Dr James Fisher
James Fisher PhD (james.fisher @ solent.ac.uk) is a Course Leader and Senior Lecturer for the School of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences at Southampton Solent University in the UK. He is regarded as one of the leading researchers in exercise science, and in particular, resistance training.
Listen to my other podcasts with James HERE
In this week’s podcast, Dr. James Fisher talks about his scientific paper The Strength-Endurance Continuum Revisited: A Critical Commentary of the Recommendation of Different Loading Ranges for Different Muscular Adaptations which challenged the repetition-maximum continuum concept. James explains Thomas DeLorme’s strength-endurance continuum, why heavy load isn’t necessarily the key to hypertrophy, and much more.
Access exclusive exercise science reviews inside HIT Business Membership
Enjoy the show using buttons and links below!
- Listen to it on Apple Podcasts
- Stream by clicking here
- Download as an MP3 by right-clicking here and choosing “save as”
This episode is brought to you by ARXFit.com, ARX are the most innovative, efficient and effective all-in-one exercise machines I have ever seen. I was really impressed with my ARX workout. The intensity and adaptive resistance were unlike anything I’ve ever experienced. I love how the machine enables you to increase the negative load to fatigue target muscles more quickly and I love how the workouts are effortlessly quantified. The software tracks maximum force output, rate of work, total amount of work done and more in front of you on-screen, allowing you to compete with your pervious performance, to give you and your clients real-time motivation.
As well as being utilized by many HIT trainers to deliver highly effective and efficient workouts to their clients, ARX comes highly recommended by world-class trainers and brands including Bulletproof, Tony Robbins, and Ben Greenfield Fitness. To find out more about ARX and get $500 OFF install, please go to ARXFit.com and mention “High Intensity Business” in the how did you hear about us field – ORDER HERE
Show Notes
- 3:12 – Genesis of ‘The Strength-Endurance Continuum’ commentary
- 12:02 – DeLorme’s strength-endurance continuum
- 15:10 – Misinterpretations of the strength-endurance continuum
- 19:11 – Thoughts on double progression and progressive overload
- 26:25 – Challenging the repetition-maximum continuum idea
- 39:18 – Support for a repetition-maximum continuum
- 59:42 – Effort and discomfort
- 1:02:59 – Are high-loads necessary for hypertrophy?
- 1:07:45 – Maximal strength and muscular endurance
- 1:14:08 – Feedback & reviews
- 1:21:21 – Impact on exercise programming
Selected Links from the Episode
- The Strength-Endurance Continuum Revisited: A Critical Commentary of the Recommendation of Different Loading Ranges for Different Muscular Adaptations by James Fisher, et al.
- Southampton Solent University
- Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations by James Fisher, et al.
- National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)
- American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
- Nautilus Machines
- ARX Machines
- Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning by Haff and Triplett
- Optimum Repetitions for the Development of Strength by Richard Berger
- The Effects of Periodization vs. Progressive Resistance Exercise on Upper and Lower Body Strength in Women by Herrick and Stone
- Muscle Hypertrophy in Bodybuilders by Tesch and Larson
- Lore of Running by Timothy Noakes
- Effects of Three Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength and Absolute and Relative endurance by Anderson and Kearney
- Strength/Endurance Effects from Three Resistance Training Protocols with Women by Stone and Coulter
- Muscular Adaptations in Response to Three Different Resistance-Training Regimens: Specificity of Repetition Maximum Training Zones by Campos, et al.
- Low-Load Bench Press Training to Fatigue Results in Muscle Hypertrophy Similar to High-Load Bench Press Training by Jeremey Loenneke, et al.
- Muscle, Smoke & Mirrors by Randy Roach
- WebPlotDigitizer
- NFL Combine
- Journal of Trainology
429 – A Deep Dive into Joint-Friendly Fitness with Bill DeSimone: A New Paradigm in Exercise Safety
427 – The HIT Protocols Pete Cerqua Used to Grow a 7-Figure Personal Training Business
426 – Dr Doug McGuff — Expanding ‘Ultimate Exercise’, Navigating the Realities of Running a HIT Studio on Autopilot, Crafting the Ultimate Client Workout Experience, and Delving into Muscle Hypertrophy and Steroid Side Effects
Question for James … he said that the HIT crowd wound’t like the fact that in the studies more volume leads to greater muscle mass increase … does that greater volume include going to failure on each set or not.
Thanks
Hi John, I’ve asked James to respond, but he’s a busy lad, so they may need to email him direct james.fisher @ solent.ac.uk
John, that’s really the key question isn’t it. Like I’ve said previously – if volume wasn’t a key stimulus then some studies would show lower volumes to be better and other studies would support higher volumes. However, the evidence (regarding muscle mass; not strength, increases) shows either no difference or that higher volumes are better. More recently studies I have confidence in have supported higher volumes. Now the next logical question is well, how much more volume gives you how much more adaptation… that one I can’t answer. Let’s say that 1 set might give 80-98% of hypertrophy gains, and the next set more, and the next set more, etc. up to a point. But whether you are getting 80% or 98% from that single set (or less, or more) might be down to genetic factors. Put simply, I believe volume (which ultimately drives metabolic stress) is a key stimulus for optimising muscle mass. BUT… I think of it in the form of number of sets /muscle group/week, not sets/exercise.
Another great podcast. I love listening to James. Always seems to look at reality and what really happens, as in – a strength increase on 1RM is almost definitely going mean more repetitions on a lower weight.
Thank Jon. Glad you enjoyed the episode. Hope you’re doing well!
Hey Jon, thanks for the positive comments – glad you enjoyed the podcast
Looking strong and determined there James! ???? I downloaded the transcript and have just done a quick overview of this. I find this topic to be very liberating and motivating. Me be ing someone that is big on the feel of resistance. This stuff speaks to me. I also get the appeal the 1rm range, which for me, is probably not a true 1rm capability. I often do these during a workout especially if i’m using a selectorized weight stack machine. With a lighter load, I like the feel of “repping out”. I aim for failure, or maybe better put for me, a well worked feel. Above all, not venturing into what for me, feels just too heavy but not too light either. If that is vague enough lol.
Thank you Donnie. What did you think of the transcript? Are you happy with the accuracy?
Hi Lawrence. I tried to submit a response last night. Not sure if it went through or not. My connection seemed to be having some issues. To answer your question, the transcripts I’ve read here are great. There seems to be an occasional word that doesn’t translate correctly or it shows that a word or words were inaudible, if memory serves me correctly. But that is probably the case with any audio put through a program/app such as that?
Again, not sure what has me keep visiting the strength training blogs and what not. My training seems to usually go something like this: Find a decent amount of weight to contract against and do this until the muscle(s) feel worked enough. Here I still am lol.
Thank you for the feedback. I actually use a service provider who uses real humans to transcribe the podcast! How unusual in today’s world! Haha. I have used Otter.ai before which is software based but it’s even less accurate for podcasts.
Donnie, I think you said it all in regards to strength training. Maybe that is all that really matters. We can then discuss the nuances because it’s fun. But to argue about them in an aggressive manner is just a waste of time.
You are welcome Sir ???? Wow!…You mean us humans are still able to translate?!? Now THAT is just crazy talk Lawrence! Lol!
Regarding discussing the nuances: You hit the nail on the head! As far as discussing in an aggressive manner. If I can’t say it to your face I probably don’t need to type it ✌
Hi Lawrence, how’s things? Just query for James (or yourself) if he sees this, and you touched on it a bit…assuming there is not much difference to be worried about re heavy, moderate and light loads, and we make sure intensity and effort is high…I struggle to see it fully working with light loads (how light is light?!) as if too light then surely the rep range/TUL would get too long…e.g. you could do 50 or 100 (1/2 tempo) fairly intense high effort light load squats (or say a wall hold for 3 minutes), but would Dr McGuff and others say that after about the 90s or 120s mark it’s falling outside of a meaningful range. So basically I’m just thinking how light is feasible to go…or to put it another way, what rep range / time under tension is feasible to go at the longer end / lighter load. I like the idea of mixing it up a little between heavy to light, but I don’t want to lose sight of what rep / time ranges “work” either. In short, when is light too light?
Thanks!
Simon
PS, James, you look very ripped in that photo! More so than previous ones maybe? Either way, inspiring photo!
Hi Simon, sorry for the late reply. I think if the load is too light then the slow twitch will recover and the higher order motor units will not be recruited, so there does have to be a minimum load. I’ll see if James can elaborate.
I’ve only just caught up with this particular podcast.
I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it , and in no small part due to James’s ability to explain the complexity of scientific studies in simple laymens terms.
There was a wry smile on my face when certain established certification companies and their “selective” use of studies , along with the “old boys” clubs in the scientific community .
This brought back memories from the 90s and early 2000s when I used to look at studies and their calibre and relevance along with all the vested interests and wonder to myself how so many intelligent people were hoodwinked by them .
I am now looking forward to reading the whole study.
Regards
Mark Houghton
Thanks Mark! Glad you enjoyed this one! I really enjoyed recording it with James!
Simon, thank for the question… I think it’s really important that, while studies generally show no difference, there likely is at very extreme ends of the spectrum. In fact, a study within the last year or so looked at different loading ranges and everything from 40% 1RM and up showed pretty similar adaptations but a group training at 20% 1RM showed lesser adaptations. As such I think VERY light loads is probably suboptimal.
Lawrence highlighted a possible mechanism relating to recruitment of low threshold motor units and their recovery and re-activation without ever reaching the higher threshold motor units. It might also relate to the likelihood that at very low loads a person probably does not reach the same extent of muscular failure because of the discomfort. It’s probably that the answer is a combination of factors and might be quite individual.
With the above in mind I think moderate to heavy 60+ %1RM, or time under loads of 30-120seconds is probably working in a more appropriate range based on both adaptations and time efficiency.
I hope that helps.
Thanks
J
Thank you James!