The researchers had 2 groups of women and 2 groups of men train to either a 20% velocity loss per set or a 40% velocity loss per set. In other words, one group trained closer to failure than the other by performing more reps per set.
Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, but the magnitudes of improvement differed between groups. Women showed greater effect size gains from training closer to failure than men for 1RM strength and power.
I agree with the overall conclusion of the researchers, although we need a lot more research on strength training women.
"Subtle but potentially meaningful greater gains in strength and lifting velocity were observed following 40% velocity-loss training in women, which was absent in comparison between men groups.
It may be that women require a greater velocity loss (i.e., within-set fatigue) than men, especially in bench press, to maximize strength and power development.
It, therefore, appears that programming of power training in women should consist of higher volume than currently used to induce adaptations in men."
To verify these findings in technical terms, researchers will need to demonstrate a statistically significant triple interaction effect: sex x failure proximity x time.
Triple interaction effects are very difficult to validate, so we'll need a lot more research on strength training women. I'd also like to see if the velocity loss linearly correlates with repetitions to failure or if this varies between men and women.
In my article '9 Reasons why women should not train like men', I explained that women have considerably greater fatigue-resistance than men due to i.a. metabolic factors and a generally higher proportion of type I muscle fibers. They also tend to recover faster after a set.
These findings all align with the idea that women can handle more intensive training than men.
Training closer to failure is one way to achieve this, but I often simply increase the total weekly set volume of women compared to men, if they show the typically superior work capacity.
Raw eggs are often listed as a poor protein source due to their poor digestibility. We digest barely half of the protein in them.
Yet somehow they stimulate just as much muscle growth as boiled eggs, according to this new study.
Anabolic signaling (mTOR) and myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis (MPS) over the 5-hour post-workout recovery period were similar after eating 30 g of protein from either raw or boiled eggs.
This finding surprised me, as well as the authors. It's plausible that raw eggs are indeed an inferior protein source, but the study was underpowered to detect the difference or that MPS hit a ceiling effect.
• 00:00 Intro
• 09:00 How to deal with severe injury and general injury advise
• 15:36 Exercise selection: Overrated vs. Underrated exercises
• 20:21 Overhead pressing any good?
• 23:40 Deadlifts for hypertrophy