Building a Bigger Engine: Resistance After Endurance Training Increases Mitochondrial Biogenesis & Protein Synthesis and Ramps Up Fat Metabolism

Image 1: There is nothing wrong with some "classic cardio" training, especially if you spike it up to build your mitochondrial engine

In a recent review of the literature, J.M. Wilson from the University of Tampa analyzed the results of 27 studies to determine whether and to which extend concomitant endurance training does / could have detrimental effects on the outcomes of resistance training (Wilson. 2011). And I suspect that it will not surprise you that Wilson found negative correlations "between frequency (-.26 to -.35) and duration (-.29 to -.75) of endurance training [and] hypertrophy, strength, and power." What is yet also noteworthy is a similarly significant (p<0.05) correlation with lower body fat levels and maximal heart rates on part on those strength athletes who did some sort of endurance exercises. Now, a more recent study which is soon going to be published in Journal of Applied Physiology sheds some more light on the complex interplay of endurance and resistance training and the potential benefits of combining both to build a "bigger mitochondrial engine" (Sahlin. 2011).

Interestingly, the Swedish scientists started out with a diametrically opposed hypothesis. Sahlin et al. expected that the signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis, of which it is common knowledge that it is promoted by "classic" low(er) intensity endurance exercise, would be impaired by resistance exercise. To validate their hypothesis, the scientists had a group of ten healthy subjects (7 males and 3 females; age, 26 ± 1.2 (mean ± SE) yr; height, 177 ± 2.9 cm; weight, 72 ± 3.5 kg) perform either 60min of endurance exercise (65% of VO2Max on a cycle ergometer) alone (E), or in combination (R+E) with a subsequent bout of 6 sets of leg presses at workloads corresponding to 70, 75, 80, 80, 75 and 70 % of the individual 1RM with 3 min rest between each set (cf. figure 1)

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the study outline (based on Sahlin. 2011).

Muscle biopsies were taken before and after the exercise protocol, to which the subjects had been randomly assigned and which was repeated 2 weeks (4 weeks in the female participants to avoid any influence of the menstrual cycle) later with subjects from the E group performing E + R and vice versa. The results, I'll say so much, were by no means what the researchers had expected.

Figure 2: Changes in lactate and muscle glycogen content in response to endurance (E) and combined endurance and resistance (E+R) training (calculated based on Sahlin. 2011).

While there were the expected differences in lactate levels, and glycogen content of the biopsied legs (cf. figure 2), the increase in the phosphorylation of mTOR and its upstream regulator Akt (you should know these promoters of protein synthesis from the posts in the Intermittent Thoughts series and my dissertations on other studies, by now ;-) was not only exclusive to the endurance + resistance training group (E+R), it was probably also much more pronounced than one might expect with 6 sets of leg presses and lead to an almost dramatic increase in p56Sk1 phosphorylation (do I have to mention that this happened "although" the subjects trained >12h fasted and remained fasted for the whole study period?) - a relatively reliable marker for protein synthesis (cf. figure 3).

Figure 3: Changes of key enzymes envolved in the phosphorylation of key enzymes in the protein synthetic cascade in response to endurance (E) and combined endurance and resistance (E+R) training (calculated based on Sahlin. 2011).

Morover, and totally contrary to what the scientists had expected, the expression of the key enzyme for mitochondrial biogenesis and increased fatty acid oxidation, PDK4 was significantly elevated, not suppressed, in response to the additional leg training (cf.  figure 4).

Figure 4: PDK4 phosphorylation (arbitrary units) in response to endurance (E) and combined endurance and resistance (E+R) training (calculated based on Sahlin. 2011).

The research hypothesis that a (relatively short, but intense) bout of resistance training subsequent to a mitogenic "classic" cardio regimen would blunt the beneficial effects of the latter on mitochondrial biogenesis is thusly more than falsified. As it turns out, the 6% increase in total work-load due to the addition of the 6 sets of leg presses makes a huge and desirable (!) difference (way beyond what an over-simplified workload = output equation would explain) in terms of "building a bigger engine" - an engine that will keep you lean on a bulk and help you lean out while your dieting.

If you are no powerlifter, it is thus probably no mistake to keep some "classic cardiovascular" exercise in your regimen, especially if you spice it up with a subsequent short bout resistance exercise - another option, and I am repeating myself here, would obviously be a high intensity cardio session (cf. HIIT). That being said, change has time and again proven to be the key to continuous improvements in exercise performance, muscular growth and strength, to incorporate both spiced up "classic cardio" and HIIT in your routine could not only improve your results (in view of the protein synthetic response, you could even "grow" on such an E+R day), it will also prevent you from getting bored with performing the same routine day in and day out and if you asked me, that is an even more fundamental key to success than a X% increase in the phosphorylation of whatever key enzyme ;-)

Training for Size & Strength - Does the Rest Matter? Study Finds 7-9% Greater Increase in Muscle Size With Decreasing Rest Periods.

Image 1: If you want to build Arnold-esque arms you better not sit around too long in-between your sets.

"Short rest periods to burn fat, medium rest periods to build muscle and long rest periods to build strength" - it's actually pretty likely that one of your trainers, gym buddies or fatherly mentors told you something along those lines in the past. In view of the results of a soon to be published international study by Brazilian researchers from the State University of Campinas and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and their American colleagues from the Eastern Illinois University, the University of Memphis and the Colorado College (Souza-Junior. 2011), this is probably the next item on list of widely accepted bodybuilding myths that have a spark of truth to them... at least for recreational strength trainees who use some creatine monohydrate to promote their strength and mass gains.

Learn more about muscle builder & fat shredder training at the SuppVersity

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

For their study, the results of which are going to be published in the next issue of the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Tacito P. Souza-Junior and his colleagues recruited 22 "recreationally trained" men with a minimum of one year resistance training experience at a frequency of 4 sessions a week, who were randomly assigned to one out of two exercise protocols, which differed only in the time the subjects were allowed to rest in-between sets (cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Identical training protocol for all subjects participating in the study (compiled based on information from Souza-Junior. 2011)

The only difference between the groups was that half of the subjects trained with a constant rest time of 2 minutes between sets over the whole 8 weeks (CI group), while the remaining subjects had to decrease their rest times from week to week (DI group) according to the scheme illustrated in figure 2. The training sessions were supervised and the subjects were " verbally encouraged to perform all sets to voluntary exhaustion". Considering the overall workload and the training frequency, this were probably pretty hard weeks for the 22 trainees.

Figure 2: The rest times decreased according to a standardized protocol by 15 sec each week.

In addition all subjects, who btw. did not follow a standardized diet, consumed the proven creatine + maltodextrin mix (7 day loading phase with 20g/day creatine + 20g maltodextrin followed by a maintenance dose of 5g creatine + 5g maltodextrin taken immediately post workout) that has been used in numerous studies before.

Figure 3: 1RM performance (in kg) for bench press and barbell squat before and after the 8-week training period in subjects with constant and decreasing rest periods (data adapted from Souza-Junior. 2011).

Now, if the initially stated "wisdom" held true, then the 11 subjects with constant rest periods should either have gained more muscle (if you consider 2 minutes a "medium" rest period) or built more strength (if you would say that 2 minutes belong to the realm of "long" rest periods) - yet figures 3 and 4 seem to indicate that neither of that was the case.

Figure 4: Muscle CSA (in cm²) of arm and tigh muscles before and after the 8-week training period (data adapted from Souza-Junior. 2011).

If we have do yet a closer look at the effect sizes, there is yet a notable advantage of the DI protocol in terms of the measured increases in muscle CSA with +14% and +19% in arm and tigh CSA in the constant rest interval group (CI) and +21% and +28% in the decreasing rest interval (DI) group.

SuppVersity Classic: Full ROM = More Growth, More Strength, More Structural Changes & More Sustainable Gains & Fat Loss - Insights from Realistic 8 Weeks Leg Training + 4 Weeks Detraining | more

There is a spark of truth to every myth To give you an idea of how significant - and I am talking about "posing significance" not statistical significance here - this is, I have calculated the respective increases in arm- and tigh-circumference, which would differ by 0.4cm and 0.7cm, respectively. Not really outstanding, but nevertheless an important finding of which the researchers say that it lends support to the notion that

decreasing [rest] interval[s] seems to be more efficient than constant interval to produces [sic!] hypertrophic responses.

It has yet to be stated that the 11 subjects in the decreasing rest interval group paid dearly for this increase in muscular hypertrophy, as their "exercise performance" as measured by the total workload per session decreased profoundly from week 1 to week 8: -35% total volume for barbell squats and -30% for bench presses.

The subjects who used constant rest periods, on the other hand, increased their total volume by +20% for squats and by +30% for bench presses. That being said, all powerlifters out there better stick to their constantly (long) rest periods if they do not want to compromise their game.

"Inner Chest", "Upper Abs", "Biceps Peak" & Co!? Study Finds Proximal and Distal Part of the Triceps Grow Independently and According to Training Stimulus.

Image 1: Training for the peak, could it be possible, after all? (image from provitamin.in)

You probably have read my repeated notes on the issue of training individual muscles fibers in complete isolation in the 7-part SuppVersity EMG-Series. I guess in view of the results of a very recent study from the Faculty of Sports Sciences at the Waseda University in Japan (Wakahara. 2011), it might be that I will have to revise my statement. It could in fact be that you can train a specific part of a muscle fiber - if not individually, then at least predominantly.

Despite the fact that our movements are always orchestrated by the interplay of a whole host of muscle-groups and -fibers, Wakahara et al.'s results suggest that it may even be possible to target specific parts of individual fibers by selecting the correct exercises. In other words, instead of doing incline bench presses for the upper chest, you could, as many trainers recommend it for years do them with a narrower grip to target the "inner chest", i.e. the inner part of the same muscle fiber that constitutes the "outer chest" (note that this is fundamentally different from training "upper pecs" and "lower pecs", which are in fact separate muscle strands).

The muscle group for which Taku Wakahara and his colleagues were able to show this remarkable effect, was yet not the chest, but the triceps brachii. For their study, the scientists recruited 2x12 healthy young men (25.2 +/- 3.0 years, 172.8 +/- 5.0 cm, 65.3 +/- 7.8 kg; there were 7 dropouts of 19 men who started the 12-week resistance training), who had not participated in a regular resistance training program for the upper extremities for at least 6 months, for a short (single session) and long term (12 weeks) analysis of the effects of DB lying triceps extension on muscular activation and hypertrophy in the triceps brachii.

In the first experiment the scientists had one group of subjects perform 5 sets of 8 repetitions with a 2s concentric and a 2s eccentric phase at 80% of their previously established 1RM-max.

Before and immediately after the resistance exercise, T2-weighted MR images of the upper arm were obtained with an MR scanner [...] The time from completion of the exercise to initiation of the scanning was 72 +/- 21 s. In each MR image, the outline of the triceps brachii muscle was traced to determine the CSA using a software package (Image J, National Institute of Health, USA).

In view of the short timespan between the last set of the exercise and the MR scans, we may safely assume, that the CSA (cross-sectional area) increases the scientists measured in this first session were mainly a result of the increased blood-flow to the triceps aka "the pump". For me, this is particularly interesting, because if those areas of the muscles with the "greatest pump", i.e. the greatest increase in CSA immediately after training, would be identical with those areas of the muscle which exhibit the greatest hypertrophy in the course of the 12-week follow-up experiment, this would be evidence for the significance of increased blood flow and "the pump" in view of consecutive muscle growth (it would not, however tell us whether the relation between "the pump" and muscular hypertrophy is corollary or causative!).

Figure 1: Increases in cross-sectional area of the triceps brachii immediately after a single session of DB lying triceps extensions and a 12-week resistance training protocoll (data calculated based on Wakahara. 2011)

As the data I plotted in figure 1 goes to show, there is a correlation (R²=0.67) between the CSA increases after the single session and the hypertrophy response to the 3x a week (12 weeks) training regimen. The correlation is too weak to confirm Arnold Schwarzenegger's advice that "going for the pump" would be the (implying "one and only) way to grow. This, however, does not diminish the importance of Wakahara et al.'s finding that

the region-specific muscle hypertrophy after chronic resistance training is attributable to the regional difference in muscle activation during the exercise

In other words, the bros at the gym were probably right, there are inner chest, outer chest, biceps peak, upper quads etc. and you can probably train them individually.

In view of the costs of the necessary equipment, it is however not very likely that you will see a "SuppVersity Magneto-Resonance Series" with the "very best exercises for individual parts of each and every muscle fiber as determined by increases in CSA after a single training session" somewhere in the near future. But guess what, in the end you would not even need that if you rely on your own good judgement: If you exercise with heavy weights and proper form, the pump, the burn and the soreness after the workout will tell you if it was the inner chest, or the outer chest that took over the lion's share of your last workout.

Natural BB Contest Coverage 2.0: Linear Weight Loss (15.3 kg), Minimal Lean Body Mass Loss (8.8%) on a 26-Week Contest Prep That Ended At 7.4% Body Fat as A New Pro

This is not the weight class we are talking about, here. With a baseline muscle mass of 75.2kg and exactly 15.9kg of body fat, the natural bodybuilder in the case study at hand is far away from a monster back like this - for natural reasons ;-)

Studies about bodybuilding are rare and if there are some, they are usually dealing with the dark sides of "un-natural" bodybuilding. Against that background I am happy to report that today's SuppVersity article continues what I would love to become a tradition that started in March 2013 with the ahead-of-print publication of Lindy Rossow's article "Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: a 12-month case study" in the International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance (learn more).

I am talking about a tradition of articles about Scientific Natural Bodybuilding Contest Coverage, a coverage such as the one Brandon M. Kistler, Peter J. Fitschen, Sushant M. Ranadive, Bo Fernhall, and Kenneth R. Wilun are about to present in a future edition of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise (Kistler. 2014): A study that describes the processes and consequences of a 26-year old athlete who won his pro-card after a 26-week diet + exercise marathon.

A high protein intake is important for athlete and average Joes

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Blends for Max. Anabolism

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

5x More Than FDA Allows

So this is what he did starting 26 weeks prior to a pro-qualifying natural bodybuilding contest:
tracking his diet and training in a diary, to the "T" - all food was weighed to the nearest gram throughout the duration of the study...

• consume 250 g protein, 240 g carbohydrate, and 70 g fat per day on five days of the week, and 225 g protein, 400 g carbohydrate, and 65 g fat on two high carbohydrate days (days were spaced throughout the week) 
• whenever the rate of weight loss slowed, a 5-10g reduction in daily fat or carbohydrate
  intake was implemented to maintain weight loss

Consequently, the 26-year old protagonist of this case-report ended up consuming 250 g protein, 140 g carbohydrate, and 51 g fat per day on five days of the week and 225 g protein, 255 g carbohydrate, and 46 g fat per day on two days of the week at the end of the study (macronutrient intake was within 5g of target values on all days).

BCAAs & regular HMB, fish oil, creatine, beta alanine and a multi were part of the game

Throughout contest preparation 30g branched chain amino acids, 3g beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB), 2g fish oil, 5g creatine monohydrate, 6g beta- alanine, and a multivitamin, were consumed daily.

Figure 1: Changes in body weight (left) and - more importantly - body composition (=% fat mass vs. % lean mass; right) of the subjects over the course of the 26 week study period (Kistler. 2014)

As you've learned only recently on the SuppVersity, creatine helps to prevent strength loss on high volume / endurance + strength training regimen (learn more). Against that background, we can assume that it also helped the subject of Kistler's case study to perform his 1-1.5hrs workouts on five days of the week.

"Each muscle group was trained twice weekly with one dayprimarily in the 3-8 repetition range and the other primarily in the 8-15 repetition range.  Thisquantity of resistance training was maintained throughout the preparation.  At the start of contest preparation, two 40min sessions of high intensity interval training (HIIT) were performed per week.  This HIIT generally consisted of a 30 second all-out sprint, followed by 4:30 of active jogging recovery." (Kistler. 2014)

What exactly Kistler means, when he writes "aerobic exercise was added as needed though out contest preparation to maintain a constant rate of weight loss" (Kistler. 2014) is unfortunately, quite ambiguous - the only thing we get to know is that, by the end of contest preparation, the subject performed four 60min sessions of HIIT and two 30min sessions of low intensity steady-state aerobic
exercise per week.

Results? What about the results?

So what were the consequences of his huge efforts? You already know about the weight loss: 15.3 kg over the course of the contest preparation in a highly linear manner (~.58kg/week), aside from that he saw...

• absolutely no detectable reduction in bone mineral density,
• no changes in carotid Intima-Media thickness (perfectly healthy 0.50 mm),
• significant decreases in brachial blood pressure and aortic blood pressure, as well as complementary decrease in aortic SBP and aortic DBP, 
• no change of the indexed left ventricular mass (107.2 g/m²),
• only minimal changes in the overall heart rate variability, but a shift in variability towards the high frequency domain and an increase in baroreceptor sensitivity,
• no change in overall inflammation (hs-CRP) or cholesterol levels and oxidation and
• a continous increase in cardio-respiratory fitness as indicated by increases in body weight relative VO2peak from 41.91 over 44.19, to 47.69 mL/Kg

As the authors point out in their discussion of the results, the contest preparation strategy used by this athlete "led to highly linear weight loss (R²=0.9932)" that was accompanied by a relatively low lean mass loss (-8.8%) - little enough for the subject to be "successfully able to lose enough fat mass to reduce body fat percentage and get lean enough to win his natural pro card."

Suggested Read: " Scientific BB Contest Prep Coverage: Six Months of Dieting, Daily Workouts & Hormonal + Metabolic Shutdown Pave the Natural Way to the Sub 5% Body Fat Zone" | read more

Bottom line: Considering the fact that bodybuilding is deemed to be one of the unhealthiest sports you can do by the general public, it's quite astonishing how little negative and how much positive impact the 26 weeks on a restricted diet + crazy exercise regimen had on the subject in the case-report at hand.

What I am missing, though, is a complete (and repeated) hormonal pattern, as it came with Lindy Rossows study I wrote about in March 2013 (see " Scientific BB Contest Prep Coverage: Six Months of Dieting, Daily Workouts & Hormonal + Metabolic Shutdown Pave the Natural Way to the Sub 5% Body Fat Zone" | more) - if that had been available, I would have been able to do a nice comparison of the effects on testosterone, cortisol & Co. - it's a pity.

Refernces:

• Kistler, B. M., et al. "Case Study: Natural Bodybuilding Contest Preparation." International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism (2014). Ahead of print.
• Rossow, Lindy M., et al. "Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: a 12-month case study." International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance 8.5 (2013).

Adelfo Cerame RtWC12: Shoulder Your Weaker Body Parts! Bring Up Those Lagging Delts - Exercises, Splits, Routines

Image 1: After his 2nd place at the Nationals, Adelfo wanted to bring up his rear delts and although the lighting does not really do him justice, he made use of the weeks between the Nationals (right) and the USA (left) and filled up considerably.

It is more than 3 months ago that Adelfo and I have been talking about ways to bring up his somewhat lagging delts (if you could even say that there is something "lagging" about Adelfo's physique), yet still, it seems as if it had been yesterday that I told him that he would not have to wonder that those delts were not growing, when he was working them almost exclusively with compound movements for stronger body parts, which wouldn't allow the side and, more importantly, the rear delts to reach that highly productive, growth triggering point of just too much load to handle, but still not so much load that adaptation could not make up for it. And judged by his latest progress pics, Adelfo did not just take that comment to the heart, but was also able to make the appropriate changes to his routine. Good for you that he is no magician who would never betray any of his illusionist tricks, but gives away practical advice every week ;-)

Boulder shoulder tweaks

After my Florida show, I felt that my shoulders (front, side & rear) were an area in my physique that could use some improvement. It was not a clearcut weakness of mine, but when the initial disappointment subsided and I took another look at the comparison shots, I felt that Adel (aka Dr. Andro) had been right, when he said "If anything, you lost on one maybe two of the backshots, where Neil looked somewhat more massive - his rear-delts in particular." And yeah, he had been right, those rear delts did not really keep up with the rest of my back development, which - as you may probably remember - had been one of my priorities (aside from coming in as shredded as possible) during the prep for my first competition of the year. I knew I would not make the same mistake twice, and decided to level out those imbalances in the weeks to come.

Image 2:  The left hand side is a current image of me 4 weeks out from the USA’s, and the right hand image was me 4 days out from Nationals.

And allegedly, the results, now 14 weeks later, may not be earth-shattering, but the changes are unquestionably visible and that despite the fact that the "mini-bulk" I had originally planned for in-between the shows turned out to be more of an ameliorated diet ;-)

Make changes to see changes

While I guess that it should actually not be necessary for me to point out that continuing along a way that has lead you astray is a pretty stupid undertaking, I still see people do just that day by day - and not just in the gym, but also in their private and professional lives! Often ridden by the fear to make a change for the worse they'd rather continue along a known path that won't produce the desired results than to try something new that would at least hold the chance of improvement.

My old path consisted of training my shoulders once a week, following my basic training principle to use heavy compounds wherever possible and simply rely on the fact that those would provide an intense enough stimulus to both, the primary, as well as the auxiliary muscles that are involved in the respective exercises.

According to the aforementioned primacy not to follow a path which has lead you astray before another time, I increased the training frequency a bit and made a  couple of additional adjustments with respect to the exercise selection (see table on the right) and the grouping of the bodyparts, with auxiliary shoulder work on chest day.

Barbell jammers, bent over reverse cable fly’s and lat pulls behind the neck are 3 exercises that I have added into my training. Out of the three, I really enjoyed were those jammers - I felt they really targeted all areas of my delts, plus they are less stressing on the shoulders joints, because you're pushing in a forward/upward motion rather than right over the head. What was particularly surprising, though was how effective those three rear delt exercises actually were - I have never really paid much attention to it, let alone trained them in in isolation, but the way they felt during and after each workout told me that it may have been a mistake not to do DB rows (which are certainly more difficult for me to do than for an able person), lat pulls behind the neck and bent over reverse cable flys, before.

Training shoulders twice in a bi-weekly hybrid routine cycle

Image 3: Planned changes deliver results

Consequently, all three (DB rows, lat pulls behind the neck and bent over reverse cable fly’s) have turned into staples of my routine - irrespective of whether I am training at a higher or lower training volume on my new bi-weekly alternating hybrid routine

• EDT/5x5 = 2 week phase
• Overkill/5x5 = 2 week phase
• Hypertrophy/5x5 = 2 week phase

While cycling through these basic templates, I incorporated the aforementioned additional shoulder work into my existing split on "chest-" and "back-days" which allowed me to train my shoulders - just as my chest and back - twice a week.

The following example routine (which is not intended to be copied without adaptations) goes to show you how you can reconcile all that in one routine, where you would split your shoulder workout up into front and side delts on "chest-" and rear delts on "back days" (click to enlarge):

Workout routine: No blueprint, just an example - Overkill (left), 5x5 (middle), EDT (right) hybrid

As I said before, both the volume and the intensity of these workouts are pretty insane and I am not suggesting that any beginner should simply copy this workout. The idea, however, to incorporate front and side delts on your "chest-" and the rear delts on your "back-day" is yet something that will have merit regardless of your training status or overall conditioning. So pick your favorite exercises from table one, align them into a routine with a total volume and intensity that suits your need, eat well, train heavy and get enough rest and you will see your shoulders will grow ;-)

Nonuniform Muscle Hypertrophy: Activation Patterns and Eventually Exercise Selection Determine Triceps Growth

Is it possible that you can - within your genetic limits - influence the growth pattern of your tris by the way you train?

"Localized muscle growth? Wtf now you're kiddin' me, right!?" Well, I want to be honest with you. It's not like you could actually grow exclusively the peak of your biceps, but the fact that even the observation that the maximal increase in muscle cross-sectional area does actually correspond to the area of maximal stimulation can be considered a "novel finding", is testimony to how under-researched the optimal modalities of training for such profane things as cosmetic muscle gains actually are. In the end, you'd even have to wonder that Taku Wakahara and his colleagues from the Waseda and Doshisha and Ritsumeikan Universities in Japan even dared investing precious time and money into a part of human physiology that's still looked down upon by large parts of the scientific establishment.

Maybe, it's like a carte blanche young researchers have!? After all, the study was supported partially by a grant for young scientists. So, before we get to the details, let's briefly thank the board members for turning a blind eye to the fact that the purpose of the present study was ...

"[...] to examine whether the regional difference in muscle hypertrophy induced by a training intervention corresponds to the regional difference in muscle activation in the training session." (Wakahara. 2012)

... and did not involve the frail, the obese or the frail and obese, but 24 completely healthy young male volunteers. With an average age of 26 years and 66kg on a 172cm frame (likewise averages) the letter were yet either sedentary or (maximally) "recreationally active" and had not been involved in a regular resistance training program for the upper limbs for six months before the beginning of the experiment.

Why would they use sedentary / hardly trained subjects?

Now you may certainly argue that it would be nice to see the very same study done in young bodybuilders. And this would in fact have been quite "nice" it would probably have been quite useless, as well. After all, you would have been hard pressed to measure any significant significant differences in muscle growth in already highly trained subjects.

That being said, there is still something to criticize: Why on earth do you need N = 12 subjects in the sedentary control group? I mean, it's not exactly likely that people who are sitting around anyway are suddenly growing big guns due to anything, but the 12-week exercise intervention they were part of? If the 12 subjects in the ...

• 

  The lying dumbbell press was performed with a TUT of 2s on the concentric and 2s on the eccentric potion of the exercise.

  control group, who did not perform resistance training, but maintained  their  normal  activities  during  the period,

had, for example, performed the same workout as the ...

• training group, who performed 5x sets of 8x reps at 80% of their pre-determined 1-RM max of a dumbbell press-type movement; a multi-joint exercise that involved forearm extension and arm flexion in the sagittal plane to failure (if necessary the instructors helped them to complete any missing reps; rest between sets was 90s),

but with different rest times or using different exercises the scientists would have been able to collect much more valuable data in the same 12-week study period. Information muscle-heads like you and me would have highly appreciated.

But again, who am I to pass criticism on Taku Wakahara, Atsuki Fukutani, Yasuo Kawakami, and Toshimasa Yanai? A smartass blogger... no, I suggest we'd better be happy with the results and accept the limitations of the study at hand.

So what were the results, then?.

Before the training intervention, there was no significant difference in the age, body height, body mass or the maximal CSA of the triceps brachii between the two groups. After 12 weeks with three training sessions per week, however, the scientists did observe a highly significant increase in muscle CSA in the participants in the active arm of the study.

Figure 1: Activation patterns for lateral, medial and long head at at different distances (in cm) from the elbow joint and correspoding changes in muscle CSA after the 12 week intervention (left; figures indicate sign. diff. to position in cm); MR images used for the assessment of the activation pattern after the first session (right; Wakahara. 2013)

As mentioned before, this observation is neither surprising nor novel. What's quite telling and of practical relevance, however, is the observation that the different activation patterns the scientists had observed during the first training session, where the "%activated area of the triceps brachii had been significantly higher in the middle regions than that in the most proximal region" (Wakahura. 2013) did - just like "broscience" would have it - yield corresponding increases in the cross-sectional area in the respective parts of the muscle.

"The relative changes in CSA after the training intervention distributed nonuniformly (P= 0.029, partial η² = 0.327) along its length in the training group. The relative changes in CSA were significantly greater at 10 cm (P= 0.030, r = 0.753), 16 cm (P= 0.019, r = 0.774) and 22 cm (P= 0.001, r = 0.869) from the elbow joint that [sic!] the value at 28 cm from the elbow joint."  (Wakahura. 2013)

Interestingly, the scientists did not observe any significant change in the muscle thickness of the long head in the training group (before: 2.0 ± 0.3 cm, after: 2.1 ± 0.2 cm). This is a result that stands in line with the activation patterns Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies observed in their Y2k study on which the data in the SuppVersity EMG Series is based on (click on the respective body part below to see the activation patterns for different exercises for all muscle groups).

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series - Click on the desired body part to see the optimal exercises.

According to the said EMG data, the optimal exercise for the caput longum are dumbbell triceps kickbacks on an incline bench - an exercise that was obviously not part of the workout. The same goes for possible replacements, such as the seated dumbbell extension.

---

Suggested read: "Shoulder Presses Ain't for Delts Only! Standing, Seated w/ BB or DB, They Also Hammer the Core, Biceps & Triceps"(read more)

Practical implications: Irrespective of the previously discussed limitations / shortcomings of the study at hand the results are anything but worthless. After all the correspondence of the activation patterns and hypertrophy response the scientists observed in the study at hand supports the notion(*) that EMG activity patterns as they were measured by Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies (see The SuppVersity EMG Series) are practically relevant and can be used as a starting point to build highly specific hypertrophy workouts.

In this context, the "(*)" after the expression "supports the notion" is of utmost importance. Why? Well, the study at hand used MR imaging, not electromyography (EMG), to evaluate the skeletal muscle activation patterns and - probably even more importantly - a sluggishly performed DB kickback is not going to yield the exact same activation patterns as a picture perfect DB kickback "right from the textbook".

With form, inter-individual physiological difference (e.g. the length of your limbs), personal preference, training experience, auxiliary movements etc. all having a more or less pronounced influence on the activation pattern, EMG studies or other data on activity patterns should always be regarded as a guide, as inspiration to give things a try - not as a prescription! In the end, it will always be up to you or an experienced trainer who is actually watching you as you train (!) to pick the "truly optimal" exercises for you, as an individual.

References:

• Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, Murata K, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T, Yanai T. Association between regional differences in muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in muscle hypertrophy after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Apr;112(4):1569-76.
• Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform Muscle Hypertrophy: Its Relation to Muscle Activation in Training Session. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 May 7.

Exogenous Leptin Works! At Least in Already "Normal" Weight Exercise Junkies - 19% Body Fat Reduction in 10 Weeks on Metreleptin

In view of the promising results from early rodent studies it came as a surprise that leptin, a "16 kDa protein hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite and metabolism" (Wikipedia), turned out to be ineffective in obese patients, even if it was administered at very high doses. A recent Harvard study (Brinkoetter. 2011) published in the American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology & Metabolism on April, 19th, does yet show that leptin does very well working its magic, if a patient's leptin receptors have not been desensitized by years of overeating.

Figure 1: Leptin induced reduction in body fat percentage (reminder: notice the difference between a 19% reduction in the total amount of body fat and a 19% reduction in body fat percentage) in amenorrheic women with hypoleptinemia after 10w and 19m, respectively (data adapted from Brinkoetter. 2011)

Investigating both short- (group 1: 10 weeks) as well as long-term effects (group 2: 9 months) of physiologic doses of exogenous recombinant methionyl human leptin, Metreleptin (group 1: 0.08 mg/kg per day; group 2: 0.08 mg/kg for 3 months, then 0.12 mg/kg per day for 6 months), on 2 groups of lean, strenuously-exercising amenorrheic women with hypoleptinemia (age: 25 ± 6 yrs, %-body fat: 22 ± 4 %) the researchers found that

Metreleptin significantly reduced total body fat by an average of 18.6% after 10 weeks (P<0.001) in the single-arm trial, and by 19.5% after 9 months (placebo-subtracted; P for interaction = 0.025; P for metreleptin = 0.004) in the placebo-controlled trial. There were no significant changes in lean body mass (P≥0.33), or in serum concentrations of myostatin (P≥0.35), follistatin (P≥0.30) and activin A (P≥0.20), whether in the 10-week trial or the 9-month trial.

While these results [body fat was reliably measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), btw] won't help lazy couch potatoes, I bet they will turn out to be very "inspiring" for figure competitors, bodybuilders and other athletes who plateau in their efforts "to make weight". As it was the case for the female subjects in this study, leptin injections may effectively jumpstart their starved and over-trained metabolisms while shifting energy provision from valuable muscle to unwanted fat tissue. In view of these benefits, it would be downright audacious to ask for an additional decrease in myostatin (accompanied by an increase in muscle mass), don't you think so? Anyways, I guess we will soon see the black market prices for respective products rise to new heights.

Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine - Part II: Choosing the Right Training Style(s) for Your Goals

Image 1: Maybe it is because I don't have the beard, but for me HIT a la Mike Metzner never worked out ;-)

In the last installment you should have learned "How to Fit Your Training, Rest Days, Strength and Conditioning Workouts into Your Personal Schedule". By now, you should thusly have a general idea of what your future workout week is going to look like. You should, for example, know that you will have to bring your gymbag to the office on Monday, to be able to go right to the gym after work. While you will have programmed your shiny new iPhone to wake you up on Wednesday early, so that you can do a fasted HIIT workout before you shower, have breakfast and head to work... what you still need to know, though, is what exactly you are about to do at the gym, on your treadmill or simply in the park next door. The second part of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" thusly starts with a chapter on training types and splits.

A fundamental decision: The "right" training type(s) / style(s) for you

When you are planning your workout days the first decision you will have to make relates to the "training type" or "training style". Based on this decision and the number and schedule of your workouts your will then decide on the optimal training split. It goes without saying that we are dealing with a two-tier menu, here. In other words, there is a range of strength and a range of conditioning workouts you can chose from, when planning your workout regimen.

Strength workouts	Conditioning workouts
Classic full body strength training Circuit training High(er) volume bodybuilding split German volume training Escalating density training Pyramid training 5x5 high intensity training HIT a la Mike Metzner Olympic / powerlifting	Low intensity steady state High intensity steady state High intensity interval Metabolic circuit training Cross-fit conditioning workouts Other sports
Table 1: Examples of "training styles" you could chose from (not intended to be complete!)

This brief overview is obviously not intended to be complete. The main intention is to give you an idea of what a "workout style" actually is. In most cases the latter is closely linked to certain volume, intensity and even set and rep prescriptions. This is something you should be aware of, since the type of workout you chose will limit your choices as far as set and rep schemes are concerned. On a full body strength training regimen, for example, it is impossible to do five exercises per body part. And while you could certainly do olympic lifts in the 20+ rep range, it is still questionable, if that makes sense, after all you will probably have chosen an o-lifting or powerlifting type of training, because your main goal is to increase your strength and though it may be debatable if that is not just as well possible if you train in what is usually considered the hypertophy range of 6-10 reps (cf. Marshall. 2011), I can assure you that you are not going to see significant strength increases if you perform your deadlifts with 20lbs plates on each side for reps.

"Right"? What's that supposed to mean and how do I know?

That said, we are already approaching the question of "which type of training is right for me and my goals" - a tricky question in which you will have to consider a whole host of parameters, of which I believe that the most important ones are:

Image 2: I know that most magazines and website make it appear as if you just go to the gym, pick up a dumbbell and train... unfortunately, your results depend not only on what you do (the correct plan you are learning to set up, here), but also how you do it. Especially complex movements, like the squat and the deadlift require training (not just "doing") and someone who checks your form and helps you correct it. So, if you can't afford a personal trainer, please don't be rude to the strength training veteran who is telling you that you are using way too much weight, but ask him to help you improve on your skills!

• your training schedule: If the training schedule you have outlined based on what you have learned in the last installment allows for just one strength workout per week, this must be a full-body workout. If you have four or five workout days, you will have to use a body part split.
   
• your training experience, conditioning and age: Just like the number of workouts must be matched to your experience, your athleticism and your age (or potential health issues), you will have to chose your workout style accordingly, as well. Other than in the case of the training schedule, which has little to no restrictive influence on the range of conditioning workouts you can chose from, your training experience, your conditioning and your overall health could make it hard or not advisable to perform certain conditioning workouts. As I have hinted at before, I don't believe in HIIT training for morbidly obese trainees, simply because walking on an incline at a constant (moderate) tempo for 15 minutes is already very high intensity training for someone who carries an additional 100-200lbs of body fat around. Similarly, someone who has never lifted weights before would be ill-advised to do any sort of high intensity lifting (only), simply because chances are that he or she will just move the weight from point A to point B without stimulating the muscle, but putting lots of stress on cartilage and joints.
   
• your personal preference and previous choices: Many trainees who want to see optimal results make the fundamental mistake of following a plan to the T, although they hate doing what they do. In other words, a commonly overlooked, but fundamentally important question you should ask yourself is: "What type of training do I want to do?" If you want to get stronger, but hate O-lifting, you better ignore all expert advice that this would be the best way to get stronger, and rather pick a more bodybuilding oriented HIT regimen a la Mike Metzner - assuming you like BB-style workouts better than olympic lifts. In this regards, you will yet have to be cautious not to stick to your favorite routine forever. The HST (hypertrophy-specific training) regimen with its carefully planned macro- and micro-cycles of heavy lifting in the lower and lighter lifting in the higher rep ranges has not been around for so long for nothing. From a physiological perspective it simply makes sense that maximal muscle gain requires adequate strength gains in as much as maximal strength gains won't occur if you don't make sure that your muscles also grow (I will address the issue of "periodization" in an individual post)
   
• your goals: Based on the previous considerations, the number of workout styles you can / want to chose from should have narrowed down considerably. It is thusly time to make a decision on which of these suits your current goals best (remember: whenever your goals change, e.g. when you have lost enough fat and want to start building muscle, you will have to revisit this choice!). 

Your goal - your workout: There is no single "best" combination

Since it is virtually impossible to come up with definite pairs of workout-style < > goal, and in view of the fact that I have bombarded you with more than enough theoretical information I will try to come up with a handful of common examples:

• health focus, three days a week: 2x full body classic bodybuilding inspired routine (use different exercises, i.e. routine A and B), 1x HIIT
   
• health focus, four days a week: 1x full body circuit training (3 rounds), 1x light intensity steady state (35 min), 1x 5x5 high(er) intensity lifting, 1x HIIT (15 min)
   
• weight loss focus, three days a week: 1x HIIT (20min), 1x full body circuit training (3 rounds), 1x steady state cardio (45 min on rowing machine; largely underrated "cardio" equipment, by the way)
   
• weight loss focus, four days a week: 2x escalating density training (chest + back, shoulders + legs, arms as supersets), 1x HIIT (20 min), 1x light steady state (35min on incline treadmill)
   
• hypertrophy focus, three days a week: 2x classic bodybuilding split (day 1: upper body or push; day 2: lower body or pull), 1x HIIT (15 min) + optional ab and flexibility work
   
• hypertrophy focus, four days a week: 2x escalating density training, 1x powerlifting, 1x steady state cardio (35min rowing ;-)
   
• hypertrophy focus, five days a week (hardcore ;-): 3x classic bodybuilding split, 2x powerlifting, 2x additional HIIT training either in the morning or 1x steady state (30min) and 1x HIIT (10min) after two workouts of your choice
   
• strength focus, three days a week: 2x 5x5 training, 1x HIIT (20min) or 1x olymypic lifting + 1x HIIT in the morning or after one of the strength workouts
   
• strength focus, four days a week: 3x HIT a la Mike Metzner (push, pull, legs), 1x light intensity steady state cardio (45min walking on treadmill)
   
• strength focus, five days a week: 2x powerlifting, 2x olympic lifting, 1x steady state cardio (35min rowing)

I could obviously continue this list for ever, but rather than doing that I will conclude this installment of the  Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine, by identifying two common patterns, which may also help you your decision about which combinations could work for you:

1. Variety means freedom and keeps you from getting bored: You will probably have noticed that many of the templates combine different training styles. This is particularly true for the regimen with more than three workout days and with respect to the "cardiovascular" or conditioning work you are performing. The reasons for that are two-fold: For one, performed correctly, i.e. at maximum intensity, a 15-20min HIIT will require about as much recovery time as a 50min strength workout. A light intensity steady state "aerobic" workout, on the other hand can actually accelerate your recovery (assuming that you have a decent baseline conditioning). It does thusly, at least in my humble opinion, make sense to include one "classic cardio" session into your regimen, especially if you are sitting at a desk for the rest of the day. Secondly, you will notice that having the option of doing one or the other will allow you to chose your cardio workout according to what you feel like. Just got that new magazine in the mail? Well, then discard the 20min HIIT and read your magazine while you are fidgeting around on the cross trainer ;-)
    
2. Auxilliary work not directly related to your goal can make all the difference: If you look at the "hardcore bodybuilding split" (hypertrophy, 5-day routine) you will see that this is not one of those stupid 5-day splits you see in the magazines. You rather follow a classic 3-day bodybuilding split from Mo-Wed, rest, and perform a push-pull powerlifting type of training on Friday and Saturday. This is similar to one of Layne Norton's plans, who, I am sure, is just as aware as you should be that by improving your major lifts and your overall strength on the "powerlifting days", you are able to get much more out of the "hypertrophy days" earlier in the week. Similarly, a power- or olympic lifter would be ill-advised to neglect his overall conditioning. With the "low" training volume, auxilliary long(er) duration light(er) intensity cardio sessions are thusly an ideal complement to make sure that he does not have to drop the bar, simply he gets wind.

"How many reps? I want to know how many reps I am supposed to do!"

I guess, by now you probably understand, why I have hitherto shied away from this type of blogposts. I have spent the whole sunny Sunday afternoon "blogging" and covered no more than ~15% of what I had in mind, when I sat down. I hope you have still gotten some inspiration, and promise that I am going to do my very best to tackle all of the following issues

Image 3: What is the most underrated conditioning workout? Easy: Rowing! A decent rowing machine will activate your whole body, train your coordination and can even help you build muscle. What more can you ask for of an "auxilliary" and allegedly "uselsess" aerobic exercise?

• pairing body parts - antagonistic, synergistic, arms on their own day... ?  
• set and rep ranges - 1-5 for strength, 6-12 for size and 12-20 ...? 
• exercise selection - do's & don'ts (for a sneak peak check out the EMG series)?
• periodization - HST, intra-workout "periodization" a la Hatfield... ?

on the coming weekend. In the meantime, you will have the chance to see a 100% concrete example of how an allegedly beginner (and probably also intermediate) incompatible workoutplan can look like, when Adelfo is going to present the results of the "workout-plan-storming" session we had yesterday.

And don't forget: The comment section (below) is open for suggestions, wishes and questions on this and for the future installments of this series - don't be shy folks ;-)

If You Go "High Carb", You Better Go Really High! Seven Meals/Day, More than 800g of Carbs, Less Than 50g of Fat & 1000kcal Over Maintenance and Still "Lean Gains"!

Image 1: This picture of Lee Priest, in the "off-season" is a symbol for the classic "bulking" vs. "dieting" cycles. Yet while the artificially enhanced IFBB-pros use this practice to get more muscular every year, many amateurs use their "bulking phase" as an excuse to go totally havoc on food - and the results are identical to those of their sedentary peers: Obesity, diabetes, heart disease.

If the term "low carb flu" was not already used to refer to the (allegedly) transient state of weakness and general malaise, when people are switching from a "regular" (usually "high carb") to a low-, let alone no-carb diet, I would have used it to refer to an infectious brain disease. A disease that has befallen more and more formerly healthy, lean physical culturists who are now complaining about "chronic fatigue syndrome" and "adrenal burnout". It is a disease that is - yet again - the consequence of black-and-white thinking and one-size-fits-it-all "solutions" and its main feature is this little man in your ear telling you: "Mind you! All carbs are created [not equal, but...] evil!"

If you had told one of the forefathers of physical culture that he was not allowed to have oats with his raw eggs and that the milk he was adding had way too many carbs, what do you think he would have said? I guess, he either would have laughed at or pitied you (depending on whether you are already in the "chronic fatigue phase" of low-carb + high intensity training, or not), but he would certainly have complained if you had taken his oatmeal, his milk and his rice and substituted that with bacon, butter and cream - after all, he would have those whenever he felt like it, as well....

All carbs are not created evil and how evil they are largely depends on their consumer

But enough of these preambles let's face it: If you are already lean and want to stay sane while training heavy to maximize your gains and performance you need carbs! And while it certainly depends on the individual how much of those allegedly fattening molecules you can / should ingest on a daily bases, a recently published study from ??? suggests that, as a young (18-35y), yet still somewhat experienced strength trainee (>2y of training experience; body weight: 77kg; body fat: 16%) you can hardly get enough of them (Mendes-Netto. 2011).

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition of the habitual, "normal carb" and "high carb" diets (from Mendes-Netto. 2011)

In their randomized crossover study, Mendes-Netto and his colleagues put their 11 male subjects on one out of the two dietary regimen, the macronutrient content of which you can infer from figure 1. While both diets had an identical protein content of 1.5g/kg body weight, they differed by a factor of 2x with regard to the carbohydrate to fat ratio. Five of the subjects started out in the "normal carb" group [this is my appellation, the scientists simply called it "D1" ;-] consumed 3200kcal from carbohydrates and 800kcal from fat and switched to the "high carb" group (3500kcal from carbs; 414kcal from fat) in the second week, while the other six started with the "high carb" diet and switched to the "normal carb" diet in weeks 3-4 of the study.

In view of the "bulk-o-holic" total caloric intake of ~4,400kcal/day (remember: the subjects are drug-free trainees with an average body weight of 77kg), it was probably wise that the subjects had to consume 7 meals spread relatively equally across the day. And while there is no exact information on the composition and size of this meals, we could speculate that on a "per serving" base, the meals of the "normal carb" group contained ~115g of carbs and 13g of fat, while those of the "high carb" group contained ~125g and 7g of fat - in other words. This makes the difference between the groups appear much smaller than the 4 vs. 8 carb-to-fat ratios to which Mendes-Netto et al. keep referring in their evaluation of the data. More importantly, though, it makes clear that both diets were essentially "low fat" diets, one was just "lower" in fat than the other.

Eat, eat, eat and ... don't forget to train and sleep ;-)

During the whole 28day study period the subjects performed "identical" (obviously with different weights) workouts, the main features of which were as follows:

• training days per week: 4 - Mo, Tue, Thurs, Fri
• A-B, A-B split: A [chest, back, calf and abdomen], B [arms, shoulders, legs]
• exercises & sets: 3x exercises à four sets (only 2 exercises for arms and shoulders)
• repetitions: 12-10-8-6 - pyramiding up in weight (to failure); 15 reps for calves, 20-30 for abs
• rest periods: 60-90s between sets; 2-3min between exercises

Just as the scientists state a classic bodybuilding split, "aimed at maximal muscle hypertrophy". And if you take a look at what those trainees (remember, we are not talking about beginners, here) achieved withing 4 weeks, it is undebatable that this type of training works - well, as long as you make sure you go really high carb (cf. figure 2):

Figure 2: changes in body weight, muscle and fat mass (in kg) during the different phases of the 28-day study period and respective 24h nitrogen balance in the normal and high carb phases (data adapted from Mendes-Netto. 2011)

Now, you can certainly argue that a "real" low-carb diet, i.e. one where you eat 120g of carbs per day, not in each one of seven meals would produce even more favorable results; or, that the study design was - despite the cross-over somewhat questionable... all that are certainly valuable objections, but they that does not change that with - or, if you will - despite eating 1,000kcal/day over their maintenance diet and 7 meals with more than 125g of carbs in each of them every day, mass gains gains in the high carb phases of the trial were greater and the fat accumulation lower. This lead to an average +8% increase in the ratio of lean-to-fat mass in the high carb phase(s) and an -7% reduction of the latter in the "normal carb" phase(s) of the 28-day study period - now, you tell me which of these recomposition effects you like better.

Bulking still is a questionable idea, but if you do it, you better do it right

So, is the main message of this study that low carb will make you lose muscle and gain fat? The answer to this question is easy: NO! And the reason should be obvious: There was no low-carb group in this study. The actual main message of the study is thus that what has worked for generations of bodybuilders, i.e. a low fat, high carb diet, still appears to be the optimal to bulk rapidly.

Note: If I believed in the lipid hypothesis I would like to refer you to the statistically more pronounced increases in total and LDL cholesterol in the "high carb" group (total cholesterol:+12.2 vs. +3.19;  LDL +12.1 vs. -6.1), and would decry the +22ng/ml increase in total testosterone (vs. +6.75mg/ml in the "normal carb" bulkers; probably we have a typo here in the original text of the study, I suppose these are ng/dl - if we assume that this is the case, this would be a negligible +3% increase) as dangerous!

Whether the whole concept of eating bulking by increasing your caloric intake by ~33% for a short time is still state of the art, is yet another question and whether a more reasonable dietary regimen with a caloric surplus of max. 500kcal/day an overall higher protein intake (but not protein only!) and a carbohydrate intake of <40g per meal would not illicit less rapid, yet more favorable recomposition effects, will yet have to be the subject of another study, about the results of which you will obviously read right here, at the SuppVersity first (do I even have to mention that?)