Thursday, August 26, 2010

High Reps vs Low Reps For Muscle Gain: Roundtable With The Experts

Share
Do high reps build more muscle than low reps? This is the first hot topic up for discussion in this upcoming series of roundtables where I bring together the brightest minds in nutrition and weight training science.

Besides the original four horsemen, that is yours truly, Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon and Borge Fagerli, I have invited James Krieger to the table.

Lyle and Alan hardly need any introduction but what about these other cats?

James Krieger has a very impressive set of credentials and his input today will be very valuable due to his experience as a published scientist. He's done a great deal of research and published several peer-reviewed articles on weight training. Most known among these is his extensive research on single vs multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy.

Some of you might not be familiar with Borge but that's just because I, Lyle and Alan prefer to keep him a secret and use him for fun and profit. Just kidding... Borge is the CEO of MyRevolution, a Norwegian supplement company and fitness community. He is also a respected fitness and bodybuilding coach with a tremendous amount of real world experience and many interesting ideas. If you're looking for a new and effective way to approach weight training, check out his Myo-reps protocol.

Today we'll discuss a study that has been causing quite a stir in the fitness and bodybuilding community since it was published two weeks ago.

Read the free full text version here: Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men

My reflections and summary of the study, and questions to the attendees, follows below.


Intro


A recent study showed that 4 sets of leg extensions to failure at 30% 1RM was superior to 4 sets to failure at 90% 1RM.

In practical terms, this seems to suggest that you'd get more muscle growth from squatting with 120 lbs for high reps than squatting with 360 lbs for low reps if your 1RM squat is 400 lbs.

This was not a perfect study by any means. For example, there was a tremendous gap in terms of work volume between the 30% and the 90% group (96 reps vs 20 reps). It would also have been more interesting to see a middle group in the 75-85% range (6-10 reps), rather than only comparing extremes.

Still, I think the results came as a surprise to many, including me. Various theories and explanations for the results has been voiced, such as the lower body being more responsive to higher reps, as well as problems with the study methodology itself (sample size being too small).

Nevertheless, at a first glance this study seems to suggest that the "pump 'n' tone"-routines we so often poke fun at are more effective than lower reps - at least when it comes to leg training.

Anecdotally, I've actually had my best results from leg training with 20-rep breathing squats. However, breathing squats are a different animal in the sense that you are not performing reps in a continuous motion. Rather it basically ends up being a rest-pause protocol with your 10-12RM weight. Not quite the same as working with your 30% 1RM weight. In recent years, I have shied away from high rep leg training since I require a long time to recover from it. The DOMS is infernal and going over 15 reps on lower body movements is an overall unpleasant experience.

Questions

1. Given the issues with this study, do you think the author's conclusion, that high rep leg training is more effective than low rep leg training, may be right?

2. What are your own experiences regarding leg training? Do you think that legs should be trained in a different fashion than the upper body for optimal muscle growth? This study looked at leg extensions, which target the quads. How about glutes, calves and hamstrings?



James Krieger




1. I don't think the authors can make such a broad conclusion, given the study design. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that 4 sets of failure at 30% 1RM stimulates more protein synthesis than 4 sets of failure at 90% 1RM. This result doesn't surprise me given the much greater volume of work in the 30% 1RM group.

I know Stu Phillips personally and worked with him on a protein advisory committee. He does very good work, but I'm surprised they did this study in the way they did. Kumar et al (2008) already have a study like this, and it was better in the sense that they kept the volume load equal between conditions. They also did leg extensions, and they found an increasing protein synthesis response as you went from 20% 1RM to 60% 1RM, with no further increase beyond that.

However, when you look at Kumar's data, the young subjects showed a trend for increases up to 75% 1RM until a plateau was finally reached; I think the lack of significance in the 60-75% range was more an issue of statistical power. So that data would indicate that the middle range that is so popular likely is optimal for hypertrophy.

Another problem with this particular paper is they only looked at protein synthesis. However, hypertrophy is the result of protein synthesis exceeding protein degradation. Really you need to look at net protein accretion and not just the synthesis response in isolation. Without protein degradation data it's really hard to say which one did better.

I think this paper does indicate that there is value to "light" days, and you can obviously stimulate protein synthesis even if you're not using heavy weights. I think too many people are caught up in the notion that every work out must be heavy to get benefit out of it.

2. In terms of legs, there certainly is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people tend to do better with slightly higher repetitions and volumes for the legs. However, I don't know if anyone has truly put this to the test experimentally. Intuitively, it makes sense...since you're walking around on your legs all day, it takes a bigger stimulus to the system to see an increase in protein synthesis. Like you, Martin, I've tended to do better with legs in the 10-12 rep range while better with upper body in the 6-10 range.


Borge Fagerli




1. There are a few caveats with this study. The first and most obvious one is that it was a short-term study only looking at markers for protein synthesis, to conclude anything at all you would need a longer-term study showing actual muscle accretion. There are studies showing how endurance training can lead to rebound MPS (muscle protein synthesis or myofibrillar protein synthesis), but you don’t really see any crazy hypertrophy in these protocols over time, do you?

Another one is the mode of exercise. Leg extensions are quite a different animal than e.g. squats or leg presses and I would like to see someone surviving 4 true sets to muscular failure with squats at 30% of 1RM.

With leg extensions, you can keep constant tension on the muscle, and thus reach a hypoxic state from the occlusion effect. We know that the occlusion effect leads to higher fiber recruitment and more metabolic/oxidative stress. So you really have to look at ‘effective’ reps in this protocol.

The first reps of the first set are essentially just work needed to reach this state of higher recruitment, the latter sets will reach higher recruitment levels earlier. This is exactly what my Myo-reps protocol is based on, and you would probably need do a lot less total reps to achieve the same effect, if the rest periods between sets were 10-20 seconds instead of 3 minutes. The 30%FAIL condition probably ended up around 50-70 ‘effective’ reps, whereas all 20 reps in the 90% group were ‘effective’ from a recruitment point of view.

All in all, the study shows that there is value in metabolic type training, but with the lack of actual long-term measurements of hypertrophy, I wouldn’t disregard the heavy stuff we all know works for getting big and strong. And remember the Goto et al study where the combination group of heavy + light had even better results than the heavy or light group. So do both.

2. Yes and no. You still need heavy progressive loading with sufficient volume and frequency to get a muscle to grow. The problem with legs is that it’s painful to push yourself closer to failure, and most people (yes, me too) will usually chicken out just when it begins to hurt, way before hitting true failure. And be rewarded with chicken legs for the effort.

For safety reasons, I wouldn’t want people to get stuck with their knees behind their ears in the bottom position of a leg press or at the bottom of a squat with their spines sticking out of their back, either.

So while you can argue that legs probably need more work since you walk around on them all day, it’s also a matter of doing more reps and sets to compensate for the inability to get enough ‘effective’ or ‘quality’ reps in any given set.


Alan Aragon





1. I'll echo Borge's mentioning that this was an acute study whose long-term effects are strictly speculative. Additionally, I'm baffled about the load intensities the authors chose to compare (30% vs. 90% of 1RM), especially for the purpose of investigating what might ultimately be better for hypertrophy (as opposed to performance measures like strength or endurance).

A detailed literature review by Wernbom et al suggested that 60-85% of 1RM tends to be the most effective at causing hypertrophy [1]. Specifically for the quads, they found the highest rates of hypertrophy occurred at intensities over 60% of 1RM. Importantly, this review examined the results of research lasting well beyond the acute phase, where measuring changes in muscular cross-sectional area are possible.

This conflict of data makes the present study's short-term outcomes highly questionable. In principle, this reminds me of an acute study by Deldicue et al, who found that fasted training increased molecular markers of anabolism to a greater extent than training in a fed state [2]. While this data is interesting, we just can't firmly conclude anything concrete from it. It's still speculative whether or not these were merely compensatory responses to a suboptimal protocol.

2. This varies with the individual, but I've found that it's best to go with a combination of what's been seen to work in the field as well as the research, taking sets to fatigue at roughly 6-12 reps (although Wernbom et al suggest 8-10 is best for the quads, which is appx 60-85% 1RM). As long as an uptrend in strength (increases in reps and/or load) is maintained over time in this range, hypertrophy will occur.

Bodybuilders have traditionally stuck to higher rep ranges for quads, regularly going into the teens. However, I think the increases in mass are far more attributable to progressive overload with sufficient total volume rather than the rep range per se.

For building hamstring and glute mass, I haven't personally experimented with reps outside of conventional ranges. For calves, I hate to sound fatalistic, but think that it's a matter of having picked the right parents. This is not to say that calves are impossible to bring up if they happen to suck; it's just that in my observations, people predisposed to crappy calves tend to struggle equally regardless of the load intensity imposed.

1) Wernbom M, et al. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.

2) Deldicue L, et al. Increased p70(s6k) phosphorylation during intake of a protein-carbohydrate drink following resistance exercise in the fasted state. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009 Nov 18.


Lyle McDonald



1. Well, after Blade and Alan's comments, I don't really have much to add to the topic. I too would have liked to have seen an intermediate intensity group (either matched or not matched for volume, possibly both). Certainly other work (e.g. the Wernbom review that Alan referenced) suggests that intermediate intensities are probably better than either extreme.

As well, with an acute study like this, it's hard to say what the long-term results would be in terms of growth. I agree that it is at least interesting given the bias most have towards heavier work for hypertrophy.

2. Empirically, many do seem to think that legs (or at least quads) respond better to higher reps. I have to think that part of this may be biomechanical especially in terms of squats. For some people, heavy low-rep squats turn into a pseudo good morning meaning that it's mainly low back stress and/or more stress thrown onto the glutes and hamstrings. For those people, higher reps allow a more upright torso meaning the opposite: less low back stress and more thrown onto the quads.

In keeping with that, Olympic lifters (for whom high reps in squats are 5) usually have pretty decent sized legs; of course most of them are also built to squat (and squat high bar).

Beyond that, like Alan, I can't say I've ever paid much attention to training glutes or hamstrings differentially to quads, typically using some mix of lower rep work (5-8, sometimes lower) for heavy compounds and following it up with additional higher rep work (10-12 or more) on more isolation work.

I do agree that 20 rep squats can be amazing but as you point out, it's more of a heavy rest-pause approach than what was being described in the paper in question.

---

Summary


1. 4 sets to failure at 30% 1RM increases protein synthesis more than 4 sets to failure at 90% 1RM. This is not surprising given the much greater training volume in the 30% 1RM group. The 30% 1RM group almost did five times as many reps as the 90% 1RM.

However, as everyone was quick to point out, only looking at protein synthesis does not tell the full story. A better marker for muscle growth would be protein balance/accretion (protein synthesis - protein breakdown), but in this study protein breakdown was not measured.

2. Other studies clearly show that a higher load is more effective in terms of increasing protein synthesis. James mentioned a study* which looked at intensities ranging from 20%-90% 1RM (i.e. 27 reps to 5 reps), suggesting the 75% 1RM load provided maximum MPS with no further increase beyond that.

* Read the free full text version here: "Age-related differences in the dose–response relationship of muscle protein synthesis to resistance exercise in young and old men"

3. It's very important to think long term and not get focused on the short term. It's also important to consider the "downstream effects" of every training session.

For example, consider squats using

German Volume Training (10 x 10 at 60% 1RM, 1x/week)

vs

Starting Strength (3 x 5 at 82-84% 1RM, 2-3x/week).

Lots of people have had success with the latter, very few with the former.

Even if a GVT squatting session increases protein synthesis more than a SS squatting session, there is no way you can do a GVT squatting session more than once a week. The absurd volume (100 reps is actually very close to the study we just discussed where subjects did 96 total reps) would also lead to whole body fatigue, predispose towards overtraining, hellish DOMS and negatively affect other lower body movements such as deadlifts.

Due to the crippling effect of GVT, properly cycled SS with 2-3x/week squatting wins out in the long-term; greater frequency and less negative downstream effects make up for a lower short term protein synthesis.

4. As a closing point, while this was an interesting study, the majority of the evidence still points to intermediate rep ranges being optimal for muscle growth.

5. As for our personal experiences, no one outright claimed greater results with either low reps or high reps exclusively. If anything, there was a tendency to favor intermediate rep ranges or using low(er) and high(er) reps in combination.


Highlights and take away lessons


James: "I think this paper does indicate that there is value to "light" days, and you can obviously stimulate protein synthesis even if you're not using heavy weights. I think too many people are caught up in the notion that every work out must be heavy to get benefit out of it."

Good point which goes in line with my own experiments with high frequency training.


Borge: "The problem with legs is that it’s painful to push yourself closer to failure, and most people (yes, me too) will usually chicken out just when it begins to hurt, way before hitting true failure".

Very true. I can count the people I've seen squatting close to their limit in the 10 rep+ range on...two fingers.


Alan: "In principle, this reminds me of an acute study by Deldicue et al, who found that fasted training increased molecular markers of anabolism to a greater extent than training in a fed state [2]. While this data is interesting, we just can't firmly conclude anything concrete from it."

Alan points out that acute response does not predict long-term results. I've actually written an article about the study Alan mentions. Read: "Fasted Training Boosts Muscle Growth?"


Lyle: "For some people, heavy low-rep squats turn into a pseudo good morning meaning that it's mainly low back stress and/or more stress thrown onto the glutes and hamstrings. For those people, higher reps allow a more upright torso meaning the opposite: less low back stress and more thrown onto the quads."

Great point by Lyle. Some people just aren't made for squatting and are better off using the leg press as their main leg movement. Check out Lyle's article on this topic: "Squat vs Leg Press for Big Legs".


---

Hope you enjoyed and learned something new from this roundtable. There will be more in the future.

Check out some other roundtables I've participated in:

Dirty vs Clean Dieting Roundtable

Intermittent Fasting Roundtable

BCAA Roundtable


75 comments:

Stephan said...

Hi Martin,

I know this blog is mostly focused on hypertrophy, but I would love to see more discussion on the best way to train for strength. Personally, I'm not concerned about bigger muscles but I wouldn't mind being stronger. I think it's a complex issue though, because functional strength for me is not just about 1RM, it's about muscular endurance as well.

Anonymous said...

i am with Stephan totally. who wants to DL 500lb if you can run 30minutes without dying? i guess there are people for everything. but at least for me: muscle efficiency, strength, aerobic endurance, etc...

Anonymous said...

Huh? I get so tired of all the theory...I'm 65 and was going nowhere with high intensity and low reps...switched to lighter with high reps and my body responded immediately and am starting to look better than ever before in my life. It has taken months of reading and study to cut thru all the BS...my advice,listen to your bod, and keep it simple. Great Blog.

Stefan said...

Great stuff guys. Would love to see more roundtables like this.


@Stephan: hypertrophy and strength go hand in hand, generally just have a focus on lower rep ranges (1-5) for neural training and then you can use assistance exercises for building muscle(5-12 range generally) which will, in turn, aid in becoming stronger.
However, if you're talking about strength-endurance then thats not training for true strength (1-3RM) and a whole different ball game.

anfeyd said...

Stefan,

Couldn't agree more. I do, however, think that the neural aspects of things can be accomplished with lower reps of anywhere between 70-85% intensity. Doesn't necessarily have to be above 90%.

FranklyMyDear said...

What do you guys think about Doug McGuff's "Body By Science" approach, which seems to be based more on time under load and progressive muscle fiber activation?

James Krieger said...

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this roundtable, Martin!

Darrin said...

Great to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I know I'm not the only one who experienced a little bit of cognitive dissonance over this study. But, as others have noted, the lower body does hypothetically appear more suited to low-intensity movements.

Clement said...

I'm no expert, but I can certainly attest that the 'pump' does not build hard, dense muscle or make you stronger. It makes you look good for a few days and then the muscles literally deflate like a balloon. I think that mixing up your training is what really works. By switching to extremely high reps, gains can be achieved more easily. Also, highER reps build muscle faster in the lower body. I've found that to be true for me too.

More roundtables, please!

Robert said...

Martin, et al,

Roundtable = brotastic.

As usual, insightful and awesome. I'm eager to see more of these.

Anonymous said...

This came out great, Martin. I figured that a certain amount of overlap was inevitable, but it's still good to see the subtly different angles within each view.

Thanks for inviting me to pitch in, & thanks to all who contributed.

-Alan Aragon

Amar said...

I'd like to hear commentary on how the Repeated Bout Effect (a la Bryan Haycock) relates to this study.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed this.

IME, hypertrophy will occur with progressive overload provided that nutritional needs are met. It will be interesting to see what is optimal; however, strict adherence to "Max OT" or "Pump and Tone" dogma is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Mark Young said...

I'll actually be speaking with Dr. Phillips in the near future, but if he follows the usual trend with his research he'll probably follow this study up with a training study to measure actual hypertrophy associated with these different protocols.

Obviously the acute trial is designed to look at the mechanistic elements and the outcomes regarding hypertrophy are totally speculative.

I found it particularly interesting that despite being matched for work, the other 30% 1RM group actually had less MIX protein synthesis.

Great discussion gents!

Verbatim said...

@Stephan and Anoymous#1

I was under the impression that this blog was principally about; 1) The IF diet protocol 2) Programs that fit with the protocol 3) Mark's musings on stuff he finds interesting.

On the "functional" term, surely it's an adjective to describe how suited something performs a task.

eg

Function Exercise/Target Audience

Bicep Curl -> Bodybuilder
Squat -> Rower
Calf Raises -> Runner
Shoulder press -> Kayaker

Aaron Curl said...

I believe the quads respond to high rep training from my experience from biking. I have long legs and used to hate squats but powered through them. I used to do low rep, high weight...results=not very impressive. I got into biking, rode 2500 miles my first year and the results in my quad growth were unbelievable!

Anonymous said...

What do you think about this leg routine:

http://www.t-nation.com/article/bodybuilding/hungarian_oak_leg_blast

I know, I know. It's a T-Nation article, a bunch of bro's who don't know any better.

But in the light of the study, you were discussing, is there any legitimacy to it, or is the guy they mention just a freak of nature.

Kindke said...

I'm surprised ive seen so little speculation on the THEORY behind this study.

No mention of Henneman's Size Principle?, this exactly what this study highlights. And it seems alot of people dont understand it.

The 30FAIL group got more protein synthesis because they fully trained a greater percantage of thier muscle fibres.

I.E, they fully "exhausted" more muscle fibres.

If you only ever tain at a certain % of your 1RM, then there will always be a finite subset of muscle fibres that wont ever get trained fully. As that % approach's 100, you alienate more and more fibres from getting fully trained, and therefore stunt your gains.

The 90FAIL group would of gotten just as much muscle protein synthesis and probably more if they had done a drop-set. 90FAIL->60FAIL->30FAIL.

All the research ive seen suggests that volume is the critical determinant for gains, and volume is directly proportional to weight lifted in any given set of reps.

The catch is that the weight needs to be heavy enough such that atleast a portion of the type IIa fibres are recruited. Which Ironically, is around the 25%-30% range for 1RM.

john said...

Hi Martin,

Where do you think full body, low tension exercises like sprints (60-100m) or medium-high rep (15-50) kettlebell snatches fit in in terms of muscle building.?

Anonymous said...

all star cast...

thedailyg said...

It's not a 'pump and tone' workout - aerobics are rarely done to muscular failure. Muscular failure is the key.

Larger, stronger muscles are capable of greater endurance for tasks like climbing, building things with rocks, practicing with a spear, pounding vegetables into meal, etc. It makes no evolutionary sense for hypertrophy to be linked only to a narrow range of heavy work.

I don't know what produces the best results, but I'd rather do a shorter workout just for practical reasons.

G

Anonymous said...

Uh, anonymous, Huh?

"I get so tired of all the theory...I'm 65 and was going nowhere with high intensity and low reps...switched to lighter with high reps and my body responded immediately and am starting to look better than ever before in my life. It has taken months of reading and study to cut thru all the BS...my advice,listen to your bod, and keep it simple. Great Blog."?

What? You just said that you were going no where. And then you said you spent months reading and studying. How is that "listening" to your body??

Anonymous said...

What are we talking about here as far as rate of muscle gaining goes
(for a natural lifter)? I stopped caring for size years ago and in
the first 2 years of squatting or deadlifting no more than 5 reps
of ANY weight, I gained 2 inches in size around my thighs (while
remaining the same weight). In my case, that demonstrates that I can
and will put on size doing my strength training. I see the
process as life long and am not concerned about a rush to put on 20
lbs of mad muscle in 8 weeks. So, I think that's good for me.

Joe said...

Great job bringing these great minds together, hope to see more of this. It's funny I had just finished reading one of the other roundtables that you were in concerning BCAA's and whether or not they were required when getting adequate protein intake. Keep these coming! Plus I had no idea Aragorn was so distinguished, props to him.

@Stephen, in theory I would speculate that it is all about 1RM, from a purely strength standpoint and even from the standpoint you seem to be describing in terms of 'endurance'. Bear with me as it is indeed a complex issue for me:
1RM translates to the capability of yourself to activate as much musculature as possible in order to lift as much as you can, one time. And even that has to be practiced to the point that you are capable of doing it i.e. your skill(or a 'software' performance). But not only are you taxing your 'software' to the brink, but your 'hardware' as well, the muscles that are being activated and required to perform the task.

Now how much of this event is made up of the two, hell if I know. But I would assume that ones skillset can only increase so much, and ones musculature takes the bear's share of the task at higher weights. That's if I don't subscribe to the Pavel Tsatsouline school of thought, in which case the role is reversed.

But the ability to perform a certain 1RM translates into strength across the spectrum(90% of 1RM=2RM or what have you, the general table of strength performance floating around), until you get to the point where you are just throwing your weight around.

I proscribe to the Body By Science approach and a Time Under Tension workout to avoid all that.

Sorry for the wall o' text, call some gorram mongrolians to tear it down.

douglis said...

I believe another opinion should be heard(in fact I can't think of a more appropriate person):

Dr Carpinelli says “Recommendations to train with very heavy resistance (loads heavier than 6 RM), because they purportedly result in superior strength gains, are based on a faulty [understanding of the size principle] and have very little supporting evidence,”.

Resistance is largely a matter of “personal preference,” says Dr. Carpinelli. “If a maximal—or near maximal—effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes.”

James Krieger said...

Douglis,

Carpinelli's conclusions are based on a flawed and selective interpretation of the literature. I did a review of Carpinelli's review paper in one of Alan Aragon's issues of AAAR. In regards to training intensity and strength gains, Carpinelli is guilty of the same thing he accuses other authors of: misinterpretation of research, selection fo data or studies that supports his preconfirmed beliefs (confirmation bias), and making claims that lack scientific support.

douglis said...

Mr Krieger
You wrote:"I know Stu Phillips personally and worked with him on a protein advisory committee. He does very good work, but I'm surprised they did this study in the way they did. Kumar et al (2008) already have a study like this, and it was better in the sense that they kept the volume load equal between conditions."

In this study they also had a group with matched work(the 30WM group...I guess they did 4 sets with 15 reps each) and clearly the protein synthesis was less.
That was not the point of the study.The purpose of this study(it was a follow up of this one:http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/05001/Influence_Of_Muscle_Contraction_Intensity_And.1216.aspx ) was to investigate the role of fatigue in association with the intensity of muscular contraction.When the level of fatigue(not the work) kept the same the protein synthesis was also relatively the same.I believe the result confirms the size principle.

I would like to know if you're aware of any study that show different results when reaching same levels of fatigue regardless the load that is used.

Anonymous said...

Exelent roundtable!

Borge Fagerli wrote:

" And remember the Goto et al study where the combination group of heavy + light had even better results than the heavy or light group. So do both."

So does that mean that you advocate doing some light pump sets after the myoset(s) a la FST7 style or something along those lines?

Would that not set you up for overtraining?

/Hans

Martin Berkhan said...

Stephan,

"I know this blog is mostly focused on hypertrophy, but I would love to see more discussion on the best way to train for strength."

Train for strength and hypertrophy will follow. Do not attempt anything elaborate solely focused on strength (such as 3 x 3 or %-based powerlifting routines with complicated cycling schemes) unless you're at the advanced level.

Depending on your training status, look into Starting Strength or perhaps my own recommended style of training:

http://www.leangains.com/2008/12/reverse-pyramid-revisited.html

"Personally, I'm not concerned about bigger muscles but I wouldn't mind being stronger."

Yeah, watch out. You might wake up one day looking like a bodybuilder. It's very common.

"I think it's a complex issue though, because functional strength for me is not just about 1RM, it's about muscular endurance as well."

Strength is VERY different from muscular endurance and the training needed for each quality inhibits the development of the other at the cellular level. Attempting both is a fool's journey that will yield mediocre results. Better off focusing on one for a period of time and then switch to the other while maintaining the former.

Martin Berkhan said...

John,

"Where do you think full body, low tension exercises like sprints (60-100m) or medium-high rep (15-50) kettlebell snatches fit in in terms of muscle building.?"

Sprints may have some novel application as they're anaerobic in nature. Kettlebell snatches are generally more suitable for muscular endurance. I have yet to hear about someone who built substantial muscle with kettlebell training only.

p said...

Not to be an ass again but still looking for a way to get in touch with Martin regarding consultation. Any help with be appreciated. I'll treat you to a (muscle)milkshake.

Anonymous said...

I can certainly relate to what Borge said about training legs to failure being painful and potentially unsafe. I've been doing Myo reps for a while now and love the results, but I ended up doing 3 regular sets for squats because it seems like the best balance between progress, safety and pain for that lift. I believe that's actually his recommendation for squats and deadlifts anyway.

Also, Martin, I noticed your comment on that t-nation Dave Tate article. Obvious why you took issue with some of his suggestions, but I wondered where you fall on surplus recommendations? He mentioned 600-1000 and I've seen it suggested that 500 is enough for max growth in a natural. Is there any truth to the 500 number, assuming protein is adequate for max growth?

DeKay said...

Martin, any general thoughts on Myo-reps??? I know you're an RPT guy, but I'm sure you're at least familiar with the approach. Just curious.

Anonymous said...

@DeKay: try reading the article again ;)

"He is also a respected fitness and bodybuilding coach with a tremendous amount of real world experience and many interesting ideas. If you're looking for a new and effective way to approach weight training, check out his Myo-reps protocol."

Eek said...

@stephan

Okay I'm going to totally butcher this story. I think I read it in McRoberts book or on Kelly Baggett's site, heck I probably even read it here. Any way there was this strong mofo that could squat a bunch, think it was something like 600 pounds and this other BBer that Squated some pretty decent numbers but not as strong as mofo. BBer challenged mofo to a 20rep.squat contest and beat mofo up. Mofo went and trained his 20rep squat for short amount if time and he totally destroyed BBer. BBer couldn't squat as heavy because it takes time to gain that much strength. But endurance doesn't take that long.


Moral: listen to Martin

James Krieger said...

Douglis,

You said:

*************
In this study they also had a group with matched work(the 30WM group...I guess they did 4 sets with 15 reps each) and clearly the protein synthesis was less.
************

The 30 WM group was matched to the volume load of the 90% 1-RM group, not the 30% 1-RM group that went to failure. The 90% and 30% to failure groups showed superior increases in protein synthesis to the 30% group that was matched to the 90% group.


**************
That was not the point of the study.The purpose of this study(it was a follow up of this one:http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/05001/Influence_Of_Muscle_Contraction_Intensity_And.1216.aspx ) was to investigate the role of fatigue in association with the intensity of muscular contraction.When the level of fatigue(not the work) kept the same the protein synthesis was also relatively the same.
********************

The study design does not adequately fulfill this purpose because of the differing intensities when volume load was matched. In other words, volume load was matched between the 30% not to failure group and the 90% to failure group. Protein synthesis was superior in the 90% group. However, it cannot be ascertained whether the superior protein synthesis response is due to the higher intensity, or due to the fact it was taken to failure.

To adequately compare the conditions, you need two 90% 1-RM groups that are matched for volume load, where one is taken to failure and one does not go to failure (such as through the use of rest-pause reps).

Kumar et al (2008) is a better study design, because all conditions went to failure. Despite all conditions going to failure, protein synthesis increased as you went from 20% 1-RM to 60% 1-RM, indicating that simply going to failure isn't enough...the load matters as well.

*************
I would like to know if you're aware of any study that show different results when reaching same levels of fatigue regardless the load that is used.
**************

I already mentioned the paper by Kumar.

douglis said...

Mr Krieger,
You wrote:
"Kumar et al (2008) is a better study design, because all conditions went to failure. Despite all conditions going to failure, protein synthesis increased as you went from 20% 1-RM to 60% 1-RM, indicating that simply going to failure isn't enough...the load matters as well."

With all the respect,I believe you're wrong.
In the Kumar et al (2008) study the conditions were not to failure.They just matched the mechanical work.
From their study:
"Participants in this
study were assigned to exercise at one of five
different exercise intensities corresponding
to 20, 40, 60, 75, or 90% of their maximal
strength (1 repetition maximum; RM). The
number of repetitions performed in each of
the conditions was manipulated to ensure
that external mechanical work was similar
across the different intensities."

Similar mechanical work means if the 20% group did 40 reps then the 40% group did 20 reps.Fatigue and failure was not taken into consideration.

The above new study that we discuss here is the first that investigated the protein synthesis with similar fatigue(not work) levels and found even greater protein synthesis with 30%.

Joe said...

"Yeah, watch out. You might wake up one day looking like a bodybuilder. It's very common."
-Martin

Lol, wouldn't be so bad.


"Strength is VERY different from muscular endurance and the training needed for each quality inhibits the development of the other at the cellular level."

I disagree somewhat with you but would love to here your reasoning. From my understanding aerobic respiration, which could very well be the "endurance" being lobbed around here(who can do more pushups), is quite simply a slice of the cellular respiration pie. With the rest being anaerobic respiration. Therefore, training for the full measure of cellular respiration, anaerobic 'strength' training, will yield you improved capability when training for 'endurance' in a *specific* task or skill(notice I said capability and not ability). You basically get the musculature to aid you(i.e. get cannabilized for fuel) in your 'endurance' based skill. So why I agree that training for endurance in a skill(being able to run longer) will indeed impede any strength gains, strength gains will not impede your capability to perform endurance based tasks. And I also agree that attempting to do both is foolish.

Børge Fagerli said...

"So does that mean that you advocate doing some light pump sets after the myoset(s) a la FST7 style or something along those lines?

Would that not set you up for overtraining?

/Hans"

How in the world did you get from what I said, to a butchered up German Volume Training approach?

I do various rep ranges, either within one workout or varying from workout to workout as in a daily undulating approach. Depends on the split, overall structure of the program and goals of the lifter.

One way of doing it might be for chest:

Floor Press - work up to heavy top set of 5 reps (RPE of 8-9)
Weighted dips or close grip incline press (stop 4-6" above chest) - 9-12 +3x or 12-15 +4x (myo-reps)

Read my auto-regulation article here: http://myrevolution.no/auto-regulering-for-optimale-%C3%B8kninger-i-styrke-og-muskelmasse/

James Krieger said...

Douglis,

****************
With all the respect,I believe you're wrong.
*****************

Yes, it appears I was incorrect about that.


******************
The above new study that we discuss here is the first that investigated the protein synthesis with similar fatigue(not work) levels and found even greater protein synthesis with 30%.
*********************

But my previous comment on this still stands. The 30% to failure group did a greater volume than the other groups. So you cannot discern whether the greater synthesis was due to failure, or due to the greater volume. The 90%-to-failure group was greater than the 30%-not-to-failure group ("The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM"), and in that case, you cannot discern whether the effect is due to the failure, or the greater intensity.

This is simply not a good study design for looking at the effects of failure. To look at the effects of failure, volume and intensity need to be equated. The only way to do that is to do rest-pause repetitions (or short rests after every so many repetitions) in one condition.

And while I do not know of any studies on the effects of failure per se on protein synthesis, there are studies showing that higher intensities produce greater strength gains even if sets are taken to failure. In fact, in Carpinelli's review, he misquotes some of the studies that he claims found no differences between different intensities. For example, he states that Benben et al (2000) found no significant differences between a 40% 1-RM group and a 80% 1-RM group. However, he was wrong about that. Changes in upper body strength were superior in the 80% 1-RM group. He misquotes Weiss et al (1999), saying that no significant differences were observed between intensities, despite the fact that a 3-5 RM group experienced significantly greater squat gains than a 23-25 RM group. Then there are studies that he fails to mention, such as Fatouros et al (2005) which showed superior strength gains in the 82% 1-RM group vs. 55% 1-RM group, despite both groups going to failure.

This is also not to mention the fact that Carpinelli fails to discuss the issue of statistical power, as many of the studies he references used very small numbers of subjects. This is particularly a problem because some of the studies he references as showing no differences had non-significant trends towards greater strength gains in the high intensity groups.

nondual said...

THANK YOU for the link to Myo-reps.

I love DC training, but I turn into a rat-bastard after about 6 weeks and although my strength really goes up doing DC - hypertrophy not so much - even eating ad lib.

It looks like Myo-reps could be the ticket for me once I come off this cut.

Post for post, this blog has the best, most useful info on the internetz with much less bro-science to wade through. IMHO.

Keep it up, Martin.

douglis said...

Mr Krieger
in my opinion the comparison that is based on the mechanical work done is very misleading and only a comparison based on fatigue levels can give us reliable results.This is the only the way to ensure that you compare different training methods or loads that cause the same level of muscle activation.Only failure makes sure that full muscle activation has been achieved.

The Fatouros et al (2005) study was exactly what I was looking for.Thank you very much for mention it.I've never heard of it before.
In this study clearly the HIST group had greater hypertrophy and strength gains than the LIST group even though both groups were gone to failure.
I wish the subjects weren't only inactive older men.

James Krieger said...

****************
This is the only the way to ensure that you compare different training methods or loads that cause the same level of muscle activation.Only failure makes sure that full muscle activation has been achieved.
*******************

The problem I see here is the equivocation of recruitment and stimulus for adaptation (not saying that's what you are doing, but I've seen others make this assumption). Just because you recruit a motor unit does not mean you've stimulated that motor unit to adapt.

A 30% 1-RM load is not the same as a 60% 1-RM load even if both are taken to failure. This is because more motor units are recruited from the very beginning with the 60% 1-RM load. So even though all motor units are eventually recruited if both loads are taken to failure, the length of time that each motor unit is subject to a stressor, along with the fatigue levels of each individual motor unit, will be quite different between the conditions.

douglis said...

Mr Krieger wrote:
"A 30% 1-RM load is not the same as a 60% 1-RM load even if both are taken to failure. This is because more motor units are recruited from the very beginning with the 60% 1-RM load. So even though all motor units are eventually recruited if both loads are taken to failure, the length of time that each motor unit is subject to a stressor, along with the fatigue levels of each individual motor unit, will be quite different between the conditions."

The discussion becomes very theoretical here because fatigue accumulation is not linear.
But I don't understand one thing.
Assuming we can do 15 maximum reps with 60% and 30 with 30% wouldn't be a logical assumption the last 15 of the 30% set to have the same level of activation AND equal length of time that each motor unit is subject to a stressor?

I don't want to become tiresome but I would like your opinion on this.
I found a few studies(Graves et al. 1999,Hisaeda et al. 1996) that find no difference in strength/size gains between high and low loads when sets are taken to failure.The results contradict the Fatouros et al (2005) study.

The difference I noticed is that in those studies(in contrast with the Fatouros study) the subjects are young.
Do you believe that age affects differently the training effect and that with older people the role of load becomes more important?

James Krieger said...

***************
Assuming we can do 15 maximum reps with 60% and 30 with 30% wouldn't be a logical assumption the last 15 of the 30% set to have the same level of activation AND equal length of time that each motor unit is subject to a stressor?
*****************

I don't think it is logical to assume that, because it's assuming that fatigue occurs in a perfectly linear fashion, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest that's true. And it's highly unlikely one can do twice as many repetitions with half the weight, both to failure.

********************
I found a few studies(Graves et al. 1999,Hisaeda et al. 1996) that find no difference in strength/size gains between high and low loads when sets are taken to failure.The results contradict the Fatouros et al (2005) study.
************************

Look at the standard deviations for strength gains in the Hisaeda paper. They're huge...so large that it would be impossible to detect differences between groups with such a small number of subjects.

This is not to mention papers such as Weiss et al (1999) which did observe greater strength gains in the higher intensity groups and in young subjects.

When you have a large body of studies, with some showing significantly greater gains while others don't, what you have is more likely an issue of statistical power in combination with the use of untrained subjects. First, untrained subjects are highly sensitive to a variety of training modalities, which would mask any long term differences in intensities. Second, the response to training is highly variable in untrained subjects, making it very difficult to detect differences if a difference exists (i.e., a type II error). This is particularly a problem given that many resistance training studies have small subject numbers.

Fredrik Gyllensten said...

Great article!
I would love more articles like this, where you get the opinion from all these great guys :)

Chet said...

I have a question for Lyle..

According to this study doing high reps can stimulate protein synthesis and since UD2 depletion days are high reps (50%-85% 1RM to failure or near failure), protein synthesis is likely to occur. Since protein synthesis and low carb/cal is a bad combination which can lead to catabolism. Should we up calories/carbs on Mon/Tues or at least post workout?

Anonymous said...

Great stuff guys! Anyone have a link to the Goto et al. paper mentioned by Borge? I can't find it.

-Bret Contreras

douglis said...

Here's the link for the Goto et al study:
http://iesaude.com/ficheiros/file/Muscular%20adaptations%20do%20different%20strenght%20Training.pdf

Anonymous said...

Thanks Douglis!!! Much appreciated. -Bret

Shel said...

"I can count the people I've seen squatting close to their limit in the 10 rep+ range on...two fingers"

i'm a 45 yr old bikeaholic, so can't be bothered to train legs any more.

...however, in the past i went to failure on my squats, screaming into my last rep every time... and every time was a bloody shocking trauma. ;D

josselin74 said...

I believe that you can gain muscle with high rep range, go and see this website.
I did this method for 2 years and was really pleased with result, but my progress stopped, maybe because I was going to failure every training...
http://methode.lafay.free.fr/

Martin Berkhan said...

P,

"Consulting Requests" is at the bottom/site footer.

Anon,

"Is there any truth to the 500 number, assuming protein is adequate for max growth?"

No, it's just a nice round number that for some reason has become the norm. It might work for newbies, who grow muscles fast and easy, but for others it usually packs on fat with muscle at an undesirable rate.

Martin Berkhan said...

Joe,

"I disagree somewhat with you but would love to here your reasoning."

Endurance training triggers AMPK which inhibits muscle protein synthesis.

"strength gains will not impede your capability to perform endurance based tasks."

True, but nor will strength gains greatly affect your endurance.

Martin Berkhan said...

Nondual,

"Post for post, this blog has the best, most useful info on the internetz with much less bro-science to wade through. IMHO."

That's nice, thanks.

Anonymous said...

hi Martin,
did you try myo reps yourself? Any thoughts?
/Hans

Anonymous said...

What's your take on squating with a couple of plates underneath your heels?

It has to be on of those topics everybody has a opinion about. And in in my honest opinion people really exaggerate the downside effects when having a couple of *small plates underneath your heels.

I'm 1.90cm tal and i'm one of those people "who is not built for squating". The only way i'd ever manage a proper looking squat without my back flipping over is if i squat wide-legged. And i often do. But i often, when i want the exercise to hit the quads a bit more instead of the ass/hips, put a couple of small plates underneath my heels. I don't feel any pain in my knees.

Now, say if you don't have a leg press at your gym but still want to hit your legs. Do you consider squating with a couple of plates be a better or worse choise than for instance the leg kick?

/göran

*Small means 1-2 centimeters in height.

Jim Sutton said...

Martin et al: excellent, thanks.

@all,
You also might find this recent blog post by Ned Kock interesting. It's entitled "The theory of supercompensation: Strength training frequency and muscle gain".

http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/08/theory-of-supercompensation-strength.html

Martin Berkhan said...

Hans,

Nope, haven't tried it personally.

Göran,

"Do you consider squating with a couple of plates be a better or worse choise than for instance the leg kick?"

Better.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, absolutely nobody took into account that rest periods are as important as the reps/weight and that in this particular study no regard to rest periods was given.

Anonymous said...

Martin, I recently re-read my copy of Lyle's Ultimate Diet 2.0 where glycogen depletion/compensation is central. You've said that you do not think glycogen depleting workouts are so important and you'd rather focus on load progression. Can you elaborate further?

Also, can muscle glycogen be depleted by fasting and not lifting? How long would that take?

One last glycogen question: If you train a certain muscle and deplete its glycogen but do not train another, and then you do not eat carbs before training again (when you train both muscles) where does each muscle get its energy from? Can the depleted muscle use glycogen from a non-depleted muscle until all glycogen in all muscles is used up? Basically, can glycogen be shared between muscles or can it only be used by the muscle in which it is stored?

Thanks for all your insights you share on this website!

Ryan said...

Hey,

WOW.

Great round table.

Loved the info and the comments are awesome.

I read this study the other day and was wondering about the controls. It seemed like it could have been tighter.

Great to see so much info.

As for myself, I have always done lower weight squats and leg press because of a bad knee that gives out under heavy load. My muscles can handle it, but falling with a bunch of weight on your back is dangerous. :)

Thanks again for the post.
Ryan "The Fat Loss Informant"

Martin Berkhan said...

Anon,

"For all training loads, subjects performed four sets and were given three minutes rest between sets."

Martin Berkhan said...

Anon,

"You've said that you do not think glycogen depleting workouts are so important and you'd rather focus on load progression. Can you elaborate further?"

Glycogen depletion is a waste of time. As a way to increase fat oxidation, it's high effort for a relatively low return in comparison what you can accomplish with dietary manipulation alone. Besides that, glycogen depletion interferes with recovery that should be spared for more important training sessions (high load/intensity).

"Also, can muscle glycogen be depleted by fasting and not lifting? How long would that take?"

In starvation/long term fasting, muscle glycogen is gradually drained as shown in some studies looking at muscle biopsies. The exact mechanism is not known, I think, since glycogen do not normally escape muscle - muscle contractions are required for that to happen (thus the glycogen depletion of UD 2.0/CKD etc). Might be due to the "wear and tear" of daily activities which uses some small amounts of muscle glycogen.

"Basically, can glycogen be shared between muscles or can it only be used by the muscle in which it is stored?"

No, glycogen cannot be shared between muscles.

Anonymous said...

Great discussion on reps range and muscle growth. I have been alternating my workouts between a heavy week with low reps and heavy weights and a moderate week with higher reps and lighter weights than the heavy week over 15 years. I am 61 years old. I have attributed maintaining a good percentage the muscle mass I gained since my forties to this practice.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Martin. Lots of good, technical information being discussed here. I came across your site quite by accident.

I thought I would let your readers know that I recently spoke to one of the scientists in the McMaster study, Stu Phillips. He told me that they have gone on to measure actual changes in muscle mass.

Though the results have not yet been published, based on his comments (posted on my blog), he seems to suggest that they agree with the original study. That is, it seems the "30FAIL" method did prove "superior" for building muscle.

Thanks for listening.

Rob Thoburn

Anonymous said...

Martin,

Any recommendations for an endurance athlete wishing to transition to lower volume, HIT training? I'm not sure if my problem is unique, but I have difficulty getting a good workout at low rep ranges (4-6 reps). I might reach failure, but I don't get the "satisfied" feeling after a set (i.e, breathing hard and feeling a pump). It's as if I couldn't generate enough intensity to properly fatigue my muscles at that rep range, I think a result of my endurance training (i.e, my fast twitch muscles don't quite fire properly). Are some people genetically inclined to higher rep, higher volume training, or does the body generally adapt to different training?

Nathan Nadeau said...

Anon,

Hi, I'm not martin, but I may be able to help you out with your question/concern. For your consideration:

Abbreviated training encompasses the the original theories of HIT (Arthur Jones), and is low volume training. Low volume training doesn't necessarily mean "low-rep" training. A more apt general definition would be "low-set" training, or "low-frequency" training. If your desire is to embrace a more abbreviated approach to strength training (which is the most effective) there may be value into looking into what is mentioned in the post about high-reps. (eg. breathing squats). That being said, I think your question may be geared towards getting down to working sets of low reps, and making it effectively. It is something you need to transition into intelligently. If you're doing anything maximally, you will know and feel you're working hard- you may need to learn how to lift heavy weights for low reps. If you're actually lifting a weight you can only do 4-6 times, and you're doing it 4-6 times- you'll feel that. Chances are you may be lifting too light of weights. You will need to grow into this though- Most people aren't even thinking during the first few reps of a given exercise- because they don't feel it till reps 10 and beyond- if you're doing a set of 3-5 you need to be all there for each rep. This will ultimately result in greater motor recruitment, which is more of the muscle fiber being worked.

I would suggest dropping the reps of your working sets by a couple reps every 6-8 weeks, and raising the poundage's you are lifting. in a few months time you should be working effectively in the 3-5 rep range- or even singles!

Hope this helped

Nathan

Anonymous said...

I am trying this 30% 1RM to failure method on my upper body because I am injured and it is the only training I can do. Let's see how 8 weeks goes! I'm still doing squats, deads and training legs heavy. If it is true, then Nick Rudy is getting a nice email from me!

Matt said...

Honestly, I don't gain and end up DEtraining and regressing if I let my rep ranges dip below 10 reps / set. I know, all the advice about low reps for mass... but it's been totally the opposite for me. The best size AND strength gains I've ever had in my life have been in the 10-20 rep range. 12 for Deadlift on the low end, 20 for curls... but in a rest-pause fashion. If I do a more traditional 5X5 setup... forget it. I end up getting weaker and weaker each workout. Obviously not my goal...

Toby said...

It is quite a baffling statement "A recent study showed that 4 sets of leg extensions to failure at 30% 1RM was superior to 4 sets to failure at 90% 1RM". Personally, if I did any exercise where I'd have to do 4 sets to failure at 90% of the weight that I can only do 1 rep, the rest periods between the sets would be so long that I would have to think of the sets as Power Sets only. Just as Borge touches on this, I am also assuming the lighter sets have rest periods of about 10 to 20 seconds.

Kieren Geaney said...

The rep count question reminds me of an article I read on a running webpage about predicting race from race performance and I believe the same factors apply to hypertrophy. Sadly I can't remember the link but will reference it if I can find it.

Essentially the article said what we all know but I guess we can't see the wood for the trees. Stick with me for a bit on the running:

There are lots of calculators online where for a regular runner you can predict race times from a recent race of a different distance. I had consistent times according to the calculators from 400m through 1m, 5km and 13.1m (half marathon). Some studies even say race time can be predicted from vertical jump height.

Runners have always attributed this to factors like VO2MAX, lactate threshold etc but the different distances use different energy pathways and conventional wisdom doesn't stack up - VO2MAX varies with velocity for example (vVO2MAX).

Effective running training vairies distance, speed, hills, intervals. The aim is to tax different muscles.

The weight room is the same. Take chest for example - we dip, bench, incline and fly to recruit as many different fibers as possible not to mention using static machines or unstabe free weights. More intensity or stress, more adaption - strength / hypertrophy.

Varying the angles of attack works but so does varying the weight. Both heavy weight, low reps and lighter weight (20-25 to failure) also work,

WHY?

This is because different muscle fibers fail at different rates and your muscles work as a whole unit. You might mostly be using fast twitch fibers to lift heavy but the slow twitch play a party too. Yet if you only lift heavy you don't fatigue the slow twitch fibers. It goes the same way vice versa so I would say both methods are correct.

Anonymous said...

I think Zyzz as a case study taught us all that doing 30 rep sets of light weight works for hypertrophy. My personal feeling is it's a lot easier to hypertrophy if you have a strong strength base first though.

Anonymous said...

Legs are fast twitch dominant... Type 2 muscle fibers have more growth potential as well..for size I mean. Makes sense that faster, higher rep routines for legs would=more growth then. IE:Sprinters, basketball players, etc.

Anonymous said...

been training for most of my life (58 now) one thing I picked up on throughout the decades is that high reps to failure does work to increase muscle mass and definition. The 1-5 90% is bullcrap - don't get suckered in - I went thru that in the begining. As soon as I started the high rep trainings with lower weights, I saw results quickly !




My name is Martin Berkhan and I work as a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer.

Welcome to the Internet's leading resource on intermittent fasting and all things related.

FeedBurner FeedCount

Google Friend Connect

Join Me on Twitter

Follow Me on Facebook

Recommended Reading

Lame Title, Good Book

Recommended Reading

Intermittent Fasting for Fat Loss

Recommended Reading

Covers All Bases

Recommended Reading

Awesome Recipes for The Paleo Diet
Recipes for the Paleo Diet - Two Cookbooks - 120 Recipes Each!>

Recommended Reading

Fat Loss Made Easy

Great Interval Timer

+1 If You Think Leangains is Awesome