A research article that actually used barbells and actually assessed strength

[Robert Santana]

Things are getting better. Barbell Squats, Bench Press, and Deadlifts were performed and they actually assessed strength using the squat. What constitutes a squat is another question but hey its an improvement. "High intensity" was also classified as 3-5 reps at 90% 1RM so big thumbs up there.


Comparison of high-intensity vs. high-volume resistance training on the BDNF response to exercise. - PubMed - NCBI

[Mark Rippetoe]

Help us with the details, Bob. This is a rather sketchy abstract.

[Mr.Wednesday]

Did they expect the high volume to not have any effect on the body?

[Robert Santana]

So brain-derived neurotrophic factor is a neurotrophic of the nerve growth factor protein family. BDNF-associated adaptations to hippocampal architecture have been associated with positive changes in memory and learning and has been reported to ameliorate the response to stress. It is found in the skeletal muscle, liver, and cardiac cells. Its role in the skeletal muscle is less clear, increased expression of skeletal muscle BDNF has been shown to increase fat oxidation. Most of the current research has been on endurance based training with limited studies on RT. Most of the current RT research has been done on older adults most likely using a conventional resistance training protocols aka silly bs. This study took two barbell and dumbbell based protocols and compared the differences in circulating and resting levels in response to training.


Day 1
Back squats
Deadlifts
Leg press
Lat pull downs
Barbell bent-over rows Barbell biceps curls

Day 2
Bench press
Incline bench press
Dumbbell flys
Seated shoulder press
Lateral dumbbell raise
Triceps extension

Day 3
Back squats Deadlifts
Barbell lunge
Seated row
Dumbbell pullover
Dumbbell biceps curl

Group 1: 70%1RM 4x8-10 with 1 min rest
Group 2: 90%1RM 3-5 reps with 3 min rest

"Strength testing. To determine appropriate training load for both HI and HV, strength in the bench press and squat exercises was assessed."

In short, circulating BDNF increased in both groups. So lifting weights with barbells seems to help with this but the intensity didn't make a difference. Resting levels were unchanged.

The strength data is summarized in another article here The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men. - PubMed - NCBI. Looks like lifting heavier weights with barbells grows bigger arms and strength than volume in this particular study lol. I'm pulling that one up right now as we speak.


Here is the link to the paper they published outlining the strength data. I'm reviewing it but the last sentence sounds like something we've heard before

"It appears that high-intensity resistance training stimulates greater improvements in some measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men during a short-term training period."

The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men. - PubMed - NCBI

[Bill Been]

I remember this one charming curmudgeon of an ER Doc told me one time that if you're going to do good science in the area of endocrine signalling stimulated by external factors like resistance training, looking solely at serum levels of a particular substance needs to be coupled with binding to receptors. In other words, one must look upstream of the substance being studied as well as downstream. If memory serves, this is part of what (rather rapidly) derailed our enthusiasm for Human Growth Hormone.

I know Robert knows all this and is merely drawing attention to the fact that somebody finally might've recognized that barbells load the system differently, more thoroughly and effectively, than leg extensions.

[LimieJosh]

Text book Ex Phys study.

- Acknowledge protein that looks interesting and is currently trendy int he literature
- Ask what role exercise or training has on it's concentration
- Realise that even if it changed by either exercise or training you do not know what that means.

The study may have been performed well, or may not have, but ultimately the question is one in which the answer illuminates very little of value.

[CJ Gotcher]

Pretty interesting reads, Rob-

After a read-through (not a deep-dive), I'm seeing a lot of things I like. The 2-week preparatory session means that both groups had time to practice the lifts within a rep range close to the training stimulus before taking the first test (hoping pulling some of the 'slop slack' out of the first assessment). The groups seem to be well paired, the training regime and set/rep scheme makes sense, and it confirms my bias

There are a few things that have me scratching my head in the design. The parent study (your final link) involved 30 subjects, not 20, so I'm assuming only a subset of the 30 were tested for BDNF, but the anthropometrics of this 20-man subset weren't separately noted. They seem to be 'resistance trained' in the same way as the Morton et. al group, so we're dealing with recreational novices (but this isn't a bad thing here, since it improves generalizability of the results to GENPOP). There's no exemplar for how the squat is assessed (they just say that the coaches assessing them are all strength and conditioning specialists). Finally, the display of the data could be better. For instances, anthropometric/strength data pre-program is not listed in a tabular format that makes sense- just the "post" data- and they only present the average data, so we can't verify outlier effects.

Still, it seems like a step above a lot of the crap out there. I'm saving both studies to my reference list, and when I get some spare time, I'll dig deeper.

[Robert Santana]

Pretty interesting reads, Rob-

After a read-through (not a deep-dive), I'm seeing a lot of things I like. The 2-week preparatory session means that both groups had time to practice the lifts within a rep range close to the training stimulus before taking the first test (hoping pulling some of the 'slop slack' out of the first assessment). The groups seem to be well paired, the training regime and set/rep scheme makes sense, and it confirms my bias

There are a few things that have me scratching my head in the design. The parent study (your final link) involved 30 subjects, not 20, so I'm assuming only a subset of the 30 were tested for BDNF, but the anthropometrics of this 20-man subset weren't separately noted. They seem to be 'resistance trained' in the same way as the Morton et. al group, so we're dealing with recreational novices (but this isn't a bad thing here, since it improves generalizability of the results to GENPOP). There's no exemplar for how the squat is assessed (they just say that the coaches assessing them are all strength and conditioning specialists). Finally, the display of the data could be better. For instances, anthropometric/strength data pre-program is not listed in a tabular format that makes sense- just the "post" data- and they only present the average data, so we can't verify outlier effects.

Still, it seems like a step above a lot of the crap out there. I'm saving both studies to my reference list, and when I get some spare time, I'll dig deeper.

The thing I liked the most is that in contrast to the Morton study they actually performed traditional strength training, and low reps were actually low reps.

[bueller73]

I haven'r read it yet, but here's a pdf of it.
http://education.ucf.edu/iepw/docs/2...igh-volume.pdf
"Comparison of high-intensity vs. high-volume resistance training on the
BDNF response to exercise"

doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00233.2016