Pre-exhaustion is the performance of a simple exercise followed immediately by a compound exercise targeting the same muscle group. The purpose is to pre-fatigue the targeted muscle group with the simple exercise so it is must work harder during the compound exercise, based on the belief that the muscles of the arms and legs are “weak-links” in compound exercises and limit their effectiveness for the muscles of the torso and hips.
I have used it in many of my workouts and with my clients because it appeared to be effective and has been used with much success by high intensity training experts like Ellington Darden and Mike Mentzer. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones liked pre-exhaustion so much he designed and built several “double-machines” specifically for performing it, including the compound leg (leg extension and leg press), compound torso (pullover, pulldown), double chest (chest fly, chest press) and double shoulder (lateral raise, shoulder press). Because of Jones’ influence pre-exhaustion became a staple of high intensity training, and you would have difficulty finding a book on high intensity training that doesn’t include pre-exhaustion in a few of the workouts.
A Nautilus compound torso machine with pullover and pulldown
However, based on a recent study it appears that pre-exhaustion is no more effective for improving strength in the muscles worked than performing the same exercises with a longer rest between them, or performing the compound exercises first(1). The abstract states,
Pre-exhaustion (PreEx) training is advocated on the principle that immediately preceding a compound exercise with an isolation exercise can target stronger muscles to pre-exhaust them to obtain greater adaptations in strength and size. However, research considering PreEx training method is limited. The present study looked to examine the effects of a PreEx training programme. Thirty-nine trained participants (male = 9, female = 30) completed 12 weeks of resistance training in 1 of 3 groups: a group that performed PreEx training (n = 14), a group that performed the same exercise order with a rest interval between exercises (n = 17), and a control group (n = 8) that performed the same exercises in a different order (compound exercises prior to isolation). No significant between-group effects were found for strength in chest press, leg press, or pull-down exercises, or for body composition changes. Magnitude of change was examined for outcomes also using effect size (ES). ESs for strength changes were considered large for each group for every exercise (ranging 1.15 to 1.62). In conclusion, PreEx training offers no greater benefit to performing the same exercises with rest between them compared with exercises performed in an order that prioritises compound movements.
This has a few interesting implications. It suggests that when properly performed compound exercises alone may be enough to effectively train all the larger muscle groups and many simple exercises may not be necessary for general, overall muscular strength and size increases (the neck being an exception), and two of the studies cited suggest compound exercises target all the muscles involved effectively (2) and are as effective as simple exercises for improving muscular strength and size in the muscles targeted (3).
There may still be a need for simple exercises for some muscles for optimal overall strength and size gains, such as the short head of the biceps femoris which unlike the other hamstrings muscles only crosses the knee joint and is active in knee flexion but not hip extension, and for developing a well-balanced and proportional physique some people may need to perform simple exercises to target lagging muscle groups while minimizing the work for relatively overdeveloped muscle groups. However, due to their efficiency and greater metabolic effect compound exercises should be the focus of your workouts, and I recommend including at least one of each of what I consider the six basic movements:
- Quad-Dominant Lower Body Exercise (squat, leg press)
- Glute-And-Hamstring-Dominant Lower Body Exercise (deadlift, hip extension)
- Vertical Pulling Exercise (chin-up, pull-up, pulldown)
- Vertical Pushing Exercise (standing press, shoulder press)
- Horizontal Pulling Exercise (bent-over row, compound row)
- Horizontal Pushing Exercise (bench press, chest press)
I recommend also performing both a neck flexion and extension exercise, which can be alternated with lateral flexion or rotation, since the neck is an important area but the majority of the neck muscles receive little work in compound exercises. Although the calves are worked during exercises like deadlifts and squats, if you perform exercises like leg presses and hip extensions for the lower body which do not effectively work your calves additional calf work should be performed.
To look at it another way, pre-exhaustion was not less effective than prioritizing compound exercises, either; so if you like performing pre-exhaustion in your workouts you don’t have to drop it. All the groups in the study made significant improvements in muscular strength. However, I recommend erring conservatively when it comes to exercise volume since any more exercise than necessary to effectively stimulate improvement in all the major muscle groups increases demands on recovery.
References:
2. Brennecke, A., Guimaraes, T.M., Leone, R., Cadarci, M., Mochizuki, L., Simao, R., et al. 2009. Neuromuscular activity during bench press exercise performed with and without the preexhaustion method. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 23: 1933–1940. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b73b8f. PMID:19855317.
3. Gentil, P., Soares, S.R., Pereira, M.C., Cunha, R.R., Martorelli, S.S., Martorelli, A.S., and Bottaro, M. 2013. Effect of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained subjects. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 38(3): 341–344. doi:10.1139/apnm-2012-0176. PMID:23537028.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Interesting article, Drew.
I basically trained the 6 big exercises and calves for about 10 years with great success but since acquiring Nautilus Double machines I have experimented with pre exhaustion. After a few months of doing the Double chest, Pullover torso arm and double shoulder my torso muscles had grown but not massively however I lost size off my arms!
The pump was nice having never really experienced it before and I adapted to the resistance curves of the machines quite well. I had to reduce the training frequency due to the deeper inroad.
What I really liked was reduction of compression on my joints on the pressing movements which is good for the older, battle scarred trainee!
very interesting study Drew. Thanks for that. I’ve been doing preEx for about a year with very good results in every other workout per body part. I will try what you suggested in increasing the weight and cut the reps to about 4 on the isolation and 2 on the compound. Also, I know it’s not a HIT principle but this study probably also shows that a “giant” set wouldn’t be as effective for strength gains as just resting between the different exercise sets.
Bill,
The only way to really know would be to design and conduct an experiment, but based on this study I don’t think it would make much of a difference for strength or size if you rush or take a minute to rest between exercises.
Pre exhaust works well but holds down the weight that you can do on the compound exercise. Also you need a partner to do the 2nd exercise across the gym, or someone nicks it! Pre exhaust is best for lagging parts. Most of the time train for strength
Darren,
I agree, and the research seems to suggest this.
For pre-exhaustion to possibly be effective one muscle of a compound exercise must fail first, any experiment which doesn’t test for this is literally a waste of time and effort.
In my neutral chinup I think my biceps, lats and rear delt fail at approximately the same time so pre-exhausting any of them would seem useless.
In my dumbell floor press I am absolutely certain my front delt hurts more and probably fails before my pecs so my pecs probably don’t get the same growth signal as my front delt so pre-exhausting or post isolation exercise might be indicated.
Sean,
An experiment doesn’t have to cover every variable to be worthwhile, you just have to consider the design limitations in your conclusions. From a practical standpoint, the study was fine for what it set out to do: compare the effectiveness of different methods of pre-exhaust and prioritizing compound movements for improving muscular strength.
What would be beneficial though, would be a combination of implant EMG and MRI to determine the relative activation of different muscles with variations in positioning and path of movement to determine how to best balance the work between different muscles in compound movements and whether certain muscles require simple movements for optimum strength gains (like the short head of the biceps femoris).
Drew,
I don´t have a link to their works, but I know that Wend-Uwe Boeckh-Behrens and Wolgang Buskies from the University of Bayreuth/Germany have done extensive research over years using EMG tests in order to find the best exercises for each individual muscle.
I have two German written books of Boeckh-Behrens and Buskies:
1. “Fitness-Krafttraining” ISBN 978-3-499-19481-3.
2. “Die besten Übungen der Welt” ISBN 978-3-499-61582-5
Maybe that can give helpful information!
Best regards
Andy
Hey Andy,
Thanks, I don’t speak German but I’d be willing to learn to be able to read these. In the meanwhile, there’s always Google Translate.
I have a book which looks at the differences in muscle activation with various arm and leg exercises as measured by MRI, but unfortunately it does not include compound upper body movements. While which muscles are involved in an exercise can be determined based on muscle and joint function, the degree to which they are involved requires implanted EMG, MRI, or similar technology.https://baye.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderated#comments-form
Sean, if you have access to wrist straps, try doing a set of neutral chin ups to failure with your wrists strapped onto the bar. If you are able to improve the number of reps in the chin as a result of using these straps, doesn’t it reason that your failing grip strength when you perform the chin without straps is indicative of less than optimal inroad into the lats? If there is no difference, then my hypothesis is invalid. Personally, I am able to get 2 extra chins performed and my lats are definitely more inroaded compared to a set without my straps, whereby my grip strength gives out as the limiting factor. Curious about your outcome. Let me know.
If grip strength is a limitation during any exercise and it is not because the trainee is relying on excessive weight to make up for inefficient form then wrist straps or hooks should be used for those exercises and direct grip work should be added to their program.
John Shalvey I don’t have wrist straps so I can’t do your test. Instead I just did neutral chinups to failure and then did an immediate arm hang for a counted 15 seconds before the 2″ polypipe spun out of my left hand.
My conclusion is grip strength is not limiting, and indeed could use post compound exercise exhaustion training if I want to strengthen it.
Very interesting! I had read some similar materials over the years (but nothing I would have considered concrete) and I kind of came to the same conclusion myself. I have always swapped between PreEx and normal compound routines just as a way of keeping things from getting stale for myself and for clients.
I find it an especially useful psychological tool for the doubter clients that mentally need to do extra work or isolate. Essentially, it gives the babies their bottles…lol.
Brian,
It is definitely an effective way to get across the concept of high intensity effort to beginners.
John Little has been critical of pre-exhaust in the past as well, stating that if one has already effectively trained a muscle with a simple movement the compound movement would be redundant. To look at it another way, if a compound movement effectively works all the muscles it targets there is little need to perform additional simple movements for the same muscles.
Drew,
I must have interpreted what John Little stated a bit differently. The way I see it, if the target muscle is effectively trained via the simple movement, then the compound exercise would be redundant. It just seems to me that simple, single-joint movements simulate muscle function more effectively than compounds. And one can become quite strong on simple movements as well. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Hey Andy,
That’s what I wrote, “…if one has already effectively trained a muscle with a simple movement the compound movement would be redundant”. Simple movements may be more effective than compound movements for targeting individual muscle groups, but since all the groups in the study used both we can’t compare. Some of the studies they referenced suggested the compound exercises are just as effective, however I’d like to see more research on this.
I just did a little pre=exhaust test. Face down on a bench pulling dumbbell towards opposite hip till concentric failure for pecs. Followed by the same amount of dumbbell floor press till failure as 3 days ago without pec pre-exhaust.
Conclusion – my pecs are definitely unchallenged during floor press to failure.
Theory – my pecs receive a smaller, if any growth signal.
Theory – for some people pre or post exhaust might be worthwhile complement to compound exercises despite Fisher et al. study.
Sean,
The only way you could somewhat accurately determine this would be with implanted EMG or using MRI. Also, the relative involvement of the chest, shoulders, and triceps in pushing movements is significantly effected by hand spacing and the path of movement of the upper arm, and it is possible to use a hand positioning and path of movement that provides relatively well balanced work for all the muscles involved.
Drew that is the conclusion I came to during some sleepless hours overnight. I have a shallow rather than a barrel rib cage which, because of the angles involved doesn’t seem to allow my pecs to be of much assistance to my front deltoid at the bottom of a floor press. It is heresy I know, but if I bottom out with my elbows considerably above the floor I theorise that my pecs could get an equivalent workout to my front deltoid.
Thanks for the help.
Sean,
The size of the rib cage does affect the angle of pull of the pectorals, and having a shallower rib cage may reduce their leverage at the start of a chest press, but I doubt it would reduce it so much that you would need to turnaround before your elbows touched the floor. I’ve trained a few men with smaller bone structures and relatively shallow rib cages and none ever had any issues with this.
Resting a minute or 2 inbetween the isolation and compound exercise is just as effective as ‘rushing’ imo. A good way to pre exhaust without limiting strength is lets say for pecs- bench press/flye/incline press but rest inbetween each exercise as normal
Darren,
I’ve been rushing less between exercises simply because of the heat and humidity (I train outdoors in Florida) and it hasn’t negatively effected my strength gains at all. Based on some of the research on sprint interval training I suspect rushing may not even be necessary for cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning benefits, although research would have to be done specifically with strength training to determine this.
Here’s my problem with the study: They looked at the wrong component. I do P-E for Hypertrophy, not strength. I know my evidence is strictly anecdotal, but I have concrete evidence of P-E providing positive effects that straight HIT did not — VM/VL quad development, lateral delts, and lats are some of the bodyparts that have benifited.
Is it the be-all-end-all? Of course not, but it’s a great tool for the box.
Now, if my aim is strength, straight-ahead compounds rule the day, with maybe some Rest-Pause thrown in for good measure.
Best Regards,
Scott
Scott,
After the initial neural adaptation phase muscles will hypertrophy as they get stronger. While the relationship between strength and hypertrophy varies between individuals, if you get stronger you’re going to get bigger.
Anecdotes can be informative and provide hypotheses to work from, but controlled experiments or studies with a larger number of people, preferably double-blind, are necessary to objectively determine the relative effectiveness of different approaches.
I am currently experimenting with a combination of rest-pause and negative-emphasized reps, and will be writing about that in Advanced HIT Methods.
If humans were identical and fully interchangeable (all exhibited the same biological response to a given stimulus) then well controlled experiments with large groups of people would certainly be the right path to sorting this out. But evidence is mounting that people do not have identical responses to exercise, depending on genetic factors. So these kind of studies only indicate what works best, on average, for people who are average or typical in response to the the exercise. That is an important limitation to the use of scientific studies in this arena.
For example, in physics, a single, well documented and vetted example of a phenomena that did not comport to the theory of relativity would be sufficient to call that theory into question. That same standard applied to exercise would mean that the existence of a single, well documented case of someone responding better to multiple set versus single set protocols would be enough to overturn the theory that single set to failure was all we need.
Of course, most people understand, at some level, that people are different, and that what works well for one person doesn’t necessarily work well for another. You seem to understand that anecdotes, or more broadly, the field experience of coaches who have trained many people can’t be dismissed just because it wasn’t the result of a scientific study. I would just caution that science may not be adequate (at present) to provide a more definitive answer. In many cases, experience and anecdote may still provide the better answer.
Craig,
While there is tremendous individual variability we are enough alike anatomically and physiologically that the relative effectiveness of different approaches for the general population is best determined with controlled studies, as well as how much individuals vary in their response to different approaches (something that numerous studies have looked at and I will be discussing with Ryan Hall in an upcoming interview). Personal experimentation is necessary to determine the best application of these to the individual but is a very poor method of determining general principles, largely due to the fact our perceptions of our own experiences tend to be highly subjective and prone to confirmation bias.
Also, there is a huge difference in reliability between the empirical data gathered by someone who trains people for a living and instructs hundreds of trainees over tens of thousands of workouts over a period of years or decades and anecdotes from individuals whose only experience is with their own training. A properly designed study is still a better way to determine the answer to questions like this, however, because it involves a level of control that usually doesn’t otherwise exist, ruling out or minimizing the influence of other variables affecting what is being measured.
That was an excellent answer…and absolutely correct!
“we are enough alike anatomically and physiologically that the relative effectiveness of different approaches for the general population is best determined with controlled studies”
That is certainly the assumption that is being made with most exercise science studies. But I don’t recall seeing studies in which the truth of this assumption was established. Perhaps you know of some?
“as well as how much individuals vary in their response to different approaches (something that numerous studies have looked at and I will be discussing with Ryan Hall in an upcoming interview). ”
Isn’t the variation pretty wide – ranging from some non-responders to some hyper responders, and most in-between? What I wonder about is if you took the same large group of test subjects and trained each subject using three different protocols, (with an experimental design that also deals with the resulting variations in sequence used – sorry, can’t recall the proper statistical term right now), would low responders always be low responders, regardless of protocol? If the ranking of response changes with protocol, then it will be very difficult to formulate a general principle about which protocol is best.
Perhaps this also exists, and will come out in your interview with Ryan. But I think it would be a very costly experiment to run, and I would be surprised if anyone had.
Hey Craig,
Yes, the variation is very large, and there have been studies comparing this. I have mentioned a few of these in articles here, including studies showing the difference in muscular strength and size gains to the same program and differences in how individuals respond to single versus multiple sets of different length based on their genotype for angiotensin converting enzyme. This is why controlled studies with large sample sizes are required to determine general principles, and why individual experimentation is required to determine the optimal application of those principles for a particular person. Knowing what works best for the majority of people, however, is necessary to provide a good starting point from which to make adjustments.
A very small number of people will respond poorly to any program, and a small number of people will respond rapidly to any program, but most of us are somewhere in between. Unfortunately, many who are in between have assumed they are low responders or “hard gainers” because they make all sorts of mistakes with their training which can reduce or even prevent progress.
P.S. No need to completely re-write your book, Drew. Just make sure you provide plenty of details for people’s expectations regarding P-E and what it can do for them.
My own experience agrees with the study. After a few months of pre-exhaust, I would then compare performance on the compound exercise before and after. For example, doing curls and then chin-ups did not improve my performance on the chin-up done by itself. It did, however, make me much more tired. As my goal is to develop as much strength as possible in the most efficient manner, not to punish myself, I dropped pre-exhaust.
I’ve also experimented with post-exhaust–compound exercise followed by simple exercise–again with no results before and after. Sometimes what sounds good doesn’t pan out. The only way to know is to conduct scientific experiments. The study shows again the value of doing only compound movements, with some of the special exceptions you point out above.
Post exhaust always made more sense to me. As an example, when doing a chest press the arms give out usually before the pecs get toasted. By following with a flye, you can then totally finish off the pecs. PLus you can do heavier weights when doing the compound exercise first, not to mention that it is more important than the simple movement. anyway, I have always liked post exhaust.
Gary,
I think this depends on how the compound movement is performed. Since you can vary the relative involvement of the chest and delts and the triceps in the bench press by varying grip width and in chest press machines by varying seat height and starting angle of the forearm, it is possible to find a balance that works all equally. The same is true of the relative involvement of the back and rear delts and the biceps in chin-ups and pulldowns. Changing the angle of the body and the line of pull can change their relative involvement. I suspect that in many exercises people do this unconsiously, gradually altering their body positioning and path of movement to maintain this balance, since if some muscles really are fatiguing faster than others others will become more dominant and work harder. One of the studies referenced shows increased triceps involvement in the bench press after pre-exhausting the chest, which appears to support this.
The study demonstrates that both pre-exhaustion with and without rushing and prioritizing the compound exercises are equally effective for improving strength. I would agree that the compound exercises should be prioritized (I cover this in High Intensity Workouts) but it may not make much of a difference.
Thanks to Heavy Duty I was an avid pre-exhaustion devotees late 70’s/early 80’s. Despite my belief and dedication, can’t say I saw anything significant for my efforts. In hindsight, as the initial isolation exercise impacts and somewhat waters down the capacity of the compound move, where major mass gains are to be had, no wonder they didn’t live up to expectations.
Drew,
I believe I remember you saying, from another post, that if one wants to focus on general conditioning, you should move as quickly as possible between sets. And if strength and size is the goal, rest longer between sets. It’s that correct?
Do you ever do both on separate occasions?
Ben,
I used to think so, now I’m not so sure rushing is necessary as long as the intensity of effort is high and the rest intervals aren’t too long.
While I haven’t read the studies on interval training myself, I used to follow a “Sprint 8” protocol on the treadmill, which consists of 8 cycles of 30 second sprinting followed by 90 second rests, and my heart rate remained quite elevated throughout the workout despite the 90 second rest periods. So, resting 60 to 90 seconds between weight training exercises shouldn’t be much different as long as you’re pushing each set to true MMF, with an appropriate load and time under tension (i.e., 45 to 90 seconds). Plus, I’m much stronger if I wait about 60 seconds between weight training exercises, so I don’t see any down-side to it…
Hey Roger,
I’ve found the same. For most of the past twenty years I’ve rushed clients between exercises, but now that I’m training people at home primarily with free weights and have to move plates around between exercises which takes extra time I generally have clients rest about a minute between exercises. They still experience significantly elevated heart rates and labored breathing with the longer rest, and I’ve seen no difference in results between rushing and resting a little longer.
Out of curiosity, I stopped training my right arm with isolation movements for a couple of months. The left still got isolation work. Both arms revcieved work in the form of compound movements. I used one set per exercise and took each set to concentric failure. Measurments were taken before and after in addition to strength tests on the isolation movements used over the two month period. The result was a little more mass and strength on the arm that performed the isolation work. This surprised me as I suspected the isolation arm would prove to be a waste of time. It should be noted that my upper body compound movements did not include Dips or Close Grip Pulldowns with a supinated grip. Perhaps the use of these exercises would have made a difference.
When I tried the same kind of test on my calves, the calf that received isolation work outperformed the non-isolated calf but there was no improvement in size. Keep up the great work Drew!
Hey Jim,
This is an interesting experiment, but since the volume is not the same for both limbs it doesn’t necessarily suggest that simple exercises are more effective, but rather that you responded well to the additional volume of work for the muscle. The results might have been the same for both sides if you trained only one side of your body with compound and one with simple movements, or you might have gotten just as good improvement in the side doing the additional work if you were performing a second compound exercise unilaterally.
I would like to see a study directly comparing the relative effects of compound and simple exercises on muscular strength and size, with one group performing leg press, pulldown, and chest press, and the other performing leg extension, hip extension, chest fly, triceps extension, pullover, and arm curl. Additionally, performing implanted EMG and/or MRI measurements to compare muscle activation between the two would be informative.
Hi Drew,
I’d like to see the results of a study like that too comparing compound to simple exercises on muscular size.
I agree that keeping the volume the same between the two arms would been a more effective means of determining the effectiveness of isolation arm work. On a side note, the right arm caught up with the left within a few workouts once isolation work was included again. From there I increased the isolation work to 3 sets of curls and 3 sets of triceps extensions for the right. For the left I performed only one set of each. To accommodate the higher volume on the right, I reduced the weight and only took the last set of curls and triceps extensions to failure. Two months later I tested both arms and took measurements and found the extra volume didn’t produce superior results. On perhaps a more positive note, the lighter weight used for the right was no less effective than the heavier weights used on the left.
Sure, this isn’t exactly double blind, peer reviewed research but I did pay attention to as many relevant details as possible. Reflecting on the results of both arm experiments, it would seem that 3 sets of arm work may be more effective than 2 but additional sets appear to be a waste of time. I’m not saying this applies to everyone though.
Are you at least a little bit suspicious when you read a study about strength training that the subjects are not really training to failure, not really performing the repetitions in the proper fashion, not really following the study design to the letter, etc? (Because you were not there to scrutinize the aspects that were unacceptable?). Perhaps this is why Arthur didn’t believe anyone’s claims other than the one’s that he discovered personally.
Normally I would be, but the authors of this study are all HIT people and know what it means to train to momentary muscle failure.
Drew,
You mentioned Ryan Hall and I believe he found that drop sets were more effective than pre-ex. I’m nearly 63 now but in the past I have found that isolation exercises pre or post ex do give a more finished look, especially my quads.
Hey Brian,
You might be thinking of Wayne Westcott, but I will ask Ryan in our interview.
Hi Drew,
When it comes to legs, I think I do better with pre-Exhaust. Like a wall-sit, then a static dumbbell goblet squat or static leg extension, but the leg extension is done on a seated leg curl machine because that’s all I have to work with. I can only make adjustments to the lever arm from outside the mid-range to extension. Is this o.k. on how I perform isometric leg extensions? I’ve been reluctant to try barbell squatting/deadlifting because of a neck injury/ inflammatory condition. I’m planning on working myself up to barbell squatting statically in the lower ROM with very light weight.
Also, with having a chronic and acute pain issue, I have always found it difficult with recovering from my workouts. Could I think of my workouts more like rehab than exercise and perform my routine mostly or completely isometrically using very low/low intensity(25%-50% perceived effort), and working out more often(2-3 times/week)?
Thanks
Hey John,
If you are performing a static hold using a leg extension machine I recommend holding at full extension, but if you are performing timed static contraction on either a leg extension or seated leg curl machine I recommend the mid-range position.
I don’t recommend reducing the effort to train more frequently. Train as hard as you are physically capable of and get as much rest as your body needs between workouts and you will progress faster than if you train more frequently but with a lower intensity of effort.
Hi Drew,
I’m curious. Why full extension with static holds and mid range for TSC’s?
Hey Donnnie,
Because in a static hold you are just holding the weight at that point and not attempting to move it positively, while in a timed static contraction you are attempting to move positively against an immovable object and may hyperextend and aggravate the knees even if your starting position is at zero degrees of flexion because the movement arm and seat pads can compress.
Thanks Drew. Just to be clear, zero degrees of flexion is where the legs are fully straightened?
Hey Donnie,
Yes, when the legs are straight the knees are at zero degrees of flexion.
What Brian Liebler says about isolation exercises giving a more finished look, I have to agree with that. I’m 46, been training on/off 26 years, never took drugs and ‘shapers’ do give a more finished look. Do compound and isolations for a complete build
Darren,
That has also been my impression, and I think simple exercises are necessary for “fine tuning” the physique, especially when there is disproportionate development between the torso and limb muscles, but I would still like to see research in this area. For general strength and conditioning however, compound exercises are the most time efficient way to effectively work most of the major muscle groups and they area also much easier for most people to learn to perform correctly.
In the 90’s I had a long lay off. In 2001 I started back with 1 set of 6 compounds on a 3-2 day full body. I worked upto 10 exercises before splitting it 2 ways and training 4-3 days. I didn’t add in ‘shapers’ at all until I had a good foundation again
I’d also suggest that anyone new to weight training starts with just compound exercises and builds up a good muscle foundation first. Then later you can add in isolation exercises like flyes, leg extension, lateral raises etc for a more complete look
I find pre-exhaustion very useful for pecs, upper back and quads. Well, technically – for me – it’s a “superset” or simple exercise done back to back (minimum rest between) with compound exercise, because in my gym machines are mostly in different sections of the room, so there is no way I could do them back to back under 3-5 seconds. I have rush between machines, but it still works fine.
Especially for pecs and quads, its really helpful. I had “problems” to get that burning feeling in pecs and quads with one exercise (such as squat or incline smith press), but now those muscles are burning as hell! Of course this could be done with compound exercise + simple exercise, “standard” way, so I’m not claiming that pre-exhaustion is better or anything like that.
And finally, I found a variation for pullover that really works. I left out the free weight options, and my gym doesn’t have pullover machine, so I tried it with cable and incline bench. Really good in my opinion! Now pulldown feels much better too, for lats especially.
I think Drew Baye and Doug Mcguff are great. I have learnt a lot from Youtube videos and from their websites. Everything what they say make sense. Im 28 and I just wish I had read this ages ago…never too late! 🙂 Keep up the good work Drew!
Thanks Freddie, will do!
If you’re in the Tampa, FL area both Doug and I, along with Ellington Darden, James Steele (one of the authors of the pre-exhaust paper) will be speaking at The 21 Convention in October.
Thanks Drew
Will You have a seminar or presentation in the UK anytime soon?
Also I would like to ask You, Do You think High Intensity bodyweight training can be effective first thing on the morning on empy stomach to burn fat instead the usual HIT cardio? Can I do HIT training with weights and on “non training days” do HIT body weight training maybe 2 times a week? (on the morning)
Hey Freddie,
I currently have no plans for seminars or presentations in the UK. I may do something there in the future with either The 21 Convention or the UK-based HIT Uni, and will announce it here if I do.
Hi Drew,
Do you have to purchase a ticket for this? I went on the website but I didn’t see anything in Tampa.
Hey Jack,
Yes, you can register here.
This study found that quadricep activation during leg press was reduced by pre-exhausting with leg extension: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741886
This one found no increased pectoral activation when chest press was preceded by pre-exhaustion with pec deck: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076251
Pre-exhaustion is actually intended as a type of forced repetition scheme, assuming that in the multi-joint movement, the muscles not affected by the isolation movement will help the target muscles go into deeper exhaustion. Aside from the fact that the biceps can not help the latissimus perform its function (and the triceps are already involved in arm extension during pullovers), and the triceps cannot help the pectorals perform their function (no amount of triceps action will draw the humerus across the torso, if triceps were involved in this action, they would already be exhausted by a pec deck), this study found that increasing the number of forced repetitions does not improve outcomes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17685709
I am looking for another study done in sometime before 2001, which showed that there was no difference in bicep or tricep strength or cross sectional area between two groups, one of whom trained with only compound movements, the other of which included isolation movements for the upper arm muscles. but I can’t locate it now and have no more time.
Hey Don,
Thank you for the heads up on these studies, this is great timing, as I am working on an article on compound versus simple exercises right now. This is what I have suspected, and is consistent with the findings of the Brennecke study cited in the article.
It is possible for the triceps to assist in drawing the humerus across the torso if the hands are at a fixed distance, in which case elbow extension would cause the arms to be horizontally abducted if the elbows are pointed out, but if you pre-exhaust the chest before bench press the triceps just work harder during the bench press than they normally would. It extends the work of the pre-exhausted muscle groups but with reduced activation, while increasing activation in other muscle groups. You might as well just perform compound movements.
Hey Drew,
Thanks for replying back. Glad I was helpful. I am still looking for that other study I mentioned and will share it if /when I recover it. I agree that we might as well perform compound movements and save the time/energy otherwise spent on the isolation movements.
I see what you are saying about the triceps but if you had a person with no pectoral, anterior deltoid, or bicep action (say, humeral tendons severed by an accident) I am not aware of any tricep action (elbow and shoulder extension) that would enable them to perform shoulder flexion or horizontal adduction. This was the basis of my point.
However, the bicep does assist with shoulder flexion and horizontal adduction due to its crossing the shoulder joint.
Anyway, I was just articulating what I have thought for a long time, that the pre-exhaust technique was probably based on a faulty understanding of biomechanics and natural selection (broscience?). I feel confident that natural selection would have weeded out any musculoskeletal arrangements that would have impaired an individual’s ability to fully transmit the force production capacities of the torso muscles through the limbs, given that all locomotion in intact individuals is driven through the hands or feet, and inability to fully utilize the strength of torso muscles in food acquisition, fight or flight would result in malnutrition, accident or death and consequent impaired or non- transmission of the genetic material coding for such inefficient biomechanics.
Hey Don,
Thanks. I have been looking but haven’t found it yet either, but would love to read it.
I agree, someone with no pectoral, anterior deltoid, or bicep action would not be able to adduct the arms against any significant amount of weight.
I also agree about natural selection and so-called “weak links”. It makes no evolutionary sense for the muscles of your torso to have more strength than you can effectively use because of weaker limbs.
Drew,
This is the one I was seeking: Rogers, R.A., Newton, R.U., Mcevoy, K.P., Popper, E.M., Doan, B.K., Shim, J.K., et al. 2000. The effect of supplemental isolated weight-training exercises on upper-arm size and upper-body strength. In NSCA Conference. pp. 369.
I had the full reference thus: Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3)3, Aug 2000 (p369)
But I couldn’t access it on the JSCR archives.
Abstract:
The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesized additional
training effect of programming isolated supplemental exercises in
conjunction with compound weight-training exercises on muscle size and strength. Seventeen national-level baseball players volunteered to participate in this 10-week training study and were randomly divided into 2 groups. The control group completed a 10-week training program consisting of the bench press, lat pull-down, dumbbell incline press and dumbbell 1-arm row exercises. The treatment group completed the same training program but with the addition of biceps curl and triceps extension exercises. A tape measure was used to record upper-arm circumferences, and a 5 repetition maximum (5RM) was determined on the bench press and lat pull-down for each subject before and after training.
Both the treatment and control groups displayed significant increases in upper-arm circumference (6.6 and 6.5%, respectively), 5RM bench press (21.4 and 22.1%, respectively) and 5RM lat pull-down (15.7 and 14.5%, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in the percentage change before and after training. The findings of this study suggest that isolation exercises are not necessary in order to increase compound movement strength or increase upper-arm girth. These findings also suggest that strength coaches can save time by not including isolation exercises and still achieve increases in strength and size.
The above study was recently cited in the following 2013 study
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0176#.VCxIHBnaP4h
Which found:
“Therefore, this study showed that the inclusion of SJ exercises in a MJ exercise training program resulted in no additional benefits in terms of muscle size or strength gains in untrained young men.”
Sorry I couldn’t come up with a link to the full study 2000, but I will continue to search for the full text.
Thanks Don,
These are great. I will also look for the full text and read both of these.
Unfortunately, JSCR only has pp. 241-358 of the Aug 2000 issue cataloged online. http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/toc/2000/08000
Thanks again Don,
I will ask around and see if anyone I know has a copy of this or knows where the full text can be read online.
This study that you reference likely has a fatal flaw. Jones specifically pointed out that a muscle regains up to 50% of its original strength within 3 seconds time. I have attempted to utilize the pre-exhaustion principle with machines that are not attached like the compound machines of the 70’s and found it very difficult to get the 2nd exercise underway in less than 3 seconds. It’s even challenging to do it when the machines are together like those Jones created, but with some skill developed, it can be done. For example, I used to be able to transition from Pullover to Torso Arm Pulldown within 3 seconds INCLUDING a drop of my seat height to its lowest level for a fuller range of motion on Torso Arm Pulldown. I seriously doubt that this study consistently had trainees transitioning in less than 3 seconds, an there in lies the flaw. Pre-exhaustion training is brilliant but requires SKILL to do it properly and reap the maximum benefits from it. Most ignore the importance of the < 3 second transition!
No John, the study is fine and people are just going to have to accept that Jones was wrong about pre-exhaustion.
First, if you read the full text of the study you would know the rest between the simple and compound exercises for the normal pre-exhaust group was equal to or less than five seconds.
Second, when Jones wrote this in Nautilus Bulletin 2 he did not have the testing tools to accurately measure strength and could not have know the exact figure, so he was speculating. I do not think he was correct, however, because if that was the case a difference of as much as ten seconds between exercises involving the same muscle group should result in a significant difference in a subject’s ability to perform the second exercise, however this isn’t always the case. For most of the past twenty years I’ve been training in private studios where the equipment was positioned to facilitate fast movement between machines used for pre-exhaustion and trainers did an excellent job of communicating to avoid getting in each other’s ways. However, there were times where we had to wait a little longer to have subjects perform the second exercise in a pre-exhaust sequence. This did not make a huge difference in the number of repetitions or the TUL subjects performed. Keep in mind I have instructed hundreds of people through tens of thousands of workouts, so this isn’t just one person’s experience with self-training.
Third, even if subjects recovered fifty percent of the lost strength within the few seconds allowed between exercises the remaining fatigue would still be significant, and if it really made a difference the results would still show it.
As one of the studies authors I’ll say I agree with Drews comments. We attempted to reduce the time between exercises as much as logistically possible based on pilot work. Further, concerns regarding recovery of strength are particularly unfounded. We have a study in review currently which utilised fatigue response testing of the isolated lumbar extensors. The study design necessitated aj initial maximal isometric strength test, a set to failure and then a 30 second period between the set and beginning of the second isometric test.the participants still had considerably reduced strength even with this period between. I won’t go into details as paper should be published soon. Suffice to say though, at least regarding strength gains, pre exhaustion does not seem to offer any greater stimulus than simply going to MMF.
James,
I have read the full text of the study and I would like to know if the trainees in the PreEx group without rest had to perform more than 12 repetitions of each of the two combined exercises before they increased the resistance in both?
To the background of my question:
The study says that a cadence of 2/4 has been utilized (which by the way means throwing weights in a long stroke exercise like the pull-over). Assuming that a participant has performed 12 repetitions of each of the two combined exercises his TUT would have been 144 seconds which is far outside the typical local anaerobic window (<= 90-100 seconds). TUT`s outside the anaerobic window do not represent strength training in a strict sense, instead they represent training of the local middle term endurance. Wayne Westcott directly (two concentric MMf´s within the anaerobic window) and Mike Mentzer indirectly (6-9 reps of the single exercise and 1-3 reps of the compound exercise) suggest that the TUT of both combined exercises together in a pre-exhaution maneuver should not exceed the anaerobic frame. I share their opinion. TUT`s outside the anaerobic window make retracing of motor units highly likely which couldn’t be the aim of strength training. Thus I have difficulties with the conclusions of this study concerning the reported failure of PreEx. If an advanced training technique (ATT) like the pre-exhaution approach could ever act it must achieve an increase in intensity which means an increase of the quotient of inroad/time. It is questionable if the ATT`s could provide that at all. And of course we have to keep in mind that it isn`t completely unlikely that intensity could be taken to a contraproductive niveau (e. g. a sunburn instead of a tan).
Hey Mike,
Although people can build muscular strength and size with higher TULs I also prefer keeping the cumulative TUL for exercises done back to back for the same muscle groups shorter, which is why I suspect a “condensed pre-exhaust” similar to what you mention may have been more effective. I wrote about condensed versus traditional pre-exhaustion in High Intensity Workouts.
I would like to see the study repeated with both traditional and condensed pre-exhaustion protocols.
I have been using a hip abduction or leg curl machine as pre-exhaust for a leg press. On the leg press at my gym, if I don’t pre-exhaust, I can lift the whole stack, which makes progression difficult. I choose to pre-fatigue the glutes because it seems like my quads are the weak link in the leg press. Doing a leg extension would only make the quads fail sooner on the leg press, leaving the other muscles less stimulated, so my thinking goes.
Does that line of thought make sense? Does that exercise selection make sense?
Hey Matthew,
If you need to pre-exhaust the leg press for this reason hip extension is the best option, but hip abduction or leg curls also work well. I often find most people just require a few form adjustments to make the leg press much more difficult, though.