MrRippedZilla
Retired
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,706
- Reaction score
- 3,522
- Points
- 153
Exercise dosing to retain resistance training adaptations in young and older adults
A common question among lifters is "how much volume do I need in order to maintain my gainz?" and this paper certainly helped us get closer to an answer. It is in beginners, and they only trained legs, but its better than the alternative (which is nothing at all). Full paper, as always, is available via PM
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/f...e_Dosing_to_Retain_Resistance_Training.7.aspx
Abstract:
Resistance training (RT) is a proven sarcopenia countermeasure with a high degree of potency. However, sustainability remains a major issue that could limit the appeal of RT as a therapeutic approach without well-defined dosing requirements to maintain gains.
PURPOSE
To test the efficacy of two maintenance prescriptions on muscle mass, myofiber size and type distribution, and strength. We hypothesized the minimum dose required to maintain RT-induced adaptations would be greater in the old (60-75 yr) versus young (20-35 yr).
METHODS
Seventy adults participated in a two-phase exercise trial that consisted of RT 3 d·wk for 16 wk (phase 1) followed by a 32-wk period (phase 2) with random assignment to detraining or one of two maintenance prescriptions (reducing the dose to one-third or one-ninth of that during phase 1).
RESULTS
Phase 1 resulted in expected gains in strength, myofiber size, and muscle mass along with the typical IIx-to-IIa shift in myofiber-type distribution. Both maintenance prescriptions preserved phase 1 muscle hypertrophy in the young but not the old. In fact, the one-third maintenance dose led to additional myofiber hypertrophy in the young. In both age groups, detraining reversed the phase 1 IIx-to-IIa myofiber-type shift, whereas a dose response was evident during maintenance training with the one-third dose better maintaining the shift. Strength gained during phase 1 was largely retained throughout detraining with only a slight reduction at the final time point.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that older adults require a higher dose of weekly loading than the young to maintain myofiber hypertrophy attained during a progressive RT program, yet gains in specific strength among older adults were well preserved and remained at or above levels of the untrained young.
What they did...
We've got some young (average age 27.5) and old (average age 64.1) beginners going through a 16 week progression phase followed by a 32 week maintenance phase involving either 1/3 of the original training volume, 1/9 of the volume, or nothing at all (detraining) exclusively for the legs.
The training programme consisted of:
- Leg extensions, leg press and squats.
- 3 sets of 8-12 for all movements, done 3x week
- 90 seconds rest between sets, total session time was approx. 35mins.
- Progression was based on increasing weight on the bar, which was done when the subjects could complete 12 reps for at least 2/3 sets prescribed.
During maintenance:
- The 1/3 volume group did everything the same except cut training frequency down to 1/week.
- The 1/9 volume group also cut frequency down to 1/week but also only did 1 set per movement. Intensity (weight on the bar) and exercise selection were maintained for both groups.
- The detraining group did no lifting whatsoever.
What they found...
The older subjects were unable to maintain hypertrophy (or the switch in myofiber types from IIx>IIa) in any of the groups but were able (mostly) to maintain strength with 1/3 volume. So the authors were correct in hypothesizing that the minimum training volume to maintain gainz in older subjects would be higher.
The younger subjects continued to make both strength & muscle gainz even with 1/3 of the original volume and were still able to maintain muscle/strength with 1/9 volume.
Discussion
This study ranks pretty damn high when it comes to practical applicability. It was published in 2010 and, honestly, I'm disappointed that no one has taken the excellent ground work laid down here and gone a bit further with it by addressing some of the limitations here. Those limitations consist of not tracking diet, only training legs and using beginners.
Dietary changes influence muscle adaptations and play a huge role in prescribing a "maintenance level" of training volume. In fact, the biggest question I get when it comes to maintaining gainz revolves around how much volume to use when dieting. It's a difficult question for me to answer here for fear of not providing enough detail but the size of the deficit (not just initial, but total deficit across the time frame of dieting) and carb intake are the big 2 influences on training volume. The bigger the deficit & the lower the carb intake = the more training volume should be adjusted down.
The data taken as a whole does suggest that legs require more volume than the upper body for growth, maintenance, etc so safe to assume that the volume required to maintain upper body gains would be less than that used here. My own data certainly backs this is up with muscle loss coming from the legs first in most cases.
Beginners obviously respond better to training than advanced trainees due to the simple fact that its a brand new stimulus and that leads to another relatively safe assumption - advanced trainees will require more volume than prescribed here to maintain gainz.
The fact the young subjects continued to progress lifting once per week, for 3 sets per movement = 9 total sets per week with an uptrending dose-reponse is pretty ****ing amazing. It also supports what I've commonly advised folks in that keeping things simple is the ideal approach for beginners. Use the least volume necessary to achieve results and no more. It's better for long term progression since you have more room to play with going forward and efficiency is maximized - which is always a good thing.
Another interesting result was that the preservation of strength during detraining was not dependent upon preserving muscle. In other words, losing muscle does NOT automatically equal losing strength. This builds on previous data showing muscle to be much easier to lose than motor unit activation, neuromuscular coordination, etc during detraining. Of course this does question the validity of using strength as a proxy for muscle loss during dieting and should give you readers an idea as to why I use 8-10RM numbers as an indicator rather than 1-3RM.
Summary
The main takeaway for most is that it takes a lot less work to maintain your gainz than you probably thought originally.
In young beginners, training legs only, one 9-set session per week is more than enough to maintain hypetrophy & strength.
In older beginners, that same volume is only enough to preserve strength and more is needed for muscle. Experimenting with 2 session per week (same volume) seems like a good idea (equivalent to 50-66% of the original training volume).
It's impossible for me to prescribe specific recommendations for those who don't fit into the population studied here (beginners, legs only, etc) since it will take too long and is based mostly on experience but if someone has a specific example they want me to comment on then feel free to post here or PM me.
A common question among lifters is "how much volume do I need in order to maintain my gainz?" and this paper certainly helped us get closer to an answer. It is in beginners, and they only trained legs, but its better than the alternative (which is nothing at all). Full paper, as always, is available via PM
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/f...e_Dosing_to_Retain_Resistance_Training.7.aspx
Abstract:
Resistance training (RT) is a proven sarcopenia countermeasure with a high degree of potency. However, sustainability remains a major issue that could limit the appeal of RT as a therapeutic approach without well-defined dosing requirements to maintain gains.
PURPOSE
To test the efficacy of two maintenance prescriptions on muscle mass, myofiber size and type distribution, and strength. We hypothesized the minimum dose required to maintain RT-induced adaptations would be greater in the old (60-75 yr) versus young (20-35 yr).
METHODS
Seventy adults participated in a two-phase exercise trial that consisted of RT 3 d·wk for 16 wk (phase 1) followed by a 32-wk period (phase 2) with random assignment to detraining or one of two maintenance prescriptions (reducing the dose to one-third or one-ninth of that during phase 1).
RESULTS
Phase 1 resulted in expected gains in strength, myofiber size, and muscle mass along with the typical IIx-to-IIa shift in myofiber-type distribution. Both maintenance prescriptions preserved phase 1 muscle hypertrophy in the young but not the old. In fact, the one-third maintenance dose led to additional myofiber hypertrophy in the young. In both age groups, detraining reversed the phase 1 IIx-to-IIa myofiber-type shift, whereas a dose response was evident during maintenance training with the one-third dose better maintaining the shift. Strength gained during phase 1 was largely retained throughout detraining with only a slight reduction at the final time point.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that older adults require a higher dose of weekly loading than the young to maintain myofiber hypertrophy attained during a progressive RT program, yet gains in specific strength among older adults were well preserved and remained at or above levels of the untrained young.
What they did...
We've got some young (average age 27.5) and old (average age 64.1) beginners going through a 16 week progression phase followed by a 32 week maintenance phase involving either 1/3 of the original training volume, 1/9 of the volume, or nothing at all (detraining) exclusively for the legs.
The training programme consisted of:
- Leg extensions, leg press and squats.
- 3 sets of 8-12 for all movements, done 3x week
- 90 seconds rest between sets, total session time was approx. 35mins.
- Progression was based on increasing weight on the bar, which was done when the subjects could complete 12 reps for at least 2/3 sets prescribed.
During maintenance:
- The 1/3 volume group did everything the same except cut training frequency down to 1/week.
- The 1/9 volume group also cut frequency down to 1/week but also only did 1 set per movement. Intensity (weight on the bar) and exercise selection were maintained for both groups.
- The detraining group did no lifting whatsoever.
What they found...
The older subjects were unable to maintain hypertrophy (or the switch in myofiber types from IIx>IIa) in any of the groups but were able (mostly) to maintain strength with 1/3 volume. So the authors were correct in hypothesizing that the minimum training volume to maintain gainz in older subjects would be higher.
The younger subjects continued to make both strength & muscle gainz even with 1/3 of the original volume and were still able to maintain muscle/strength with 1/9 volume.
Discussion
This study ranks pretty damn high when it comes to practical applicability. It was published in 2010 and, honestly, I'm disappointed that no one has taken the excellent ground work laid down here and gone a bit further with it by addressing some of the limitations here. Those limitations consist of not tracking diet, only training legs and using beginners.
Dietary changes influence muscle adaptations and play a huge role in prescribing a "maintenance level" of training volume. In fact, the biggest question I get when it comes to maintaining gainz revolves around how much volume to use when dieting. It's a difficult question for me to answer here for fear of not providing enough detail but the size of the deficit (not just initial, but total deficit across the time frame of dieting) and carb intake are the big 2 influences on training volume. The bigger the deficit & the lower the carb intake = the more training volume should be adjusted down.
The data taken as a whole does suggest that legs require more volume than the upper body for growth, maintenance, etc so safe to assume that the volume required to maintain upper body gains would be less than that used here. My own data certainly backs this is up with muscle loss coming from the legs first in most cases.
Beginners obviously respond better to training than advanced trainees due to the simple fact that its a brand new stimulus and that leads to another relatively safe assumption - advanced trainees will require more volume than prescribed here to maintain gainz.
The fact the young subjects continued to progress lifting once per week, for 3 sets per movement = 9 total sets per week with an uptrending dose-reponse is pretty ****ing amazing. It also supports what I've commonly advised folks in that keeping things simple is the ideal approach for beginners. Use the least volume necessary to achieve results and no more. It's better for long term progression since you have more room to play with going forward and efficiency is maximized - which is always a good thing.
Another interesting result was that the preservation of strength during detraining was not dependent upon preserving muscle. In other words, losing muscle does NOT automatically equal losing strength. This builds on previous data showing muscle to be much easier to lose than motor unit activation, neuromuscular coordination, etc during detraining. Of course this does question the validity of using strength as a proxy for muscle loss during dieting and should give you readers an idea as to why I use 8-10RM numbers as an indicator rather than 1-3RM.
Summary
The main takeaway for most is that it takes a lot less work to maintain your gainz than you probably thought originally.
In young beginners, training legs only, one 9-set session per week is more than enough to maintain hypetrophy & strength.
In older beginners, that same volume is only enough to preserve strength and more is needed for muscle. Experimenting with 2 session per week (same volume) seems like a good idea (equivalent to 50-66% of the original training volume).
It's impossible for me to prescribe specific recommendations for those who don't fit into the population studied here (beginners, legs only, etc) since it will take too long and is based mostly on experience but if someone has a specific example they want me to comment on then feel free to post here or PM me.
