Myo-Reps for Mass?

A recent study showed similar size and strength gains in the pecs when comparing Myo-Reps to traditional training over an 8-week period in trained men. This suggests Myo-Reps can be a time-efficient way to train, at least for short periods when training certain muscle groups and exercises.

Overview

• What did they test? The researchers performed both an acute study and chronic study. In the acute study, they compared muscle excitation, barbell velocity, and training session duration between Myo-Reps and traditional bench press. In the chronic study, trained men performed either Myo-Reps or traditional training for 8 weeks. The researchers assessed pectoral hypertrophy and strength.
• What did they find? In the acute study, muscle excitation and barbell velocity were similar between Myo-Reps and traditional sets, but session length was shorter for Myo-Reps. In the chronic study, strength and size gains were similar between the two protocols.
• What does it mean for you? Myo-Reps can be a time-efficient alternative for building size and strength. You likely won’t be sacrificing gains with the reduced volume, at least over short periods (like 8 weeks) and with upper body training. Results might be different, however, for longer training durations or other muscle groups and exercises.

What’s the Problem?

Purpose

In numerous issues of REPS, we’ve talked about the impact of volume on hypertrophy. There’s plenty of evidence to indicate that, if you want to maximize hypertrophy, then you want to use volume as a progressive overload tool. Hypertrophy tends to get greater with higher volume, although with diminishing returns.

Even though higher volumes of training can be beneficial for hypertrophy, in the words of Kimberly “Sweet Brown” Wilkins, “Ain’t nobody got time for that.” While dedicated bodybuilders and physique athletes might have the time to engage in high volume training, there are many, many trainees who are limited in the amount of time they can spend in the gym. For these people, time-efficient ways of introducing progressive overload can be valuable. Time-efficient strategies such as drop sets can sometimes provide comparable hypertrophy to traditional sets.

One time-efficient training technique is a form of rest-pause training called Myo-Reps. This technique was originally popularized by the Norwegian strength coach Borge Fagerli. In this style of training, you perform a high-effort activation set to failure or near failure. You rest 20-40 seconds, then perform a “mini-set.” The number of reps you perform in this mini-set is determined by the number of reps you performed in the original set. For example, if you did 9-12 reps to failure in your activation set, your mini-set would be 3 reps. You perform a series of these mini-sets, separated by 20-40 seconds rest, until you can no longer complete 3 reps of the mini-set. Thus, the point at which you stop is auto-regulatory in nature. If you’re extremely fatigued, you won’t complete as many mini-sets as you would if you were well recovered.

While there is past research comparing rest-pause style training to traditional sets 1, there have been no formal investigations comparing Myo-Reps to traditional sets. Let’s take a closer look at a recent study where researchers looked at both the acute and chronic effects of Myo-Reps compared to traditional training.

Hypothesis

The researchers did not provide a formal hypothesis.

What Did They Test and How?

Study Design

This study comprised of two different parts: an acute study, and a chronic long-term study. In the acute study, the researchers examined the effects of Myo-Reps vs. traditional training on muscle excitation, barbell velocity, and training duration for the bench press. In the chronic study, subjects engaged in either Myo-Reps training or traditional training of the chest for 8 weeks, and the researchers examined the effects on 1-RM strength, muscle endurance, and pectoral hypertrophy.

Participants

In the acute study, a convenience sample of 14 resistance-trained men were recruited, but due to technical errors in data collection, only data from 9 subjects were analyzed. The subject characteristics are shown in Table 1.

For the chronic study, a separate convenience sample of 24 resistance-trained men of similar characteristics, training age, and strength were recruited. Two subjects were excluded for not meeting the minimum training session requirements, and thus 22 subjects were used in the final analysis. Their characteristics are shown in Table 1. Subjects were pair-matched based on 1-RM bench press strength. Within each pair, subjects were randomly assigned to either the Myo-Rep (MYO) group or traditional set group (TRA).