Translate

Friday, 26 August 2016

Nutrient Timing


"You have to eat every 3 hours to keep your metabolism burning" 



"If you skip a meal that's your day ruined.."



"Protein shake straight after you finish or your workout is a waste"





Hands up if you've heard of these statements before.. hands even higher if you've followed them. 



Don't worry my hands up high aswell! 



Along with many others I have also followed these nutritional necessities. 



What difference did it make? Not much, if any! 



Welcome back to the fourth instalment in our guest blog Nutrition Series. In parts 1,2 and 3 we covered 'The importance of Nutrition to athletes', 'Beginning to set up your diet' and 'Breaking down your diet into different macronutrients' I highly recommend you check them out before going any further with this one! 



Today we are going to take a look at a pretty controversial subject - Nutrient timing within sporting performance



What is nutrient timing?



Put simply, this is the amount of time you leave between your meals and when and what you eat around your workouts to enhance your performance. 



However, before going any further we need to sum up the actual difference nutrient timing has on athletic performance or physique enhancement. 



Dr. Mike Israetel attributes it's worth to ~5% of your results




Furthermore, Eric Helms is also in agreement and has designed a spectacular pyramid which shows how many people are missing the forest for the trees.



Helms et al. (2015)

The above image is layered this way for a reason - without the foundations below nutrient timing it's essentially useless! 

For example, your goal is to gain muscle. For this we need a caloric surplus and some form of progressive overload in our training program. You smash back your protein within 1 minute of finishing your last set and you are eating a protein source every 3 hours - great, doing what you are meant to! However, 6 weeks down the line and you haven't made any progress - you haven't gained any muscle or bodyweight. Why? You have violated the pyramids principles! 

Instead of ensuring the foundations for gaining muscle - a caloric surplus, adequate protein intake - where in place, you focussed on the nuances - timing of intake. 

I'm not saying that timing doesn't matter - eating protein every 4-6 hours will likely be better than once a day, however, you need to ensure that the most important parts of your diet (calories and macronutrients) are in place first, before worrying about
timing. 

What actually matters

Once we have our foundations in place we can then focus on aligning our nutrient intake throughout the day to give us better results. 

The most important points we need to consider are; 


Protein intake through the day
Protein intake pre and post exercise
Carbohydrate and fat intake in relation to exercise time

Protein intake through the day

I am sure we have all heard and followed the age old myth of eating a protein source every 3 hours to keep our muscles happy. 

You may have even carried a protein shake on trips out to ensure you had something to feed your muscle with! 

However, this may be unnecessary. Studies conducted by Helms et al. (2014) and Schoenfeld et al. (2015) found little difference between protein intakes of 3x per day and 6x per day, stating that an intake within these ranges is likely optimal for muscle growth and performance.

Since we are most likely eating our protein sources as part of a meal, a more important question is one of adherence.

Adherence is of primary concern when setting up our nutrition (Schoenfeld et al. 2015) and how often we are eating protein is likely going to be individualized.  For example, some people may prefer to eat smaller meals, more often to keep themselves full and therefore, will opt for a higher frequency of protein intake e.g. 6 meals per day. On the other hand, someone may like to eat larger meals, less often and then aim for 3-4 meals per day. 

My recommendation would be to stay within the 3-6 meals or protein feedings per day recommendation - if we go lower or higher ie 2 or 6+ issues begin to develop with adherence.

For example, two meals or protein feedings per day can have you going for a long time without food, making you more susceptible to eating everything and kitchen sink come meal time and is likely less optimal for muscle development as you are only providing nutrients at two points during the day. At meal intervals above 6, it can seem like you do nothing but cook or the meals are so small you’re never really full. Both situations can lead to varying problems with hunger control. 

Simply, take your daily protein intake (1g per lb of bodyweight) and split it between the numbers of meals you wish to consume and you have your protein target for each meal and can easily meet your daily total. After this point, assign a time interval from 3-6 hours between each meal that will allow you to adhere best to meeting your protein intakes and allow you to be as full as possible. Simple! 





Protein intake pre and post exercise

Again, a very controversial topic - we have all heard the recommendation of consuming protein within 30 minutes of finishing our exercise for that 'post anabolic window of gains'

However, it really isn't necessary!

A meta analysis on post workout protein intake found that consuming protein within 1 hours of finishing exercise does not have a significant benefit on muscle size or strength (Schoenfeld et al., 2013)

An additional meta analysis conducted by Schoenfeld and Aragon (2013), suggests that pre and post exercise protein feedings should not be separated by more than 3-4 hours. Most training sessions will last around 1-2 hours and therefore, will leave plenty of time to consume a meal post training, as opposed to slamming a protein shake.  

Therefore, practical applications of the above would be consume a protein source around 1-2 hours pre and post training and don't worry if you don't slam your protein shake post workout - it won't make a difference! 



Carbohydrate and fat intake in relation to exercise

This topic doesn't receive as much light as protein intake as quite frankly it's not as important or 'sexy' to mainstream media. However, it likely is important if your goal is peak athletic performance. 

So, why is carbohydrate intake in relation to exercise important? 

Carbohydrates fuel our performance during high intensity sports such as weightlifting, rugby or sprinting.  Therefore, we want to make sure we have adequate glycogen stores before exercise to enable us to perform at a consistent high intensity and we need to ensure we replenish depleted glycogen stores after exercise to enhance recovery.

Pre exercise Carbohydrate intake

There is mixed literature on the performance enhancing benefits of pre exercise carbohydrate ingestion (Helms et al., 2015). However, through coaching individuals, I have seen most people perform at their best if they ingest at least some carbohydrate before exercise. The amount you consume will be individual dependant. For example, some individuals may consume large amounts of carbohydrates pre exercise and not experience any stomach or GI distress. On the other hand, some individuals will prefer to consume smaller doses as they find they can digest the smaller dose easier and still perform well. A practical take away would be to experiment and see what makes you feel best and allows you to train best. 

Furthermore, when dieting and on limited carbohydrate intakes, it may be a good idea to place your carbohydrate intake around your workout. For example, consuming the majority of your carbohydrate intake pre and post workout, while opting for relatively lower carbohydrate intakes throughout the day when carbohydrates may not be necessary. This can enable you to feel better during your workout and therefore, improve your performance. 

Post exercise Carbohydrate intake

Like most sub sections within this post, quite a controversial topic with many seeking to replenish their lost glycogen stores as quickly as possible with high GI 'fast digesting' carbohydrates. However, do we really need to do this? 

If we are a strength athlete or physique competitor there really isn't any need!

We are not training at a high intensity multiple times per day! If you have a sensible training program you will train a muscle group one day and then have a break for at least around 24 hours. This is a 24 hour period where your muscles can replenish lost glycogen from your training session - this is more than ample time! A practical take away would be consume your carbohydrates at a convenient time post workout and one which promotes adherence. You may feel alot better taking them in your meal after training or some may be able to push it back until 2 meals after training without going crazy - it's whatever suits you best! 

However, if you are a high intensity games player or train 2x per day there may be some support for consuming carbohydrates in your post workout meal. Since you are training 2x per day, you will need some form of carbohydrate to fuel your second session. If you deplete your glycogen stores in your first session and do not replenish them, you are effectively operating on a half tank of gas and could be negatively effecting your second session. To avoid this, simply ensure there is some form of carbohydrate in your meal(s) between sessions. 

A second argument of post workout ingestion is to spike our body's insulin to enhance muscle growth and nutrient uptake. However, protein has also been shown to spike insulin (Boelsma et al. 2010; Tentolouris et al. 2008). Therefore, if you consume a protein source by itself you will still spike insulin and be 'driving the nutrients into your muscles' 

The best reccomendation is to follow an approach which allows you to hit your overall carbohydrate intake (Aragon and Schoenfeld, 2013) and if you are training 2x per day, consume some form of carbohydrate between sessions. 



Fat intake around exercise

This topic relates to potential GI or stomach issues during exercise. When we eat a meal containing fat, it slows disgestion, causing us to feel fuller for longer. 

If you are performing close to a meal containing or high in fat, this can cause problems with your digestion. For example, it could make you feel sick as you are still trying to digest your meal. Therefore, you will not be able to perform optimally as most likely you will be more focused on your upset stomach and not emptying your last meal over the squat rack. 

Therefore, it is a good idea to limit the amount of fat in your pre workout meal, opting to keep it a lower fat and higher carbohydrate option to enable comfortable performance. 

Summary


In summary, alot of myths surround nutrient timing for athletic performance and physique enhancement.

From this article I hope you have found the general jist to be they are just that - myths! 

They will make little difference and certainly make none at all if you don't have the foundations or lower tiers of the pyramid in place. 

This is why the most important considerations are and always will be; adherence, caloric intake and macronutrient totals. 

Anything past his point won't make massive differences - likely 5-10% of overall success.

Practical take aways from this article are; 

Consume protein every 4-6 hours and eat anywhere from 3-6 meals based upon personal preference. 
Consume protein 1-2 hours pre and post workout and don't worry if you don't slam a shake within 30 seconds of finishing your last set! 
Consume your carbohydrates at any time of the day to replenish glycogen if training once per day but ensure you aren't ingesting too much close to training to cause stomach issues. 
If training 2x per day it's a good idea to consume carbohydrates between sessions
Try to minimize the amount of fat in your pre workout meal to help with digestion


As stated before your overall caloric intake and macronutrient intake needs to be inline with your goals for any of the above to make a significant difference or benefit. 

It doesn't have to be more complicated than that! 

If you have any questions, please contact me through the links below!

About the Author




Dave Carleton is a powerlifter who competes in the 66kg class and has represented Great Britain at European and World Championship level. He is currently study Sports and Exercise Science in Edinburgh and runs a nutrition and training coaching service, helping individuals improve their sporting performance, get stronger and achieve their body composition goals. He creates regular articles and tips through his blog and facebook page which are linked below. He also has a free facebook group with members interested in strength training, nutrition and sports performance. Within the group, helpful tips, training feedback and nutritional support is provided – if this sounds like it would be beneficial to you, request to join on the link below.

 https://www.facebook.com/Davy-Carleton-Performance-Nutrition-1650952501824022/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

carletonperformanceandnutrition.co.uk/blog-3

https://www.facebook.com/groups/eat.track.lift/

 



References



Aragon, A. and Schoenfeld, B. (2013). Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window? Journal of International society of Sports nutrition. 10 (5).

Boelsma, E., Brink, E., Stafleu, A. and Hendriks, H. (2010). Measures of postprandial wellness after intake of two protein-carbohydrate rich meals, Metabolism. 54 (3), pp. 456-464.  

Helms, E.,  Aragon, A. and Fitschen, P. (2014). Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 11(1). pp. 20.

Helms, E., Valdez, A. and Morgan, A. (2015).The Muscle And Strength Pyramid – Nutrition

Schoenfeld, B., Arragon, A., Krieger, J. (2013). The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta analysis, Journal of International society of Sports nutrition. 10, pp. 53.

Tentolouris, N., Pavlatos, S., Kokkinos, A., Perrea, D., Pagoni, S. and Katsilambros, N. (2008). Diet-induced thermogensesis and substrate oxidation are not different between lean and obese women after two isocaloric meals, one rich in protein and one rich in fat, Metabolism. 57 (3), pp. 313-320.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Davey for another great post


Andrew Richardson, Founder of Strength is Never a Weakness Blog





















I have a BSc (Hons) in Applied Sport Science and a Merit in my MSc in Sport and Exercise Science and I passed my PGCE at Teesside University. 
Now I will be commencing my PhD into "Investigating Sedentary Lifestyles of the Tees Valley" this October 2019. 

I am employed by Teesside University Sport and WellBeing Department as a PT/Fitness Instructor.  


My long term goal is to become a Sport Science and/or Sport and Exercise Lecturer. I am also keen to contribute to academia via continued research in a quest for new knowledge.


My most recent publications: 


My passion is for Sport Science which has led to additional interests incorporating Sports Psychology, Body Dysmorphia, AAS, Doping and Strength and Conditioning. 
Within these respective fields, I have a passion for Strength Training, Fitness Testing, Periodisation and Tapering. 
I write for numerous websites across the UK and Ireland including my own blog Strength is Never a Weakness. 
























I had my own business for providing training plans for teams and athletes. 
I was one of the Irish National Coaches for Powerlifting, and have attained two 3rd places at the first World University Championships, 
in Belarus in July 2016.Feel free to email me or call me as I am always looking for the next challenge. 



Contact details below; 

Facebook: Andrew Richardson (search for)

Facebook Page: @StrengthisNeveraWeakness

Twitter: @arichie17 

Instagram: @arichiepowerlifting

Snapchat: @andypowerlifter 

Email: a.s.richardson@tees.ac.uk

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-richardson-b0039278 


Friday, 29 July 2016

My Dissertation: THE EFFECTS OF USING RESISTANCE CHAINS ON 1 REP MAX (1RM) SQUATS IN A UNIVERSITY POWERLIFTING TEAM

Hi everyone,

Been a while since I posted something. This has been due to a number of things;

1. Graduation
2. World Universities (ill do a separate post on this and the Worlds)
3. Family birthdays
4. Applying for Jobs

The list goes one. For this month, it has been the quietest on the blog with only 2 posts. Last year I had 10 in July haha.

Anyways, here is the next article all on my dissertation . I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did performing it :)

This is an overall summary of the whole project.

Enjoy!

PS I have heavily reduced the content in this to try and explain it in the shortest way possible as my diss was 10,000 words (not including references, tables, images, links etc). So if it feels it is missing something then it is.

PPS Blog is just under 60,000 hits so with this post can you share share and share it some more please.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE EFFECTS OF USING RESISTANCE CHAINS ON 1 REP MAX (1RM) SQUATS IN A UNIVERSITY POWERLIFTING TEAM


Abstract

Aim: To determine if using resistance chains will cause a significant difference to a Powerlifter’s one rep max (1RM) squat over an intervention of 7 weeks whilst determining if isokinetic strength of the quadriceps muscle increases (Dynamometer (Biodex) leg extension).
Methods: All subjects are males (16) recruited from Teesside University Powerlifting Team subdivided into four categories of Pilot (4), Control (5), Chain (4) and Cross-Over groups (3). SD for all participants' anthropometrics pre-test include height (178.34cm ± 7.04cm), bodyweight (85.07kg ± 11.84kg), age (21.75 ± 2.35) and 1RM Squat (146.97kg ± 27.73kg). Sub-Question is to confirm if reducing the training cycle to 3 weeks will show a strength adaptation without a significant weight gain. P-Value is set at 0.05 statistical significance.
Results: Post intervention results showed improvement in all groups for 1RM Squat. Pilot (131.87kg – 145.63kg), Control (145kg – 155kg), Chain (143.13kg – 160kg) and Cross-Over (161.67kg – 179.16kg). Paired T-Test P-Value results; Chain (p = 0.024), Control (p = 0.022) and Cross Over (p = 0.007) groups all demonstrated significant improvements. Unpaired T-Test showed no significance between groups. Participants' weight difference pre and post-test was insignificant in all groups. Least weight gained was from the Chain group (p = 0.72), most weight gained was the Cross Over group (p = 0.19), however, results still insignificant. Cohen's D showed Chain (d = 2.23), Control (d = 0.4) and Cross-Over (d = 0.62). Cohen's D produced the greatest training effect, smallest being the Control group. Dynamometer results not included due to post-test due external factors.
Summary: Null hypothesis accepted as no significant difference was found between groups due to small population sample. All groups’ participants showed improvements post-test demonstrating that the intervention worked regardless if chains were implemented, however, the most effective method to yield the largest effect was the Chain Training Group.

Intro

Within the literature of sports science, there has been much debate on what is the best suited method to improve maximal strength, especially within a short training intervention. Few studies have shown that a small training intervention is best for central nervous system (CNS) adaptations as others have performed longer studies (Jensen, Marstrand, and Nielsen 2005). One training method to increase strength is called accommodated resistance. It has been shown that using bands and chains (accommodated resistance) can facilitate an athlete’s velocity, power and maximal strength (Rhea, Kenn, and Dermondy, 2009). However, the majority of studies have many limitations such as incorrect training length, a non-sporting population and incorrect technique (Heinecke et al, 2004 and Cronin et al, 2003). The training method devised will remove these limitations and propose an improved methodology for increasing 1RM squats in Powerlifting within this population.


Literature Review

Right there is too much to cover so what I will do is make a separate article oon accommodated resistance related to this article and back link each of them so it makes more sense.

But a brief understanding;

According to Zatsiorsky (2006), "the heaviest weight that is lifted through a full range of joint motion cannot be greater than the strength at the weakest point". The statement is true due to joint angles (Figure below) and individual biomechanics, however, for some, simply performing normal resistance style training, they will not see a huge benefit.  This is when the strength curve, power/force-velocity curve and accommodated resistance come into play.  


Referring to Figure above as force increases, velocity decreases (and vice versa). When chains are added, this will alter the strength curve to a more bell-shaped format thus allowing the athlete to not only increase the force production, but maintain or increase velocity (thus increasing their power output).


The concept of the chains is to try and balance the strength curve and to make it more challenging, especially during the concentric phase as the chains are used to help overload this phase of the movement (Baker, 2009). More importantly, however, is to push through that sticking point of the movement wherever that may be on the strength curve (Elitefts Archives, 2010).  This is referring to producing as much force physically possible and accelerating through a movement.  When using the chains, this will try and force the subject outside their base of support (BOS). It is important for powerlifters to keep the bar over their mid-foot (BOS) to ensure the correct position to produce the maximum amount force as shown in Back Squat Balance picture.  


When using weight (external load) with and without chains, it will have an effect on the subject’s perceived centre of mass (PCOM). The PCOM refers to the subject plus the external load of the barbell. If the PCOM moves outside the BOS (barbell moves away from the midfoot), then the squat will become more challenging (Cleather, 2012). Using chains will enhance this difficulty - they sway so the additional weight is unstable – which in turn puts more emphasis on the synergist muscles to stabilise the movement.




Incorporating chains will increase a lifter’s confidence and ability as when they un-rack the bar it will be at its heaviest, but when they squat down to the bottom, the chains are de-loaded. As the lifter tries to stand up with “x” amount of force for what is on the bar, they will find it very hard to complete the lift with the added chain weight. To compensate, they have to produce more force and they will stand up more explosively.


That's it in brief but a more in-depth article will be released in the coming weeks. Probably 3-5000 word one on chains, bands and accommodated resistance.

Research Questions

  1. To determine if using chains over a three week period increases participants' 1RM for squat? If so, why, and how?
  2. Does using chains increase participants' isokinetic quadriceps strength over a three-week training cycle on the Dynamometer? If so, why, and how?
  3. Sub-Group Analysis of participants’ weight to establish if strength gain causes a significant increase in bodyweight.

Hypothesises

  1. Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference between subjects’ 1RM Squat, pre and post intervention with the chains.
  2. Alternative Hypothesis: There will be a significant difference between the subjects’ 1RM squat pre and post intervention after using the chains.

Methods 
Participants

Participants were recruited from a sample of male powerlifters from Teesside University powerlifting club. The eligibility criteria for involvement was they must have a minimum of two years resistance training and have taken part in a powerlifting competition. The participants will not be blinded during the study as they will know if they are part of the chain training group, CTG (n=4) or control group, CG (n=5). All subjects in both groups will not be performing any other lower body training as this could affect results due to recovery and/or overtraining.  The Hawthorn effect will be present as subjects will train as a group to help speed up data collection. Subjects will be at a range of abilities (Novice/Intermediate/Advanced) and individual progression will differ based on their training age (how long they have been training) and training history (what they have been training). 


Participants’ (Pre-Intervention) Data

Testing Group
Anthropometrics and Squat Mean Pre-Intervention
Height (cm)
Bodyweight (kg)
Age
1RM Squat (kg)
Pilot Group
180.75 ± 3.35
83.75 ±8.92
22 ± 1.41
131.88 ± 26.54
Control Group
177.8 ± 7.65
84.80 ± 13.48
21 ± 0.63
145 ± 26.08
Chain Group
181.75 ± 7.79
91.25 ± 5.40
23.25 ± 3.96
143 ± 4.12
Cross-Over Group
171.66 ± 1.70
78.83 ± 14.33
20.66 ± 0.47
161.66 ± 27.18

All participants’ pre intervention data.



 


Experimental Protocol

All subjects will perform a Warm Up (see Appendix 7.0) before the pre-testing session and each intervention training session. They will follow the same training programme for their additional competition lifts. This is to eliminate any change of improvement via another training method. The control group (CG) will be adhering to the same squat programme as the test group, but without using any chains. All participants are competitive lifters who have been coached and are trained to perform maximal effort testing all year round. Throughout the study, all subjects are instructed and under a coach's supervision. The protocol can be found in Appendix 13.0 which specifies sets and reps and percentage of 1RM over each training session during the 7-week intervention period.

To increase lifters' motivation, once groups have been randomly allocated, they will be paired with a lifter of similar ability. This will help push and encourage them more in training and testing sessions, increasing the magnitude of the Hawthorn Effect (McCarney, 2007). In this study, the athlete must squat below parallel which is deemed when the hip crease is below the knee (IPF, 2015). This is to ensure the study matches the same specification as what is expected in competition.






 Apparatus

Equipment
Make
Model
Manufacturers’ details
Weighing scales
Seca
869
Seca Weighing and Measuring Systems, Birmingham, England
Stadiometer
Seca
Leicester Portable Height Measure
Seca Weighing and Measuring Systems, Birmingham, England
Dynamometer
Biodex
System 3
Biodex Medical Systems, New York, USA


Apparatus used from Teesside University.





Equipment used from outside of Teesside University

Equipment
Make
Model
Manufacturers’ details




Olympic Barbell
ESP
Total Power Bar (20kg)

2015 Elite Sports Performance Technologies Ltd,
Barbell Collars
ESP
2.5kg
2015 Elite Sports Performance Technologies Ltd,
Weighted Discs
ESP
2.5kg, 3.75kg, 5kg,10kg, 15kg, 20kg, 25kg
2015 Elite Sports Performance Technologies Ltd,
ESP Rack



Olympic Collar Barbell   Chains (Pair)
ESP



Powerhousefitness
Lifting Combo Rack



2x15kg
2015 Elite Sports Performance Technologies Ltd.

Bodymax

Apparatus used from outside of Teesside University.




Squatting without Chains





Squatting with Chains



                                                                          
















Variables and Concepts

Dependant Variables (DV): Squat 1RM

Independent Variables (IV): Between groups measurement IV (whether they did, or did not, use chains in their intervention).

Control: A trial without using chains but following the same intervention.

Control Variable: No one will be squatting in knee wraps/squat suit as the study is aimed at Raw lifters: See Glossary

Pilot: Squatting without chains (the same as the pilot except no one used for cross-over trial).

Validity: The Squat test is a correct measure of strength for the sport of Powerlifting.


Data Collection Methods

Testing Protocols (Height, Weight, 1RM Squat and Biodex)

All testing protocols are in Appendices 15.0 and are as follows;

  1. Height (Stadiometer)
  2. Weight (Secca Weighing Scales)
  3. 1RM Squat
  4. Dynamometer Biodex Leg Extension

Data Sheets

The following information is for the participants in the study;

  1. Participant Information Sheet (Appendix 4.0)
  2. Participant Recording Sheet (Appendix 6.0)
  3. Borg Scale (Appendix 14.0)
  4. Participant Diary (Appendices 5.0)
  5. Consent Form (Appendix 2.0)
  6. Medical Form (Appendix 3.0)
  7. Warm Up & Cool Down (Appendix 7.0)
  8. Reference to Squatting Cues (Appendix 10.0)
  9. Intervention Protocol (Appendix 13.0)

Warm Up and Cool down

All participants performed the same Warm up before each session and a Cool Down upon completion. The Warm-Up and Cool-Down are shown in Appendix 7.0.


1RM Squat Protocol and Cues

Please refer to "Powerlifting" (Austin and Mann, 2012) and Nuckols (2016) in Appendix 10.0 for a detailed description on how to perform the squat movement as per powerlifting regulations (IPF, 2015). For the experimental intervention, please refer to Appendix 13.0


Subjects will be training to improve their 1RM Squat. Participants are needed for the following sessions (each lasts between 1-2 hours);



Week 1 Pre Test Week: Take Squat Max 1RM and Isokinetic Leg Extension (performed on two days. Minimum 72 hours between tests, same time of day for each participant).



Week 2 De-load week. Training sessions over each week will fall as Mondays/Wednesday/Fridays



Week 3 Start of 3 Week Wave: 

Session 1     55% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg                        chains added) 

Session 2    60% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 

Session 3    65% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 



Week 4 2nd Week of Cycle:      

Session 1    70% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 

Session 2    72.5% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 

Session 3    75% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 



Week 5 3rd week of Cycle:        

Session 1    77.5% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 

Session 2    80% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 

Session 3    82.5% of 1RM for 8 sets of 2 reps (with 15kg chains added) 



Week 6 De-load week



Week 7 Re-Test Squat Max 1RM and Isokinetic Leg Extension (performed on two days. Minimum 72 hours between tests, same time of day for each participant).





Data Collection

Data will be collected pre-session, mid-session and post session as defined in the intervention protocol (Appendix 13.0).




Statistical Analysis

Statistical measures to be used include the following; Standard Deviation (SD) of height, weight, age, pre-testing 1RM Squat and pre-testing Biodex. To measure between groups 1RM squats and Biodex results. Paired T-Test will be used to calculate the difference pre and post-test for within each subject group. Unpaired T-test will be used for comparing post-test scores between groups. 95% confidence intervals will be calculated to show the spread of mean pre and post-test. Data may be insignificant on the T-Tests as population size can affect the scoring so Cohen's formula will be used (Cohen, 1988) to find the effect size of the intervention between 2 means along with Effect and Magnitude based inferences to support Cohen’s. Effect size will be using the Hopkins (2009) table utilising a range from trivial to extremely large. Wilks formula will be used to measure differences from implementing (specific to the sport of powerlifting) intervention (Appendix 15.18).


Data Collection Instruments
Software used to analyse the data included Statistical Analysis Software Package (SPPS) and Microsoft Excel.


Ethical Considerations

Before testing could commence, all participants completed a medical form, consent form, participant information sheet, and were made aware of their right to withdraw. The risk of injury has been reduced due to the familiarisation session and the standardised warm up and cool down. This project has been passed by the Teesside Ethics Committee (Appendix 1.0) and the supervisor for the Project.


Results
 Disclaimer

 Due to unforeseen circumstances, no data from the Dynamometer (Biodex) will be shown in the results section. The majority of participants did not partake in the post-test testing session as required due to external factors. This means no data can be compared with the 1RM Squats.


Participants’ Post-Intervention Data



Testing Group
Anthropometrics and Squat Mean Post Intervention

Bodyweight (kg)
1RM Squat (kg)
Control Group
85.32 ± 13.65
155 ± 24.50
Chain Group
91.05 ± 5.70
160 ± 14.84
Cross-Over Group
79.53 ± 14.84
179.16 ± 28.89

 
Participants’ Post Intervention Data - showing means with standard deviations for height, weight, age, and 1RM squat.



 Pilot Group



Control Group

Chain (Experimental Group)


Cross-Over Group




All Group Means Pre and Post Test



Limitations


One of the major limitations was getting enough participants, particularly in each strength category of novice, intermediate or advanced and in each group of Pilot, Control, Chain Training Group and Cross-Over Group. An increase in participants would have produced more results at multiple ability levels (of strength) and interesting data between groups themselves. However, due to external factors, this was not feasible. Regarding performing the study, it is labour and time intensive, as athletes performing 1RM squats require long rest periods between sets to recover adequately (Sakamoto and Sinclair 2006). This may not suit some athletes due to other external commitments, however long rest periods are needed for full ATP-PC re-synthetisation (Harris et al, 1976.).

No measurements were recorded from the lower body. This would have provided some insight if there was any increase in size (from added muscle mass if the participant gained any bodyweight). However, the reason for not using anthropometric skinfolds and measurements is the sport of Powerlifting does not require athletes to be a specific body fat percentage or size. All they need to be able to do is perform the skill of the squat using maximal strength (IPF, 2015). As the results showed, the participants had insignificant weight gain as the strength gain was from neural drive improvement, as opposed to a hypertrophic adaption. Including these parameters to the current study would have been unfeasible due to the time constraints and the original aims.

Conclusions

To summarise this dissertation, there was a significant difference within group measures as discussed. All participants, across all testing groups, improved their 1RM Squat. The most significant difference was the Chain group. To support this, there was a considerable difference in the effect size of the Chain group (Effect Size and Magnitude Based Inferences results concurred) compared to the rest. Performance improved when broken down into kilograms, weight and Wilks, despite no significant change in bodyweight (both within and between groups testing measures). However, the initial null hypothesis has to be accepted as there was no significant difference between groups regarding the effect of the different interventions. The alternative hypothesis is rejected as a result of this. This was due to the lack of participants in each group which ultimately made the confidence intervals unrealistic to achieve a statistical significance, despite all participants improving between 5-30kg.

Recommendations for future research to improve the experimental protocol could entail; more anthropometrics to measure the girth of the lower limbs to determine if there is any increase in muscle size. The incorporation of a tendon meter could be used to assess what the average power output/velocity per repetition is over the same intervention period. A double loop could also be considered when setting up the chain, as this may increase strength. To ensure a positive statistical significance between the groups, a larger sample size needs to be established and guaranteed as well as increasing the number of athletes in each strength category (equal number in novice, intermediate and advanced).  Overall, there was not a between group statistical significance, however, from a coaching perspective on athletic performance, one can see that there is validity with this intervention as no participant received an injury and all improved.


References

Can be emailed out

Appendix

Can be emailed out





Andrew Richardson, Founder of Strength is Never a Weakness Blog





















I have a BSc (Hons) in Applied Sport Science and a Merit in my MSc in Sport and Exercise Science and I passed my PGCE at Teesside University. 
Now I will be commencing my PhD into "Investigating Sedentary Lifestyles of the Tees Valley" this October 2019. 

I am employed by Teesside University Sport and WellBeing Department as a PT/Fitness Instructor.  


My long term goal is to become a Sport Science and/or Sport and Exercise Lecturer. I am also keen to contribute to academia via continued research in a quest for new knowledge.


My most recent publications: 


My passion is for Sport Science which has led to additional interests incorporating Sports Psychology, Body Dysmorphia, AAS, Doping and Strength and Conditioning. 
Within these respective fields, I have a passion for Strength Training, Fitness Testing, Periodisation and Tapering. 
I write for numerous websites across the UK and Ireland including my own blog Strength is Never a Weakness. 
























I had my own business for providing training plans for teams and athletes. 
I was one of the Irish National Coaches for Powerlifting, and have attained two 3rd places at the first World University Championships, 
in Belarus in July 2016.Feel free to email me or call me as I am always looking for the next challenge. 



Contact details below; 

Facebook: Andrew Richardson (search for)

Facebook Page: @StrengthisNeveraWeakness

Twitter: @arichie17 

Instagram: @arichiepowerlifting

Snapchat: @andypowerlifter 

Email: a.s.richardson@tees.ac.uk

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-richardson-b0039278