet plan can have room for some hyperpalatable
foods, especially if they're not energy dense
• personal preferences and individual needs should be taken into
account
REFERENCE
Fazzino et al. Hyper-palatable foods: development of a

quantitative definition and application to the US food
system database. Obesity. 27(11):1761-1768, 2019
82
PA ST B LA ST:
FAT LOSS
NEAT reduction: a matter of efficiency
BY JAMES KRIEGER
I n the past, I've extensively discussed

the role of non-exercise activity ther-
mogenesis (NEAT) on body weight regula-
tion. I've shown you research out of Rudolph
Leibel's lab where people who had lost at
least 10% of their weight, and kept it off for
a year, had reduced energy expenditures and
metabolisms. These reductions were greater
than you would expect based on the weight
83
loss alone. The reduction in metabolic rate
amounted to around 150 calories per day,
while the reduction in activity energy ex-
penditure was quite a bit larger at nearly 400
calories per day. The total reduction in en-
ergy expenditure was around 500 calories
per day. Thus, when you lose weight, your
body tries to conserve energy by slowing its
metabolism and subconsciously decreasing
your physical activity levels. These reduc-
tions are sustained even if you've kept the
" these reductions are sustained

even if you've kept the weight off
for a year "
weight off for over a year. This is one reason
why it's so easy to regain weight. Your body
are "primed" for weight gain by a reduction
in the number of calories burned per day.
To battle this, you have to make a conscious
effort to keep your physical activity high. In
fact, I've written about how physical activi-
ty levels can predict how much weight you
84
will regain after you lose it. I've also written
about how devices like pedometers or accel-
erometers can help give you the feedback
you need to keep overall activity high.
While this data tells us that energy ex-
penditure decreases with weight loss, it
doesn't tell us much about why it happens.
What is going on in the muscles that could
be contributing to these reductions in energy
expenditure? Again, we turn to data from Ru-
dolph Leibel's lab to help answer this ques-
tion.
THE STUDY
subjects 18 obese and 12 never obese
groups • 10% weight loss
• 10% weight gain
weight change followed by a 2-week period of

weight stability
setting highly controlled metabolic ward
diets liquid formula diets to achieve precise con-
trol of calorie & nutrient intake and body
weight
A total of 30 subjects participated in this

study. Of these subjects, 18 were obese and
12 had never been obese. The subjects were
studied when they were at their maximum
lifetime weight, which they had maintained
within a 4 pound range for at least 6 months
85
prior to enrollment in the study. The subjects
were in-patients at the research center. They
were weighed daily at 6 AM, and all of their
meals were provided to them. They were
fed a liquid formula diet that contained 40%
fat, 45% carbohydrate, and 15% protein.
The amount of formula was adjusted un-
til the subjects had a stable weight (defined
as a weight variation of less than 10 grams
per day for at least 2 weeks). Thus, this study
was very tightly controlled.
Once the subjects had achieved a steady
body weight, 18 of the obese and 7 of the
non-obese subjects were provided 800 cal-
ories per day of the same formula diet until
they lost at least 10% of their weight. It took
anywhere from 36 to 62 days for the sub-
jects to achieve this weight loss. Once the
10% weight loss was achieved, the caloric
intake was increased until the subjects were
again weight stable for at least 2 weeks
The five remaining non-obese subjects
were provided a maximum tolerated in-
take of self-selected foods (generally 5,000
to 8,000 calories per day) until they had a
10% weight gain. This took about 4-6 weeks
to achieve. The caloric intake was adjusted
downwards once the subjects reached their
86
target weight so they would become weight
stable again for at least 2 weeks.
Before and after the body weight change,
the subjects underwent a number of tests.
Total 24-hour energy expenditure was deter-
mined by the number of calories the subjects
needed to keep a steady weight. Resting en-
ergy expenditure (or resting metabolic rate)
was measured using a metabolic hood, and
the thermic effect of feeding (the calories
you burn digesting food) was measured by
• 24-hour energy expenditure

• thermic effect of feeding (calories burned digesting
food)
• non-resting energy expenditure or neat
measurements • respiratory exchange ratio (rer, a marker of how
much oxygen goes towards fat versus carb burning)
• muscle work efficiency
• enzymes related to metabolism
determining the elevation in metabolic rate

after the subjects ingested the liquid formu-
la. Non-resting energy expenditure (or the
energy expenditure from physical activity or
NEAT) was calculated as:
Non-resting energy expenditure = Total en-

ergy expenditure - (resting energy expendi-
ture + thermic effect of feeding)
87
The fuel burned by muscle during exercise
on a stationary bike was measured using a
technique called magnetic resonance spec-
troscopy. During this cycle test, the sub-
jects pedaled at a constant 60 revolutions
per minute. The resistance was gradually in-
creased every 4 minutes, so that the subjects
generated 10 watts, 25 watts, and 50 watts
of power at each successive stage. A meta-
bolic cart was used to determine energy ex-
penditure and the respiratory exchange ratio
(RER, a measure of how much fat versus how
much carbohydrate you are burning). Mus-
cle work efficiency (the number of calories
needed to perform work in relation to the
total calories burned) was also calculated. To
look at the effects of weight loss on the en-
zyme content of the muscles themselves, the
researchers took muscle biopsies from the
thigh before and after the weight loss period.
These biopsies were tested for a number of
enzymes that are involved in metabolism.
THE RESULTS
Energy Expenditure. As you would expect,

total, resting, and non-resting energy ex-
penditure decreased with weight loss, while
88
Figure 1: Impact of 10% Weight Loss or
10% Weight Gain on Energy Expenditure
3500
3000
2500
Calories
2000
1500
1000
500
0
24-Hour Resting Nonresting 24-Hour Resting Nonresting
Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy
Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure Expenditure
10% Weight Loss 10% Weight Gain
Initial Final
From Goldsmith et al. (2010)
they all increased with weight gain (Figure 1).
Efficiency. In the weight loss group, the de-

creases in energy expenditure were accom-
panied by a significant increase in muscle
work efficiency on the cycle at 10 watts and
25 watts, which are very low power outputs
(think of cycling with a very, very light re-
sistance) (Figures 2 and 3). In fact, the sub-
jects burned 15% less calories for the same
workload after adjusting for resting energy
expenditure (Figure 2). In the weight gain
group, there was a significant increase in en-
ergy expenditure at the lowest power out-
put and a non-significant increase at the 25
watt power output (Figure 2). There was a
decrease in efficiency, but it was only statis-
89
Figure 2: Impact of Weight Loss or Gain on
Energy Expenditure at Fixed Workloads
5
Calories/Min - REE
4
3
2
1
0
10 Watts 25 Watts 50 Watts 10 Watts 25 Watts 50 Watts
Initial Final
Figure 3: Impact of Weight Loss or Gain on

Efficiency at Fixed Workloads
0.25
0.2
Efficiency
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
10 Watts 25 Watts 50 Watts 10 Watts 25 Watts 50 Watts
Initial Final
tically significant at the lowest power output

(Figure 3).
RER and Muscle Enzymes. The increase in

efficiency with weight loss was accompa-
nied by a 12% increase in the fraction of
calories derived from fat burning (as deter-
mined by a decrease in RER) versus carbohy-
90
drate burning at 10 watts, and a 7% increase
at 25 watts. No changes were observed at
50 watts. These changes were also accom-
panied by changes in the enzyme activity
of the muscles. There was a significant de-
crease in the activity of the enzyme phos-
phofructokinase (PFK), an enzyme involved
in carbohydrate burning. Cytochrome c oxi-
dase (COX, an enzyme involved in fat burn-
ing) activity remained unchanged; however,
the ratio of PFK activity to COX activity sig-
nificantly decreased by 24%. Thus, there was
a shift in enzyme activity to favor more fat
burning during exercise, which was reflect-
ed by the RER data. After the 10% weight
loss, both the increase in muscle efficiency
and the decrease in RER significantly corre-
lated with the changes in the PFK/COX ratio
when cycling at 10 watts. Opposite changes
were observed in the weight gain group, al-
though not statistically significant.
This study showed that your body resists

changes in body weight by changing its en-
ergy expenditure and efficiency. Weight loss
is accompanied by a decrease in energy ex-
91
penditure and increase in efficiency, while
weight gain is accompanied by an increase in
energy expenditure and decrease in efficien-
cy. You might be wondering, if the body re-
sists weight change in both directions, why
keeping weight off is so much harder than
gaining it. This is because your body's signals
to resist weight loss are much stronger than
the signals to resist weight gain. You even
see some of that in this study, where the
" your body's signals to resist

weight loss are much stronger
than the signals to resist weight
gain "
changes in energy expenditure and efficiency

were statistically significant for 10% weight
loss, but not always for 10% weight gain.
This data clearly shows that one of the
mechanisms behind how your body reduc-
es its energy expenditure with weight loss
is by increasing the efficiency at which your
muscles work. You burn less calories for the
same workload and movement. This was
shown during light activity (the 10 and 25
92
watt workloads), but not moderate activity
(the 50 watt workload). Since the majority of
your day is spent engaged in light activity or
non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT),
this means the increase in efficiency will im-
pact you during most of your day.
How can you counteract this increase in
efficiency? One way is through a deliberate
increase in your total physical activity levels
(like increased step counts). Another way is
with resistance training. In another research
" resistance training may coun-

teract the increase in efficiency
that occurs with weight loss "
review, I showed you how resistance train-

ing may counteract the increase in efficiency
that occurs with weight loss.
This increase in efficiency was accompa-
nied by a decrease in the activity of PFK, an
enzyme involved in carbohydrate burning.
There was a shift towards a greater percent-
age of calories derived from fat burning ver-
sus carbohydrate. You might think that this
is a good thing, but, in this particular case
93
when combined with an increase in efficien-
cy, it may not be. Fat is a more efficient en-
ergy source because it contains 9 calories
per gram (it gives you more "bang for your
buck"); thus your body can conserve calories
by tapping into this more efficient source of
energy during light activity. In other words,
you might be burning a higher percentage
of calories from fat, but you're burning less
calories overall. This is the same reason why
the idea of the "fat-burning zone" (i.e., light
to moderate exercise which you burn a high-
" the idea of the 'fat-burning

zone' is a myth "
er percentage of calories from fat) is a myth,

because you burn less calories (and less fat
overall) at lower exercise intensities, despite
burning a higher percentage of those calories
from fat.

One of the reasons you burn less calories
when you lose weight is because you be-
come more efficient performing your activi-
94
ties of daily living. You burn less calories for
the exact same movement, and this decrease
in calorie burn is greater than you would ex-
pect based on the weight loss alone. This
increase in efficiency is accompanied by
changes in enzyme activity in your muscles,
as your muscles try to get more "bang for
the buck". Your body is trying to conserve
energy, which makes it very easy to regain
weight.
• your body reduces energy expenditure with weight loss through
decreasing your movement and increasing the efficiency with
which you move (i.e., you burn less calories for the same move-
ment)
• you can counteract this increase in efficiency with a combina-
tion of increased overall physical activity (like step counts)
and regular resistance training
There are two ways to counteract this.

The first is a deliberate and conscious effort
to dramatically increase your overall move-
ment and NEAT levels during the day. The
other way is with regular resistance training.
If you combine the two, you'll maximize your
chances of minimizing these impacts on en-
ergy expenditure and efficiency with weight
loss.
95
REFERENCE
Goldsmith et al. Effects of experimental weight per-

turbation on skeletal muscle work efficiency, fuel uti-
lization, and biochemistry in human subjects. Ameri-
can Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative, and
Comparative Physiology. 298(1):R79-R88, 2010
96
PA ST B LA ST:
FAT LOSS
Breakfast: metabolism booster or bust-

er?
BY JAMES KRIEGER
I t has often been claimed by some di-

etitians and others in fitness circles
that you need to eat breakfast because it is
supposed to "boost your metabolism." The
question becomes as to whether that is re-
ally true. There are epidemiological studies
that suggest an association between break-
fast skipping and body weight gain, insu-
lin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. Howev-
97
er, epidemiological studies cannot establish
cause and effect; they can only show asso-
ciations. It could also be that breakfast skip-
ping merely tends to be associated with poor
eating habits in the general population. Cer-
tainly, when one looks at the success of peo-
ple who follow time-restricted intermittent
fasting protocols, who do not eat breakfast,
one would have a hard time believing that
breakfast skipping would have any harm-
ful effects on metabolism. Nevertheless, the
only true answers can be provided through
scientific research. Let's take a look at a
study that examined the effects of breakfast
skipping on metabolism and energy expendi-
ture.
THE STUDY
Eight male young adults participated in the

study. The study was a randomized crossover
design, meaning that each subject received
two treatments in a random order: breakfast
or no breakfast. Subjects participated in two
sessions in a room-size respiratory chamber,
each for 24 hours. The chamber measured
oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide
production. With those measurements, the
98
researchers were able to calculate energy ex-
penditure and glucose, fat, and protein oxi-
dation. In the breakfast condition, subjects
were provided breakfast at 8 am, lunch at
noon, and dinner at 7 pm. n the no break-
fast condition, subjects were just given lunch
and dinner, but calorie intake was higher so
that calorie intake and total macro intake
was identical between the conditions (2,190
calories, 91 g protein, 328 g carb, 51 g fat).
Sessions were performed 1 week apart.
subjects 8 YOUNG MEN

CONDITIONS • BREAKFAST
• NO BREAKFAST
calories & macros 2190 calories
91 g protein
328 g carb
51 g fat
THE RESULTS
There were no significant differences be-

tween the conditions for 24-hour energy
expenditure, thermic effect of feeding (the
calories you burn digesting food), and ener-
gy expenditure in the inactive state. There
were also no significant differences in protein
oxidation, fat oxidation, and carbohydrate
oxidation. Interestingly, sleeping metabolic
99
rate was significantly higher in the group that
skipped breakfast, but this did not translate
into greater 24-hour energy expenditure.
3 meals 2 meals (no breakfast)

24-Hour energy ex- 2223 2231
penditure
energy expenditure 2121 2170
in inactive state
sleeping metabolic 1789 1868
rate
thermic effect of 332 303
feeding
protein oxidation 317 344
fat oxidation 503 515
carb oxidation 1368 1333
One findings was that blood glucose was

significantly higher after lunch and during
sleep in the no-breakfast condition. This
translated into 24-hour average glucose be-
ing higher in the no-breakfast condition
compared to the 3-meal condition (89 vs 83
mg/dl, respectively). This could suggest low-
er glucose tolerance in the no-breakfast con-
dition.
Spontaneous physical activity was as-
sessed using a wrist motion sensor, and was
similar between the two conditions.
100
This study dispels the myth that eating

breakfast will boost your metabolism. Total
daily energy expenditure was identical be-
tween the conditions. This indicates that
24-hour metabolism has nothing to do with
when you eat. Sure, eating breakfast boosts
metabolism in the morning due to the higher
thermic effect of feeding than not eating, but
skipping breakfast and eating more for lunch
" there's no difference over 24

hours as long as calorie intake is
the same "
and dinner will have the same effect in the

evening. Thus, there's no difference over 24
hours as long as calorie intake is the same.
Carbohydrate and fat burning showed similar
results. Overall, it is the 24-hour net amount
that matters.
One might view the increase in 24-hour
blood glucose as a concern and potential
detriment of breakfast skipping. However,
it should also be noted that these individu-
101
als were habitual breakfast eaters. Skipping
breakfast disrupted their natural circadian
rhythms in regards to meals and blood sugar
control. If these individuals had been adapt-
ed to a 2-meal per day schedule over a pe-
riod of weeks, things might be different. In
fact, evidence indicates that more narrow
feeding windows may have beneficial effects
on glucose metabolism and other factors.
The biggest limitation to this study is the
small sample size, although the crossover de-
" more narrow feeding windows

may have beneficial effects on
glucose metabolism and other
factors "
sign helps with statistical power. Also, the
study was on young men. This doesn't mean
the results would be the same for women,
for people of older ages, or overweight or
obese people (the subjects were of normal
weight). Still, I don't see any reason why re-
sults would be different in any other group.
102

There's no need to worry about skipping
breakfast having a detrimental effect on your
energy expenditure. The body always "finds a
way" when calorie intake and macronutrient
intake are matched over 24-hours. This un-
derlines the importance of hitting your cal-
orie and macronutrient targets, rather than
worrying about when you are eating.
• skipping breakfast won't have an adverse effect on energy ex-
penditure, and eating breakfast won't "boost" your metabolism
over a 24-hour period as long as total calorie intake remains
the same
• the decision to consume breakfast should be based on personal
preferences and individual needs
• it's most important to hit your calorie and macro targets
REFERENCE
Kobayashi et al. Effect of breakfast skipping on diur-

nal variation of energy metabolism and blood glucose.
Obesity Research & Clinical Practice. 8(3):e249-e257,
2014
103
About the Author
J ames Krieger is the found-

er of Weightology and a
published scientist, author,
speaker, and coach in the field
of exercise and nutrition. He
has a M.S. in Nutrition from the University
of Florida and a second M.S. in Exercise Sci-
ence from Washington State University. He
has published research in prestigious scien-
tific journals, including the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Ap-
plied Physiology, and has collaborated with
notable scientists such as Dr. Brad Schoen-
feld. He is the former research director for
a corporate weight management program
that treated over 400 people per year, with
an average weight loss of 40 pounds in 3
months. He has been involved in the field for
over 20 years and has written over 500 arti-
cles.
104
105

Weightology Research Review January 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weightology Research Review January 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH REVIEW

The latest science on By James Krieger

MUSCLE GAIN FAT LOSS

MUSCLE GAIN MUSCLE GAIN

MUSCLE GAIN FAT LOSS

PAST BLAST: FAT LOSS PAST BLAST: FAT LOSS

T he debate on whether you need to

" you need to train hard, but not

Overall, this data indicates you need to

Ten men between the ages of 18 and

subjects 10 UNTRAINED MEN

tric (positive or raising portion of the lift) and

• MUSCLE SIZE (RECTUS FEMORIS AND VASTUS LATERALIS)

reserve on the 2nd to last set, a rep was re-

Muscle Size. There were no statistically sig-

Figure 1: Impact of Failure vs. No Failure

From Lacerda et al. (2019)

Figure 2: Individual Responses From Lacerda et al. (2019)

Strength, Endurance, and Muscle Activation.

Figure 2: Impact of Failure vs. No Failure

From Lacerda et al. (2019)

RPE and Estimated Reps to Failure. RPE was

This study showed statistically similar size

" training to failure didn't offer

Keep in mind that this was based on av-

" there's a genetic component to

" do your own personal experi-

" while training variables play a

" this is the best evidence to date

• small sample size

even when sets aren't taken to failure. In

Lacerda et al. Is performing repetitions to failure less

I n the November 2019 issue, you

DID YOU KNOW?

were done on college students, which may

The researchers recruited 134 adults be-

subjects 134 adults

the study conditions). There was a 46% dif-

There was no clear impact of plate size on

Figure 1: Impact of Plate Size on Calorie

WHAT'S THIS MEAN TO YOU?

There wasn't any clear effect of plate size

" plate size probably doesn't

" previous meta-analyses overes-

• better design than previous studies

While it's popular for people to recom-

Kosite et al. Plate size and food consumption: a

I n the first article of this issue, you

" stopping well short of failure

Twenty five untrained men (ages 19-34)

subjects 25 untrained men

low load (30% 1-RM)

other leg: sets using 60% of the average reps per

rest intervals 2 minutes

9 reps to failure with 50 kg, then the aver-

Muscle Size. Muscle size increased simi-

Figure 1: Impact of Training to Failure

Failure No Failure (60% of max total reps)

From Lasevicius et al. (2019)

Failure No Failure (60% of max total reps)

From Lasevicius et al. (2019)

(Figure 1). However, muscle size did not sig-