"Just One More Set" (1/2): Metabolic Response to 10,000kg vs. 20,000kg Regimen. EPOC: Do Reps and Loads Both Figure? And What About Elite Athletes Do They Need More?

"Ah come on, just another set!" ... "I don't know man, we've already pumped away 100,000kg today... do you really believe that's going to be productive, I mean, yeah, we are cuttin', but still... I mean I don't dig this epic!", "EPOC man, it's called EPOC!" *shakes his head* "Call it whatever you want, bro, I am out!"

If you want, you can think of today's SuppVersity post as an extension to yesterday's "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" special of the On Short Notice series; to be more precise: As a practically more relevant version of the rodent study on hypertrophy vs. strength training that was part of the aforementioned post. Yep, we are "talking volume" today. How much is too much?  And though this is never-ending debate, it appears that at least as far as research goes, a little more debating certainly would not hurt. Therefore I am happy to have not one, but two studies for you which don't just address this issue, but have also been conducted with human subjects!

In view of the fact that these are no "short notices", I will discuss one today and the other tomorrow - yep, that means that you can already make a mental note to come back tomorrow ;-)

"Just one more set, ..." - how productive can that be?

Today's study comes from the Human Performance Laboratory at the Florida State University and deals with the energetic side of things - specifically the often-cited EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), which is often touted as one of the most important aspects why strength training in general and higher volume / intensity strength training, in particularly, would have the edge over cardio training. The reasoning is easy: You don't burn so much energy while you work out, but in the time after, your body will (a) still expend more energy per minute / hour and (b) has the advantage of emptied glycogen stores, which will force it to tap into its body fat stores the source for the required energy.

All of you who have read the complete Athletes' Triad series, will by now already know that at least argument (b) is pretty idiotic, because it wouldn't allow you to replenish your muscle and liver glycogen after workouts and thus pave the way into the dreaded vicious circle of the athlete's triad. The former argument, on the other hand has - on a way more general level - only been confirmed a couple of days ago (see "Scientists resolve the paradox of stable muscle metabolism but greater mitochondrial respiration in muscle of inactive vs. active subjects", read more), the question still remains: How much weight do you have to lift to set the 'afterburner' into full gear? 

10 metric tonne or 20 metric tonnes? What do you say?

I see, you are laughing, but basically the above question is what the George J. Abboud and his colleagues tried to find out, when they recruited 8 healthy men aged19-29 yrs who had 

"at least 12 months of RT experience with no more than 2 wks rest at a time, less than a total of 4 wks off within the last 6 months, or 9 wks off within the last 12 months [and] reported no prior or current use of illegal performance enhancing substances." (Abboud. 2012)

Suggested read "Three is More Than One: Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs, and Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps."

As usual the subjects had to fill food logs for the three days before the testing and were instructed to replicate the same eating pattern on the second occasion in which they were randomly assigned to perform a standardized resistance training (RT) regimen consisting of 4 exercises performed on a non-counterbalanced smith machine so that the range of motion during

• bench press, 
• squat, 
• bent-over row and 
• Romanian deadlift 

could be controlled for easily. Other than the equipment and the exercises, which were identical on both occasions, the volume of the training sessions varied and if you express this volme in kg or metric tons, it was a competition of 10,000 kg (10 metric tonnes) vs. 20,000 kg (20 metric tonnes) of weight. 

"The loads were divided between the 4 exercises as follows: 35% to squats, 30% to bench press, 20% to bent-over rows and 15% to Romanian deadlift. For each set, subjects lifted approximately 85% of their 1RM for 6-8 repetitions. If 6 repetitions could not be completed at any point, the load was reduced by 10% for the subsequent set." (Abboud. 2012)

Both sessions were supervised by three testers : One monitored the metabolic cart, one made sure the proper range of motion was used and one monitored the proper lifting form. The subjects had to perform the concentric portion of each lift with maximal speed and ensure a controlled eccentric descent. A specific time interval was not dictated. Sets were stopped if "subjects broke form" (Abboud. 2012) and 2 minutes of rest were given between sets. In this fashion the subjects simply kept lifting set after set until the volume prescription for the respective trial was reached.

Figure 1: Resting metabolic rate (RMR) per kg body weight, 30min energy expenditure and respiratory exchange ratio (RER; lower values = higher fat, lower glucose  oxidation)  after low and high volume trial (based on Abboud. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 there were differences as far as the effects of the high (20,000) vs. low (10,000kg) regimen on the resting metabolic rate, 30 min energy expenditure, and the respiratory quotient (lower values = higher fat, lower glucose oxidation), but in view of the fact that the high volume group moved 2x more weight and should thus (at least theoretically) have expended twice the energy (assuming they performed all reps with perfect form and identical speed), those differences are more than disappointing. 

The minuscle effect size is yet not the most "disappointing" (or "surprising" ?) result

In fact, contrary to the low volume workout the 20,000kg workout did not produce any increases in resting metabolic rate and 30min energy expenditure, at all - put simply: There was no EPOC after the high volume training. And this did not change over the whole 48h period (and I know you guys, you won't rest longer anyway ;-).

Now you may say that this was a crazy protocol, but let's do the math, let's assume the guys did squat 100kg, benched and rowed their own body weight of ~80kg and deadlifted 125kg. With 10 reps per set thats 1,000kg + 2x800kg + 1,250kg per set respectively. If they did three sets per exercise they would thus already be up to 9,950kg! If you still think that's crazy, let's hear what the scientists have to say:

"As subjects in the present study were well adapted to RT, the training stimulus needed to elicit increases in EPOC arguably needed to be much higher compared to that used in previous research  Two studies using intensities of 70% 1RM report significant increases in RMR. Melby et al. had subjects perform 6 setsof 10 different exercises for a total of 60 sets. The repetition range for this protocol was 8-12 repetitions per set. This amounts to approximately 600 repetitions performed during the course of the exercise bout. The range of load-volume lifted by these subjects was 15,000-38,000 kg. [...]" (Abboud. 2012)

The list goes on and you just have to go to your gym and I guarantee you, no matter how few people are on the floor you will see a guy who (often without noticing is) will be pounding away much more word within a single workout. Moreover, the the subjects in the present study completed their trials
with a drastically lower number of repetitions -  a mean of 199. Had they performed the crazy rep-volume of the Melby study, they would probably have come close to 50,000 kg. This raises an interesting question is "volume" correctly defined by giving the total amount of weight you lift? Or is the number of reps maybe more important as far as the after-burner EPOC is concerned?

Too much of a good thing? But what if you are a highly trained athlete?

A previous study, by Hackney et al. would support the notion that heavy lifting is an obligatory part of the EPOC equation. In the latter study, EPOC trained individuals who used a lower load-volume than the trainees in the study at hand  had increased resting metabolic rates for up to 72h (Hackney. 2008). Since the Hackney study also put an emphasis on eccentric contractions and will thus probably have lead to even greater muscle damage than the protocol of the study at hand (CK(10,000kg) = 729U/L vs.CK(20,000kg)  = 1,159IU/L), Abboud et al. speculate that ...

"[a]s protein synthesis required for repair is energetically expensive, it is logical that untrained subjects will show greater and longer alterations in EPOC post-RT. Judging by training history, strength levels and CK responses, subjects in the present study had most likely reached a higher level of adaptation than ones in previous studies, and therefore were less sensitive to the metabolic effects of recovery from RT." (Abboud. 2012)

In other words, for you, probably a seasoned strength trainee, the 'more is more' principle is not going to yield better results - even if your goal is to shed body fat. And ...

"Although RT is an important component in any weight loss program to attenuate the loss of fat free mass and therefore better preserve RMR, it is unlikely that the total energetic cost (during and post-exercise) of a typical duration workout will be adequate for significant weight reduction in highly trained recreational lifters without caloric restriction and/or additional aerobic or high intensity interval training." (Abboud. 2012)

And since I rarely encounter a conclusion that's so to the point, I'll leave you with that for today and remind you to come back tomorrow to learn, when and for which body parts doing somewhat more may still be beneficial - read me tomorrow ;-)

References:

• Abboud GJ, Greer BK, Campbell SC, Panton LB. Effects of Load-Volume on EPOC after Acute Bouts of Resistance Training in Resistance Trained Males. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct 18.
• Hackney KJ, Engels HJ, and Gretebeck RJ. Resting energy expenditure and delayed-onset muscle soreness after full-body resistance trainingwith an eccentric concentration. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22: 1602-1609.
• Melby C, Scholl C, Edwards G, and Bullough R. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. J Appl Physiol. 1993; 75: 1847-1853.

The Fallacy of Working Out To "Burn Calories" + Exercise Shuts Down the Carb Cravings: Bench Press, Leg Press HIIT & LISS Are Not Meant to Incinerate the Junk You Eat

If you work out to be able to allow yourself to eat, you know you have a serious problem.

So, what was that about the bench pressing consuming as much energy as leg presses and the "exercise just makes you hungry myth" on the last installment of the Science Round-Up? If that's what you have been asking yourself this morning, when you showered I am impressed - or should I be worried?

If you have not done so already, this would be the right time to download + listen to the Science Round-Up - I promise there is much to learn and not all of it is going to be repeated here.

Whatever... in the end it does not matter how urgent you were waiting to take a look at the data that supports my argument that (a) exercise does not just make you hungry, and that (b) the notion to work out primarily to burn energy is hilarious.

Chest vs. legs what's energetically more costly?

While I could imagine that the comparison would have yielded a different result if the 10 healthy young men (>1 year of resistance training experience; BMI ~24kg/m²) had performed squats instead of regular leg presses, I have to admit that I was still surprised to see that Magossoa et al. actually found no difference in the total energy expenditure between 3 sets of 10 reps (70% 1RM) of bench vs. leg presses (Note: The researchers determined the total energy expenditure using the oxygen uptake (aerobic component) the EPOC and lactate production (anaerobic component)).

Table 1: Workload, energy expenditure total, per minute per weight lifted (Magosso. 2013)

If you look at the data in Table 1, you will have to concede: The only difference between the energy expenditure during the leg and the leg press was the inferior energy consumption per kg of weight on 'the bench'.

If you were one of the lazy (and mostly ignorant) buggers who "already have big enough legs", you could probably use these results to argue that leg presses and the rest of the leg workout was a pretty unnecessary undertaking - I mean, if you don't want bigger legs it should at least help you with that sixpack by burning a couple of calories, right?

Only a fool will work out to "burn energy"

Suggested Read: "Busting the 3,500kcal = 1lbs Weight Loss Myth! Debunking the rule of thumb with the power of science" | read more

Once they're there, it does usually you not take very long until people will remember this ingeniously simply (and about s flawed) rule of thumb that says: To lose 1lbs of fat you got to burn 3,5000kcal. Here, in our concrete example, that would mean that it would not matter if you did another 228 sets of bench presses or leg presses to lose 1lbs of pure body fat.

Once you've gotten caught in calculations such as the above, i.e. 229 sets x 46kcal / 3 sets  > 3500kcal, or in words "I got to do 228 sets of bench presses to burn one pound of body fat!", you are lost.

Firstly, the equation 3,500kcal caloric deficit = 1lbs fat loss if flawed (learn more).

Secondly, and even more importantly, doing more, which is what all the "I workout to lose fat" weekend warriors do, is not going to yield superior results. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go back to my "How to Burn 27,300 Kcal Extra W/out Losing a Single Extra Pound of Fat!"-article and take a look at the results of the Rosenkild study from 2012 (figure 3).

Gary is ... no, not a fool, but he is still wrong

Now, I obviously cannot forbid workout extra and luckily even Gary Taubes can't because even if you insisted to burn 600kcal, instead of just 300kcal, you can at least console yourself that this is not going to increase your appetite (learn more). Especially if we are talking about relatively intense exercise for similarly "relatively obese" individuals, working out will not only reduce your window of opportunity to eat (for some people even that may make a difference, believe me), but rather work like a gastric bypass - one that won't allow you to hit your obesogenic macros on the subsequent meals.

Figure 1: Macronutrient intake (lunch + dinner in g) on control vs. exercise day (David. 2013)

Those of you who have not listened to the podcast yet will now probably be wondering what I am talking about, right? Well, take a look at the 3D bars in Figure 1. They represent the results of a study David et al. conducted earlier this year. A study that involved both lean and obese kids and a study that demonstrates that a relatively short (3x10 min) but comparably hard workout (75% VO2max) is not going to make the sugar junkies crave for more - quite the opposite, it will reduce their apperite for carb(age) to a normal level [similar appetite-reducing effect were observed by Sim et al. (2013) in adult men and Rosenkilde (2013; already discussed at the SuppVersity].

I mean, a voluntary 35% reduction in carbohydrate intake during lunch and dinner and a total reduction in energy intake of 475kcal are impressive ballpark figures considering the fact that exercise is often said to "just make you hungry" - wouldn't you agree?

EPOC should not determine your choice of exercise either

If you are sprinting because of the increase in EPOC, you are a fool.

From the article I referenced in yesterday's write-up ("More Than 3x Higher EPOC Induced Energy Expenditure With HIIT vs. LISS! But Does That Really Matter?" | read more) you already know that  HIITing it hard on Wingate tests will yield a pretty pathetic increase in EPOC of ~20kcal over a casual 30min jog.

So even if it was about burning calories the jog would be far superior because the increase in Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) is not going to compensate the additional kcal the subjects in the Townsend study burned during the steady state exercise.

The latter is by the way not much different if you compare two different HIIT regimen - a very intense short one (HIIT1) and a somewhat longer slightly less intense alternative regimen (HIIT2):

• HIIT1: 10 x 1min, 1min pause between intervals; cycling at 80-90RPM at 90% of the HRmax

• HIIT2: 10 x 4min, 2min pause; cycling at 60-80RPM and without a prescribed minimal heart rate

In their trial that involved 9 lean, healthy male subjects, Kelly et al. obeserved that the HIIT2 trial was more than two times more energetically costly (675kcal vs. 275kcal) - the EPOC effect on the other hand did not lead to any significant differences in post-exercise energy expenditure, so that the HIIT1 group was stuck with their ~400kcal inferior energy expenditure... now, that sounds as if it was a bad thing, but if we consider that they spent less time on the ergometer and were rewarded with a greater stimulus for mitochondrial expansion and even muscle growth (see "The Anablic Effects of HIIT" | read more), I would not say that they came off second best - would you?

Practical suggestions for your workout week...

• health focus - 2-3x resistance training + daily LISS as in walking (min. 30-60min)
• performance focus - 3x resistance training + 1-2x HIIT + 6x LISS as in walking (30-40min)
• physique focus - 3-4x resistance training + 1x HIIT +  6x LISS as in walking (30-40min)

Don't forget that the reason you do the LISS training is not because you want to burn calories, but rather because you want to spend some time doing what you actually would have to do everyday: Walking from place A to B; and if you belong to the few of us who don't sit on a desk all day, you may skip the walk in the park.

So what's a good reason to work out, then? Health! I know that does not sound as sexy as six-pack abs and bigger sleeves, but there is not denying it: Exercise is your vaccine and magic pill. It's what's going to make you feel good, look good and age well and unless you want to end up debilitated in a nursing home it is not optional even if you follow an energy restricted diet for the rest of your life. What is optional, though, is exercise as a means to increase athletic performance or influence the shape of you body withing your individual very specific limits.

Within this health ↔ performance ↔ looks triangle you will often encounter conflicts, where the optimization of one compromises the realization of another. I am nevertheless convinced that classic light intensity steady state (to make up for our modern sedentary lifestyle), en vogue high intensity interval training (to increase your VO2max) and classic and modern forms of resistance training (to build and maintain muscle mass) all have their place in a routine that does not lose sight of any of the vertices of the triangle.

What? How you can ever lose weight without doing endless hours of cardio? Well what about dieting?

References:

• David T, et al. Obese but not lean adolescents spontaneously decrease energy intake after intensive exercise. Physiol Behav. 2013 [epub ahead of print]
• Kelly B, King JA, Goerlach J, Nimmo MA. The impact of high-intensity intermittent exercise on resting metabolic rate in healthy males. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Oct 6. [Epub ahead of print]
• Magosso et al. Energy Expenditure during Multiple Sets of Leg Press and Bench Press. Journal of Exercise Physiology online. October 2013.
• Rosenkilde M, Auerbach P, Reichkendler MH, Ploug T, Stallknecht BM, Sjödin A. Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic exercise--a randomized controlled trial in overweight sedentary males. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012 Sep 15;303(6):R571-9.
• Rosenkilde M, Reichkendler MH, Auerbach P, Toräng S, Gram AS, Ploug T, Holst JJ, Sjödin A, Stallknecht BM. Appetite regulation in overweight, sedentary men after different amounts of endurance exercise - a randomized controlled trial. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2013 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]
• Sim AY, Wallman KE, Fairchild TJ, Guelfi KJ. High-intensity intermittent exercise attenuates ad-libitum energy intake. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Jun 4. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2013.102. [Epub ahead of print]

More Than 3x Higher EPOC Induced Energy Expenditure With HIIT vs. LISS! But Does That Really Matter? Plus: Why Headlines Like This May Compromise Your Progress

If you are sprinting because of the increase in EPOC, you are a fool.

Those of you have been following the SuppVersity for quite some time, now, will be familiar of the term "EPOC", which refers to the amount of oxgen that is consumed in excess in the post-exercise - or, in order not to overcomplicate things, the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, or, even simpler the amount of energy your burn after a workout because your mitochondria area "still on fire".

Assuming that you have read those of the >1250 hitherto published SuppVersity Articles that were dealing with this issue you may remember that I have repeatedly pointed out that...

... the contribution of the actual energy consumption that is caused by the "EPOC effect" would be absolutely irrelevant, if the calories in vs. calories out equation was as simple as mainstream dietitians and lifestlye magazine authors still like to present it to their clients and readers.

Now you know better than that, so that I don't have to tell you why I do even care about the results of of a recent study from the Universities of Central & West Florida (Townsend. 2013). After all, the EPOC is by far not the only metabolic effect that's missing from the "standard equation of exercise induced weight loss", i.e. [calorie intake - (resting metabolic rate + calories burnt during exercise)] / [3,500 kcal/lbs] = amount of fat lost (in lbs).

Let's get to the study first!

HIIT does not work because it burns more energy! As Williams et al. (2013) observed recently the benefits of HIIT don't come from...,

• an increase in EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption)
• an increase in resting energy expenditure (RER), which actually drops in the 60min after exercise, and
• larger amount of fat being burned during the workout

So if it's none of these, does HIIT work at all? Well if you asked Williams et al. they would probably says that based on their results it works because of its appetite suppressive effects, which have by the way been demonstrated by in another recent study that is about to be published in the scientific journal Obesity (Sim. 2013).

What is yet of much greater importance is that HIIT is intense enough to actually enforce adaptation and mytochondrial biogenesis. It helps you to build a bigger engine and the latter will help you in your efforts to lose weight and build muscle.

Before we get into the discussion, whether or not the 200% increase in EPOC Jeremy R. Townsend and his colleagues observed in 6 recreationally-trained males (age: 23.3±1.4 yrs; body mass: 81.8±9.9 kg;  height:180.8±6.3 cm), let's first take a look at the different exercise protocols the participants were exposed to on the two testing trials that were scheduled to take place at the same time of the day to minimize the effect of the circadian rhythm.

• a moderate aerobic exercise protocol consisting of a 30-minute submaximal cycling bout at 60% of heart rate reserve on an electronically braked cycle ergometer (HRR), and 
• three repeated 30-second Wingate cycling tests separated by four minutes each on a Monark 894E cycle ergometer (SIE).

Three hours before each of the trials, the subjects consumed a standardized meal replacement bar (43 g carbodydrate, 10 g protein, 6 g protein, 1004.6 kJ total). Water was consumed ad libitum and each testing trial was separated by 48 hours and was implemented in random counterbalanced design.

"Recorded data in SIE consisted of peak power output, mean power, and fatigue index. [...] Following testing trials, supine VO 2 was measured for 30 minutes or until baseline measures were reached. A participant was considered to have reached baseline when the average of two consecutive minutes was equal to baseline values.

EPOC was determined by subtracting baseline VO2 from post-exercise recovery VO 2 measurements. [...] Energy expenditure (kJ) was determined by multiplying kcals per liter of oxygen (20.93 kJ∙L O2) by the average VO 2 during recovery." (Townsend. 2013)

As the data in figure1 goes to show you, both the VO2 and EPOC values were significantly higher during the 30 minutes of post-workout recovery in the SPIE group.

Figure 1: EPOC and corresponding additional energy expenditure in the high intensity 3x Wingate group (SPIE) and the 30min continuous exercise group (HIE) during the 30 min right after the workout (Townsend. 2013)

In fact, the average EPOC value was 316% higher in the SPIE group. This value is however deceiving as it does not reflect the actual difference in post-workout energy expenditure which was 39.75kcal vs. 10.25kcal and thus "only" 287% higher in the SPIEE group.

---

"Hold on, you mean 397.5kcal, right" NO, I don't! It is in fact nothing but a fifth of an apple and you don't want to tell me that this will make a difference, right?

If you are training like Haile you better are a marathon runner. If you do that to lose weight or have reached the point, where you need to do it not to gain weight, it's time to make a change, because in that case the cardio is already hampering your gains and progress towards the physique you are aspiring (learn more). Train to build a bigger engine and eat to support your muscle gain or fat loss goals, not vice versa!

Thus we are back to the initial question whether EPOC matters... now if you look at the figures, you will have to admit: It does not matter. But guess what, the same is true for the 600kcal you may be spending doing LISS everyday.

If you are still heading to the gym to "burn calories" you really don't deserve the physique you're torturing yourself for. Train to get healthy, train to stay healthy, and train to build a bigger engine (which requires progressive, intense training on the track and in the gym) and have your diet take care of the rest.

Does this mean there is no role for cardio exercise in your regimen? No, it does not, but once you have achieved a point, where you are just performing it to "allow yourself that additional sweet potato", it's about time to make a switch... unless the physique you are aspiring is that of Haile Gebrselassie.

So what can you do? Lift weights, improve your conditioning and diet, if you feel you have got to lose weight, but don't train to lose weight. Train to maintain weight: Muscle weight! Train to get faster, train to get stronger and train to build your endurance. Record your progress set short-term goals for the gym, the track and the kitchen, be patient and cherish every success and you will shed that belly, not despite, but because you are not "burning enough calories".

References:

• Sim AY, Wallman KE, Fairchild TJ, Guelfi KJ. High-intensity intermittent exercise attenuates ad-libitum energy intake. International Journal of Obesity advance online publication 9 July 2013. [epub ahead of print]
• Townsend JR, Stout JR, Morton AB, Jajtner AR, Gonzalez AM, Wells AJ, Mangine GT, McCormack, WP Emerson NS, Robinson EH, Hoffman JR, Fragala MS Cosio-Lima L. Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) Following Multiple Effort Sprint And Moderate Aerobic Exercise. Kinesiology. 2013; 45(1):16-21
• Williams CB, Zelt JGE, Castellani LN, Little JP, Jung ME, Wright DC, Tschakovsky ME, Gurd BJ. Changes in mechanisms proposed to mediate fat loss following an acute bout of high intensity interval and endurance exercise. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 11 June 2013 [epub ahead of print]