Table Of ContentVOLUME 3, ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2019
M A S S
MONTHLY APPLICATIONS IN
STRENGTH SPORT
ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS
The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and
physique competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, in
addition to writing for commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduate- and graduate-
level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial
conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second Master’s
in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports
Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro status as a natural
bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and
242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person.
He’s written for many of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry, including Men’s
Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com.
Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from numerous record holders,
champion athletes, and collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief
Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D., CSCS, has specializations in strength and conditioning and
skeletal muscle physiology. He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida State
University (FSU) in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior to attending FSU, Mike
received his B.S. in exercise science from Marietta College and M.S. in applied health physiology
from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012
state championship teams. He also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best
competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike owns the company
Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open
division national champion.
2
Letter from
the Reviewers
appy New Year! It is our honor to kick off 2019 with what we believe is one of our best
H issues to date.
To start the year, Eric has a couple of unique qualitative articles. One of these arti-
cles details the mindset of Olympic and Paralympic champions. We think you’ll enjoy this as it’s
always fascinating to learn how the best in the world approach their craft. For his other written
piece, Eric has dissected a study that examines the peak week practices of natural physique ath-
letes. In the interpretation of this article, Eric details if what is actually done is supported by the
available scientific evidence.
Greg’s trio of written articles are all unique to the scientific literature. Two of these articles focus
on nutrition. These nutrition articles cover if the herb rhodiola is capable of improving anaerobic
performance and if protein requirements are indeed similar between men and women. Addition-
ally, safety bar squats have garnered little attention in the scientific literature, but thankfully, a
study was just published on the topic. Greg breaks down these results, which compared muscle
activation during safety bar squats with regular barbell squats.
Mike has tackled the first ever study on postactivation potentiation and lifting performance.
If you’re unfamiliar with the topic, it’s a cool read, as this is essentially a warm-up strategy that
has improved jumping and sprinting performance in previous research but has not yet been ex-
amined in relation to lifting performance. Mike’s written content is rounded out by examining a
cross-sectional study that attempted to explain when during a training career neuromuscular and
morphological adaptations to muscle drive strength changes.
In the video content, Eric provides some insight into nutrition for the aging lifter, which is a
needed addition to our previous content on training for the aging lifter. Mike examines some
unique training strategies that may be considered during a powerlifting meet week in his video.
As always, please do not hesitate to touch base in the Facebook group with any questions or
discussion. If you are new to MASS, the Facebook group suggestions often influence our video
content, so we welcome the feedback. Also, don’t forget to give the audio roundtables a listen.
Thank you for reading and listening to the first issue in Volume 3. We are committed to making
2019 the best year of MASS yet and plan to be here for many years to come.
The MASS Team
Eric, Greg, and Mike
3
Table of Contents
6 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
There’s Finally Research on Safety Bar Squats
A lot of people have asked me to review the research on safety bar squats. There
was just one problem: there wasn’t any. That’s changed over the past couple of
months.
16 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
What is Postactivation Potentiation, and Does it Work for Lifting?
Postactivation potentiation exercise is usually applied by performing a heavy
back squat about 10 minutes prior to jumping or sprinting to improve explosive
performance. This article covers the first study looking at the ability of heavy squats
to improve squat repetition performance five minutes later.
26 B Y E R I C H E L M S
The Science of Peaking
Bodybuilding “peak weeks” are often inspired by scientific principles, but actual
journal articles on the peaking process are few and far between. In this study, a
large number of natural physique competitors were surveyed about peak week
practices, and the scientific theories behind their practices were explored in
depth.
38 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Protein Needs are Similar for Men and Women
The majority of the research analyzing acute protein needs has been performed
on male subjects, leading female strength athletes to wonder if the typical
recommendations are appropriate for them. A recent study found that the protein
needs of female athletes are basically the same as those of male athletes.
4
48 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Different Factors Drive Strength at Different Times
Why exactly does strength increase? There are many factors that drive strength
gains, but neuromuscular and hypertrophy adaptations are two prominent factors.
However, even though they both play a role, each takes a primary role at different
points in a training career.
61 B Y E R I C H E L M S
The Mindset of World Champions
We often focus on the quantitative science behind sport to improve performance,
since it’s tangible. However, world champions believe their success is primarily
due to the intangibles: their outlook and mindset.
71 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Does a Popular “Adaptogen” Increase Anaerobic Performance as Much
as Caffeine?
Rhodiola rosea is a popular supplement, touted for its ability to decrease
perceptions of fatigue. A new study found that it also improves anaerobic exercise
performance, which may make it useful for lifters.
81 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Training During Meet Week
The goal during the week of a powerlifting meet is usually to not mess things
up. But, what if you could still get stronger during the week? One strategy is to
“train into a meet” instead of fully tapering. This video will examine that concept
and some other nuances of structuring training during the week of a powerlifting
competition.
83 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Nutrition for the Aging Lifter
Mike covered training and the aging process in his two-part series in Volume 2
Issues 5 and 6, and in this video, Eric goes over the nutrition-specific changes
that occur due to age, and what lifters can do about them.
5
Study Reviewed: Effects of the Safety Squat Bar on Trunk and Lower-Body
Mechanics During a Back Squat. Hecker et al. (2018)
There’s Finally Research on
Safety Bar Squats
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
A lot of people have asked me to review the research on safety bar
squats. There was just one problem: there wasn’t any. That’s changed
over the past couple of months.
Photo used wth permission from EliteFTS 6
KEY POINTS
1. In this study, competitive powerlifters squatted about 11% less for a 3RM with a
safety bar than with a barbell.
2. The safety bar led to a more upright torso position and increased lower trap
activation (assessed via EMG). It decreased activation in the vastus lateralis, the
hamstrings, and the abdominals.
3. In spite of the lower EMG readings in this study, a recent longitudinal study found
similar adaptations with barbell and safety bar squats. So, if you’re not specifically
training for a powerlifting meet, you’re probably not missing out on much if you
just use the bar you prefer.
afety bar squats were first popular- upright torso position, but the barbell
S ized by Fred Hatfield in the ’80s, squat allowed for a higher 3RM and
and they grew in popularity in the elicited greater EMG readings in the
late ’90s and early 2000s on the back of vastus lateralis, the hamstrings, and the
Louie Simmons’ endorsement. While abdominals.
they’ve been popular in the gym for over
two decades now, safety bars have flown
Purpose and Research
under the scientific radar. They’re so un-
known in the scientific literature that the Questions
presently reviewed study (1) had to cite
a T-Nation article for anecdotal support
Purpose
of the safety bar’s popularity and effects.
The purpose of this study was to com-
However, the safety bar is finally get-
pare strength, muscle activation, and
ting some attention. In the present study,
joint ranges of motion in the safety bar
researchers had competitive powerlifters
squat and the barbell back squat.
test their 3RM squat with a barbell and
a safety bar. Then the researchers as-
Hypotheses
sessed differences in kinematics (joint
The researchers hypothesized that:
ranges of motion and body positioning)
and EMG (as a proxy for muscle acti- 1. 3RM strength would be lower in
vation) between the two lifts while the the safety bar squat.
lifters performed reps at 75% of their
2. EMG of the upper- and mid-back
3RM. Squatting with the safety bar led
muscles would be higher in the
to greater lower trap EMG and a more
safety bar squat.
7
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Competitive lifting
Sex Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm)
experience (years)
8 males
31.5 ± 6.3 88.1 ± 20.7 1.64 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 2.8
4 females
3. There would be no differences in All reps had to be performed to legal
lower extremity muscle activation powerlifting depth. During the safety
or ranges of motion. bar squats, the subjects were told to not
press upward on the handles of the safety
4. The safety bar squat would allow for
squat bar. All reps were performed with
a more upright torso when squat-
EMG electrodes on the upper, middle,
ting.
and lower traps, the spinal erectors, the
lats, the rectus abdominis, the obliques,
Subjects and Methods
the medial and lateral hamstrings, the
vastus lateralis and medialis, the rectus
femoris, the medial gastrocnemius, and
Subjects
the glutes. The subjects were also outfit-
The subjects were 12 competitive pow-
ted with reflective markers for kinematic
erlifters (eight men and four women)
analysis. The authors reported integrat-
who had at least some prior experience
ed EMG and peak kinematic measure-
with the safety bar squat. Further details
ments.
about the subjects can be seen in Table
1.
Findings
Methods
The subjects squatted 11.3% more with
This study took place over three ses-
the barbell than the safety squat bar,
sions, with at least one week between
on average. Rectus abdominis, medial
sessions. In the first two sessions, sub-
and lateral hamstrings, vastus lateralis,
jects worked up to a 3RM on either
upper trap, and medial gastrocnemius
the barbell back squat or the safety bar
EMG were significantly greater during
squat. In the third session, subjects per-
the barbell squat. On the other hand,
formed 3 sets of 5 repetitions with 75%
lower trap activation was significantly
of their 3RM using both squat styles.
greater during the safety bar squat. Peak
The subjects were allowed to self-select
hip flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, forward
their stance width, but were required to
knee travel, and forward lean were sig-
use the same width for both squat styles.
nificantly greater with the barbell squat.
8
Figure 1 Scaled lower body EMG for safety bar and barbell squats
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Glutes Lateral Medial Vastus lateralis Vastus medialis Rectus femoris Medial
hamstrings hamstrings gastrocnemius
Safety bar Barbell
* = significant (p < 0.05) difference between bars
There were no significant differences in Interpretation
glute, vastus medialis, rectus femoris,
spinal erector, lat, middle trap, or oblique There were a couple of things that in-
EMG. There also wasn’t a significant terested me about these results. The fact
difference in peak knee flexion. that the safety bar led to lower rectus ab-
dominis and upper trap EMG readings
For the graphical representations of
surprised me; assuming EMG is at all
the results, I’ve scaled all of the vari-
associated with how you feel after train-
ables based on the higher value in each
ing, I would have expected higher ab-
between-condition comparison so that
dominal and upper trap EMG with the
each graph will be readable. For exam-
safety bar. If I’ve only been back squat-
ple, the integrated EMG values for the
ting for several months, my upper traps
trunk muscles went as high as 720µV
and abs are always wrecked the day after
and as low as 44µV, which don’t play
a session of safety bar squats.
well together on the same graph. With
scaling, the highest value for each com- I was also surprised that EMG for the
parison is 1, and the lowest value for any leg and thigh musculature was so much
comparison is 0.54. lower during safety bar squats. At first,
this may sound logical: Absolute loading
was lower with the safety squat bar, so
9
Figure 2 Scaled trunk EMG for safety bar and barbell squats
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Spinal erectors Lats Upper traps Middle traps Lower traps Rectus abdominus External obliques
Safety bar Barbell
* = significant (p < 0.05) difference between bars
absolute EMG readings should be low- and front squats, finding that the low-
er as well. However, the average loads er body EMG differences between back
used were 109.8kg for safety bar squats and front squats (which also have clear
and 123kg for barbell squats. The aver- differences in external loading) are ei-
age subject weighed 88.1kg, and when ther small (2) or nonexistent (3, 4). So,
you squat, you’re also moving your body I wonder if the EMG differences in this
mass. Thus, the total load difference was study may be partially attributable to dif-
something like 197.8 vs. 211.1 kg (I rec- ferences in comfort and technical profi-
ognize I’d need to make some adjust- ciency with the two bars. As you learn
ments for segmental masses to be com- a new exercise, EMG tends to increase
pletely accurate, but you get the point). as muscle coordination improves and in-
This means that the difference in total hibitory feedback decreases (see Mike’s
load was only about 6.3%, not 11.3%. article on that subject in this month’s
However, the mean EMG differences issue), and the difference in 3RMs sug-
for the hamstrings and the vastus later- gests to me that at least some of the sub-
alis were 10.2-20.6%, which are larger jects weren’t incredibly experienced with
than would be expected based solely on safety bar squats. I would have expected
differences in loading. We also have a a difference of ~5%, rather than ~11%,
couple of studies comparing back squats if the lifters were truly proficient with
10
