Thiago Lopes, PhD

It was previously believed that combining aerobic and resistance training could compromise strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, recent meta-analytic findings have challenged this notion (PMID: 34757594). A new study by Gomes et al. (PMID: 42949799) provides additional insight into the topic. Researchers randomized 30 resistance-trained young men to perform either RT alone, endurance training alone, or concurrent training (RT + endurance). The 11-week RT program initially emphasized maximal strength before shifting toward explosive strength and power development. Contrary to current meta-analytic findings, results showed statistically similar increases in muscle hypertrophy for RT-only and concurrent training; however, relative gains were appreciably greater with RT alone (17.0% vs. 8.8%). For isometric strength, RT alone significantly increased maximal isometric strength (+18.4%), whereas concurrent training did not produce a significant improvement. Measures of power did not indicate meaningful differences between conditions These results are particularly interesting given that the aerobic protocol consisted of just three 30-minute treadmill running sessions per week, performed after RT. Although the running intensity progressed from moderate to relatively vigorous levels, the overall aerobic volume was fairly modest and seemingly unlikely to impose excessive physiological demands. Putting the findings into perspective with the totality of the evidence, the study raises interesting questions about the potential interference effect of concurrent training. One important consideration is that the participants were relatively well-trained, whereas most previous research has involved untrained individuals. It's therefore possible that training status influences the extent to which cardio interferes with strength and hypertrophy adaptations. That said, the relatively small sample size warrants caution, particularly when interpreting the relative differences in hypertrophy. Bottom line: The findings suggest that the interference effect may be more nuanced than previously thought, potentially depending on training status, the specific adaptation being measured, and how the training program is structured. More research in trained populations is needed before drawing firm conclusions. ovid.com/jnls/nsca-jscr/full…

I’ve posted previously about the need to perform exercises from a variety of angles to optimize muscle development. A new study in JSCR (PMID: 42842490), led by @jpnunes.phd, provides intriguing evidence that different exercises can preferentially stimulate growth in different regions of the gluteus maximus. The study compared 10 weeks of standing cable hip extensions versus hip abductions in 17 previously untrained adults. Using a within-subject design, participants trained one leg with hip extensions and the other with hip abductions, allowing for a direct comparison of the exercises. Results for the hip extension showed overall gluteus maximus size increased by 9%. When segmenting regional hypertrophy, gains for the upper region = 5%, the middle region = 8% and the lower region = 14%. Alternatively, overall growth for the hip abduction was 5%, with gains of 10%, 4% and 1% for the proximal, mid and distal regions, respectively. Importantly, hip extensions produced significantly greater overall gluteus maximus hypertrophy, with the largest advantage occurring in the distal region. Hip abductions, on the other hand, produced a growth pattern favoring the proximal region. Moreover, hip abductions also produced a modestly greater increase in the combined size of the gluteus medius and minimus compared to hip extensions (4% vs 2%). Similar to other muscle groups, the findings suggest that exercise selection may influence not only how much a muscle grows, but also where that growth occurs. Hip extension movements may be particularly effective for overall glute max development, especially its lower region, while hip abduction movements may provide a complementary stimulus favoring the upper region and glute medius and minimis. This provides a rationale for incorporating both movement patterns into a comprehensive glute-training program. Bottom line: Glute hypertrophy appears to be region-specific, and exercise selection may be an important variable for optimizing development across the muscle. More research is needed, but these findings add to the growing evidence that muscles don't necessarily grow uniformly in response to resistance training. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4284…

My lab recently investigated whether having direct supervision during resistance training influences muscle and strength development in resistance-trained men and women (PMID: 37789670). Participants were randomly assigned to perform the same 8-week resistance-training program, either supervised (one-on-one supervision, including encouragement and performance feedback) or unsupervised (trained independently after receiving instructions). Both groups were instructed to perform 3 sets of 8–12 RM to volitional failure, 3 days per week. The results? Overall, supervised training produced more favorable muscular adaptations. Supervision produced greater increases in muscle thickness of the triceps and several regions of the quadriceps. Total-body fat-free mass also favored supervised training by more than a pound. For maximal strength, squat 1RM gains favored supervised training, while bench press gains were similar between groups. Importantly, there were substantially fewer dropouts in the supervised group. Although we can’t determine the underlying reasons for the superiority of supervised training from this study, it is likely that the supervised participants trained with a higher level of effort which is a pre-requisite for maximizing gainz. Other factors that may have also contributed include better exercise technique, greater motivation, and feedback. These mechanisms remain speculative and require further research. Take home: Having someone supervise your workouts may help you get more out of your training—even if you’re already resistance trained. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you need a personal trainer. A knowledgeable, dedicated training partner who provides feedback, encouragement, and accountability might provide some of the same benefits, although this remains to be directly tested. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3778…

I was proud to have been part of the team, led by @mackinprof, that comprehensively updated the previous ACSM Position Stand on resistance training prescription, published earlier this year (PMID: 41843416). This was a massive undertaking: an umbrella review of 137 systematic reviews encompassing >30,000 participants were synthesized to determine how resistance-training variables influence strength, hypertrophy, power, and physical function. Some key takeaways: For muscle hypertrophy: --Higher weekly volume appears beneficial, with ≥10 sets per muscle group/week enhancing growth --Hypertrophy can be achieved across a wide range of loads (30–100% 1RM) --A high level of effort is required to optimize results but training to momentary muscle failure does not appear necessary --Higher training frequency does not independently enhance hypertrophy when volume is equated --Periodization, repetition duration, and exercise order did not consistently affect hypertrophy For strength: --Heavier loads (≥80% 1RM) are advantageous --Training ≥2 days/week is beneficial --2–3 sets per session and a full range of motion can enhance strength --Prioritize exercises you want to improve by performing them earlier in the session For power: --Moderate loads (30–70% 1RM) are favored --Intentional high-velocity/power training and Olympic-style weightlifting can enhance power --Lower-to-moderate training volumes appear preferable Perhaps the biggest take-home: Resistance training itself matters far more than obsessing over most individual programming variables. Many commonly debated aspects of program design had little or inconsistent influence on outcomes. #justlift pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article…

Does having a naturally muscular physique actually mean you’ll build more muscle from lifting? Are ectomorphs necessarily hard gainers while mesomorphs are genetically built to grow? A new study from my lab put these questions to the test. We investigated whether baseline somatotype predicts muscular adaptations to resistance training. Forty untrained young men completed a supervised, whole-body resistance training program twice per week for 9 weeks. We assessed somatotype using the Heath–Carter method and measured changes in muscle size and multiple aspects of physical performance. What did we find? Greater mesomorphy showed some positive associations with muscle growth, but the effects were small to trivial and unlikely to be practically meaningful. Once the other components of somatotype—endomorphy and ectomorphy—were accounted for, there was little evidence that mesomorphy independently predicted hypertrophy. The same general pattern emerged for performance: being more mesomorphic did not meaningfully predict overall improvements in performance. One interesting exception was bench press strength, where greater baseline mesomorphy showed a modest positive association with gains—but this exploratory finding requires further research. We also found that greater African genetic ancestry was associated with higher mesomorphy scores, suggesting that ancestry may contribute to differences in body morphology. Importantly, however, greater mesomorphy did not translate into superior overall training responsiveness. Take-home: Having a naturally muscular build does not necessarily mean you have a greater capacity to build muscle. Likewise, having a more ectomorphic—or naturally slender—physique does not mean you’re destined to be a “hard gainer.” Important caveat: This was an exploratory analysis involving a relatively small sample of young, previously untrained men over just 9 weeks. We need larger and longer-term studies before drawing more definitive conclusions on the topic. Kudos to my master’s student @thechrisparnell for leading the project and, as always, to the students in my Applied Muscle Development lab for bring it to fruition sportrxiv.org/index.php/serv…