Exercise Round-Up: HIIT Prevents Angina; Stretching Reduces IGF-1 & Strength Gains; Cardio + Weights Lower TNF-Alpha; Protein Doesn't Works W/ Glucose Depletion; Polarization More Effective Than Threshold Training

That's (hopefully) not the way you want to "kick off" your year 2013, is it? So keep the booze at bay and party away, tonight ;-)

There are three things of which I would hope that they are on the top ranks in the things you are planning to do in 2013. And aside from proposing to your girlfriend, becoming a parent, graduating from whatever you are currently studying and keeping or, in the unfortunate case you don't have one, getting a job no other goals should be ranked in this must to in 2013 category: Work out, eat health and sleep deep and sufficiently. Against that background today's exercise round-up, which comprises all the few newsworthy papers that have been published during or shortly before the holiday season can actually be regarded as a means of orientation as far as practical realization of your best intentions for 2013 are concerned.

---

• HIIT in the evening will keeps the heart attack away (Morikowa. 2012) -- Having a mild angina (coronary spasm was documented and no severe organic lesions were found) is not just no excuse for not working out, the 26 patients in a recent study that was conducted by a team of researchers from Kashiwara City, Japan, clearly shows that the number of spasms (=perceived heart attacks) was reduced from 2 to ZERO (average numbers) per 5 days in the men and women who performed an aerobic interval exercise training in the afternoon.
  
  

  

  Figure 1: Selected significantly improved health markers before and after the 3x workout short-term intervention involving 19 male and 7 suffering from angina (Morikawa. 2012)

  The protocol was performed on three consecutive days. After warming up thoroughly (10min), all subjects performed four sets of 3 min intervals at 75-85% of their heart rate reserve. The work to rest ratio was 1:1. In other words each of the intervals was followed by a phase of 3 minutes of active recovery. The whole session was concluded by a 5-10 minutes cool down.
  
  In conjunction with the initially mentioned benefits in terms of the recurrence of angina attacks the data in figure 1 should actually suffice to motivate you and lazy relatives to invest this small amount of time into the length and quality of your life- don't you think so?

• 

  Figure 2: The group of recreational trained young men (~29 years) that did no stretching at all had slightly, but significantly elevated IGF-1 levels (µg/L) after the workout (Borges. 2012).

  Stretching blunts acute IGF-1 response and 10 week strength gains (8RM test) (Borges. 2012) -- Now, hormonal responses to exercise are certainly not everything, the fact that the non-stretchers (OST) did yet also gain significantly more strength on the bench (19% vs. 7% and 5% in the static stretching during warm-up (SBST) and the stretching before each set (SDST) groups, respectively), the leg press, leg extensions and leg curls should yet call your attention, Mr. and Mrs. "I am so freaking professional that I stretch in between every set" maniacs - after 10 weeks of training the guy next to you who sticks to a handful of warm-up sets for injury prevention is going to outperform you.
  
  Remember this is not about not warming up and making sure that you don't hurt yourself, it's just even more more evidence that the die-hard belief that static stretches are beneficial (which was btw. also the research hypothesis of the Portuguese and Brazilian scientists) is dated text book knowledge.

• Again: Not strength or, but strength and aerobics is the way to go (Ho. 2012) -- While the medical establishment is still reluctant to accept the notion that strength and aerobic training must go hand in hand and many muscle heads still plead, they would lose muscle or hamper their gains, when they hopped onto a treadmill from time to time. The evidence is clear: The advantages are simply non-negligible - for the gymbro trying to look muscular (which requires a low body fat percentage if you don't want to look simply ludicrous), and the average Australian (pre-)obese in a recently published study by Ho, Dhaliwal, Hills, and Pal who found that ...
  

  "Twelve weeks of moderate-intensity aerobic, resistance, but mainly combination exercise training decreased TNF-α in overweight and obese individuals compared to no exercise. Therefore, combination exercise training may be physiologically relevant in decreasing the risk of developing chronic diseases." (Ho. 2012)

  The exercise interventions were either 30 min of aerobic exercise on a treadmill (60 % heart rate reserve; HRR estimated using the Karvonen equation: 220 - age - resting heart rate), 30 min of resistance exercise (four sets of 8–12 repetitions at 10-RMlevel of leg press, leg curl, leg extension, bench press, and rear deltoid row, with each set completed in approximately 30 s with 1-min rest) or a combination of 15 min of aerobic exercise and 15 min of resistance exercise (two sets of the above exercises).
  

  

  Figure 3: The combined training did not only result in a maximal suppression of TNF-alpha, the latter was also highly correlated with the reduction in body fat (esp. in the belly area; cf. Ho. 2012)

  "Starting workload levels for each piece of equipment were tested by participants and if more than 10 repetitions were achieved, the weight was increased and after a short rest participants tried again. Likewise, if less than eight repetitions were achieved, the weight was decreased and after a short rest participants tried again. Participants reported to the Curtin Fitness Centre 3 days a week to complete the required exercise and either exercised at home the other 2 days or at the fitness center.
  
  If exercises were completed at home, dumbbells (adjustable weight 1.5–10.5 kg) were provided for resistance exercises (three sets of 10 repetitions for biceps curls, lunges, dumbbell raise, calf lift, and triceps extension for resistance group while the combination group did two sets of biceps curls and lunges and one set for dumbbell raise, calf lift, and triceps extension; back extension, push ups, and sit ups exercises were also included). Treadmills were equipped with heart rate sensors and participants were instructed to increase weight loads by 2.5-kg increments when they could complete more than 12 repetitions." (Ho. 2012)

  Maybe not the perfect program for you, but I bet you know someone who "wants" to make room for 30 min of exercise in 2013, don't you? Ah,... don't tell them that 67-74% compliance was enough to elicit a 30%+ decrease in TNF-alpha and finally allow the participants to drop body fat, though ;-)

• You can have your peri-workout protein even if you want to exploit the AMPK & PGC-1 bonus of training glycogen depleted (Taylor. 2012) -- Actually I have discussed that in the Intermittent Thoughts more than a year ago, but since the debate just goes on forever, I thought it may be worth posting the results of a recent study pertaining to the issue of peri-workout protein ingestion and its purported (yet non-existent!) negative side effects on the beneficial AMPK response to glycogen depleting exercises (note: that's not the AMPK that's increased in your brain, when you starve yourself for longer time periods, the "bad" one that will make you ravenously hungry, induce overeating and shut down your metabolism).
  

  

  As long as you remain glycogen depleted protein has no effect on the beneficial part of the exercise induced AMPK expression (read more)

  "After performing a glycogen-depleting protocol the evening before, the subsequent morning ten active men performed 45 min steady-state cycling at 50 % of peak power output (PPO) followed by an exercise capacity test (1-min intervals at 80 % PPO interspersed with 1-min periods at 40 % PPO).
  
  In a repeated measures design, subjects consumed 20 g of a casein hydrolysate solution (PRO) 45 min before exercise, 10 g during and a further 20 g immediately post-exercise, or an equivalent volume of a non-calorie taste matched placebo (PLA)." (Taylor. 2012)

  In view of the fact that the post-exercise muscle glycogen was not different between the protein supplementation and the "on empty" trial, it is not exactly surprising that the p-AMPK levels increased threefold and the PGC-1mRNA increased sixfold in the 3h after the workout. And even the blunted increase in eEF2 activation is probably only a sign that the muscle started taking up protein right away and thus did not have ask for more after the workout - That said,Taylor et al. are right to point out that
  

  "athletes who deliberately incorporate training phases with reduced muscle glycogen into their training programmes may consume protein before, during and after exercise without negating signalling through the AMPK cascade." (Taylor. 2012)

  Ah, don't overlook the words "training phases" - remember what I wrote about training glycogen depleted in the context of the PGC-1 a-4 post and doing cardio before a workout? It's an intensity technique and not a necessity for everyone on every training day in 2013. Plus, glycogen depletion does require repletion! Running around 24/7/365 is not an option for 2013.

• 

  Aside "polarization" your cycling performance can also benefit from baking soda & beta alanine (read more)

  Polarize your training and optimize your gains (Neall. 2012) -- What makes HIIT so effective? The cyclicity of high and low intensity, right! It's the same cycle of ups and downs you find everywhere in nature. Against that background it should actually not surprise you that Neal et al. have now found male cyclist record greater training improvements on a polarised model exercise regimen (6.4/hrs per week; 80%, 0%, 20% of training time in low, moderate and high intensity zones) than on a threshold model (7.5hrs per week; 57%, 43%, 0% training intensity distribution).
  
  According to the researchers from the University of Stirling, both groups recorded performance improvements, yet those in the group that followed the polarized regimen saw 5% greater increases in peak power output, 7% greater increases in lactate threshold, and 48% greater increases in high-intensity exercise capacity.

---

Thats it for today and in fact for the year 2012. The last one of 365 new posts here at the SuppVersity and probably twice or thrice as many on the SuppVersity Facebook Wall (it would be ~5-6x more on Facebook, if I had started posting short news on Facebook in January already)... Apropos, if you want some additional news before the turn of the year you should make sure to visit www.facebook.com/SuppVersity, today, to read and learn more about.

• A brief history of anti-hangover cures: The ancient Assyrians swore by Ground birds' beaks and myrrh. Raw eel and bitter almonds is a recipe from Europe that was popular during the Middle Ages. The Mongolians were more into  sheep's eyes, while the Chinese must have listened to Thursday's installment of On Short Notice and went with green tea. Us Germans like it traditional (not me though) and eat "Tom's breakfast" (Katerfrühstück), a postbinge breakfast with Bismark Herring, pickles, rollmops and/or sauerkraut (this stuff does work, by the way, 'cause it helps replenish the lost electrolytes).
  Harvard Health Letters headline: "The new medicine: muscle strength. It's not just for bodybuilders. Strength training is critical for all of us." (read more)
• Creatine reduces total antioxidant defenses? Scientists confirm for the 1012532x that creatine works and to make sure somebody even reads their study they overemphasis an increase in uric acid and decreases in TAS in the creatine supplementation group - a reason for concern? (read more)
• Case report: Type I diabetes remission without insulin therapy on gluten-free diet in a 6-year old boy with type 1 diabetes mellitus. (read more)
• Got Acne? Insulin resistance makes men break out. You better don't rely on fasted values, but get an OGGT ASAP(!) cause it turned out to be the most accurate independent predictor of acne at multivariate analysis. (read more)

I guess the one thing that remains to be said now is:  

HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone! 

Don't party too wild, and if you do, drink your green tea before the binge - this is (contrary to the historical advice in the box above) indicated by the latest science you should remember from Thursday's Science Round Up on Super Human Radio ;-)

References:

• Borges Bastos CL, Miranda H, Gomes de Souza Vale R, de Nazaré Dias Portal M, Gomes TM, da Silva Novaes J, Winchester JB. Chronic Effect Of Static Stretching On Strength Performance And Basal Serum Igf-1 Levels. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Dec 18.
• Ho SS, Dhaliwal SS, Hills AP, Pal S. Effects of Chronic Exercise Training on Inflammatory Markers in Australian Overweight and Obese Individuals in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Inflammation. 2012 Dec 19.
• Morikawa Y, Mizuno Y, Harada E, Katoh D, Kashiwagi Y, Morita S, Yoshimura M, Uemura S, Saito Y, Yasue H. Aerobic interval exercise training in the afternoon reduces attacks of coronary spastic angina in conjunction with improvement in endothelial function, oxidative stress, and inflammation. Coron Artery Dis. 2012 Dec 14.
• Neal CM, Hunter AM, Brennan L, O'Sullivan A, Hamilton DL, De Vito G, Galloway SD. Six Weeks Of A Polarised Training Intensity Distribution Leads To Greater Physiological And Performance Adaptations Than A Threshold Model In Trained Cyclists. J Appl Physiol. 2012 Dec 20.
• Taylor C, Bartlett JD, van de Graaf CS, Louhelainen J, Coyne V, Iqbal Z, Maclaren DP, Gregson W, Close GL, Morton JP. Protein ingestion does not impair exercise-induced AMPK signalling when in a glycogen-depleted state: implications for train-low compete-high. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Dec 23.

VPX Pre- & Post-Workout Nutrition Gets "Sponsored" Scientific Approval: +4% Lean Mass, -6% Body Fat, +13% Upper and +21% Lower Body Strength in 29 Days

Image 1: Supplemental double-whammy. VPX' now
"scientifically proven" pre- & postworkout products

This is one of those cases, where I cannot decide whether I should applaud VPX or just shake my head... the scientist in me says: "Hey, you know how that is - with a research grant from the government cutting edge science is impossible, especially if you want to investigate something as 'profane' as building muscle". The cynic skeptic, on the other hand, whispers: "Come on, what results would you expect, if the study was financed by the producer of the supplement under scrutiny?" I guess I will applaud skeptically and exercise special caution in my analysis of the latest study from the Department of Health and Performance at Baylor University (Willoughby. 2011).

As in previous studies (Willoughby. 2007; Willoughby. 2009), Darryn S. Willoughby and his colleagues availed themselves of a buckload of VPX supplements and recruited 19 previously recreationally active, yet untrained (*) men with an average age of 22.8 +/-4.67 years, a height of 179.5 +/-6.38 cm and a total body mass of 79.1 +/-16.13 kg for another study into the effects of two supplements, which are supposed to "advance you to the next level of fitness" (VPX. 2011). Strength and body composition (body fat measured reliably by DEXA, not body-impedance), venous blood sampling and muscle biopsies were performed on day 0 and day 29 of the 4-week study period, in the course of which the participants underwent a standardized resistance training protocol (upper-/lower-body split, 4x à week), which mirrored the one that had been used in Willoughby. 2009 already (*).

Figure 1: Illustration of the training regimen (based on Willoughby. 2011)

The bodybuilding-type beginner 2x split training regimen is unquestionably a huge plus of the study (cf. figure 1). Performed twice a weak, this is what real world training would look like and so that it stands out of question that the results of the study will translate into practice - at least for everyone who has not touched a dumbbell more than thrice a week within the last 12 and abstained from all sorts of performance enhancing supplements and drugs within the last 3 months (*).

The NO Shotgun approach to protein NO SyntheSize??? 

Figure 2: Ingredient profiles of
No Shotgun and No SyntheSize

More important than the identical training regimen was yet obviously the supplementation protocol, to which the participants were assigned in a double-blind randomization process (on a side note: "double-blind" means that not only the subjects, but the scientists, as well, did not know which participants received the placebo and which ones the VPX products). While half of the subjects consumed a maltodextrose placebo (27g pre, 27g post workout), the subjects in the "NOSS" group consumed the same amount of NO Shotgun and NO SyntheSize as their pre- and posworkout supplement, respectively. Now, as the names imply, both supplements are intended to increase nitric oxide production and protein synthesis, yet with a focus on the former in NO Shotgun that is loaden with arginine and a heap of stimulants and a focus on the latter in NO SyntheSize, the composition of which is pretty similar (cf. figure 2), yet without the "Redline Energy & Meltdown Fat Burning Technology" ;-)

Although there were no specifically dietary guidelines, the research did at least collect some nutritional data based on a 4-day questionnaire all participants had to answer at the beginning and end of the study. While there was a slight reduction in the total caloric intake in the carb group (interestingly mainly from carbohydates), neither the intra-group changes, nor the inter-group differences reached statistical significance.

More muscle, less fat! Trainee, what more can you ask for?

That there were no differences is yet something you cannot say of the changes in body composition the study participants underwent in the course of this 28-day intervention.

Figure 3: Relative changes (compared to baseline) in body composition after 16 strength training sessions in 28 days with either 54g of maltodextrin or 27g of NO Shotgun and 27g NO Synthesize pre- and postworkout (Willoughby. 2011)

As a passing view of the relative changes (compared to baseline) in figure 3 show, the NOSS group (receiving NO Shotgun prior and NO SyntheSize post workout) registered significantly more pronounced elevations in fat free mass (p<.023 indicates that the chances that this was sheer coincidence are 23%) and - contrary to the carbohydrate group - lost -6% of their body fat, while the carb eaters added another 2% of adipose tissue to their love-handles.

Figure 4: Changes in upper and lower body strength (in kg/kg body weight during bench press and leg press at 1RM) after 16 strength training sessions in 28 days with either 54g of maltodextrin or 27g of NO Shotgun and 27g of NO Synthesize pre- and postworkout (Willoughby. 2011)

Interestingly, the lean mass increase went hand in hand with likewise (statistically) significantly greater (p-values see figure 4) increases in both upper (+13% vs. +1%) and lower (+21% vs. +11%) strength in the subjects in the NO Shotgun + NO SyntheSize groups.

* you may have wondered what all the asterisks in the previous paragraphs meant... well, they indicate specificities in the study design detractors may call "precautions that ensure that the VPX supplements are sitting pretty" ... I mean the exact same supplementation protocol performed on a bunch of veteran bodybuilders would probably not have elicited any measurable effects on body composition - keep that in mind when you interpret the results.

Now, it obviously should not surprise you that the protein (and leucine) loaden and creatine, beta-alanine spiked workout supplements outperform simple sugar water. It is thus more interesting to take another look at the data from the 2009 "NO Shotgun only"-study, Willoughby et al. have done (Willoughby. 2009). On the exact same training protocol, yet with only 27g of NO Shotgun or placebo 30min preworkout, the participants lost less body fat (-1.21%), but gained the exact same ~4% of lean mass and comparable increases in bench press and leg press 1RM (+8.82% and +18.4%, respectively).

Scientifically proven ingredients make scientifically proven products

I leave it up to you whether or not the results of this study will influence your next supplement purchase - after all, even the VPX guys will be aware that their supplements are not so unique that intelligent people like you would not be able to identify the key ingredients in their products (EAAs, hydrolized protein, creatine, beta alanine, some workout-boosting stimulants, etc.) and realize that there are way more than those two products which would probably have produced identically (within statistical margins) results, if, and here we've come full circle, if their respective manufacturers had the money and the balls to do scientific studies on their products.

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]

Cordyceps Sinensis - Another Supplemental Non-Starter: Human Data Shows No Increase in Testosterone, No Strength Gains, No Improvements in Body Composition.

Image 1: As it turns out it's not necessary you start eating parasites (img nepaliproducts.com)

In view of the public attention adaptogens have gotten, ever since everyone is self-diagnosing him- / herself with "Central Fatigue Syndrom", I assume you will be aware that the parasitic fungus, Cordyceps sinensis (CS) that is found on larvae of Lepidoptera, and has been used for centuries in traditional Chines medicine as a tonic, has lately been marketed as powerful modulator of the hypothalamus-thyroid-pituitary axis (HTPA). Extracts from cordyceps have in fact been shown to have various biological and pharmacological actions on the liver, the kideys, the endocrine and the vascular system. It appears to stimulate erythropeoiesis (production of red blood cells) and haemopoiesis (formation of blood cellular compounds), and it exhibits immunomodulatory and anti-tumor activities.

Within the health and fitness community Cordyceps sinensis has yet been touted as "natural HCG" (human chorionic gonadotropin), because, just like the latter, it stimulates the release of luteinizing hormone and thus testosterone secretion in rodent models (mice and rat; cf. Huang. 2001; HSU. 2003; Huang. 2004). Not long ago, scientists have identified cordycepin as the active ingredient in the parasite extract - an ingredient, which, according to Pan et al., does not only stimulate steriodogenesis, but also exhibits anti-cancer effects by inducing apoptosis in MA-10 mouse Leydig tumor cells (Pan. 2011).

Illustration 1: Training protocol the subjects in the study performed  3x à week for a total of 8 weeks.

With its endocrine and haematopoietic effects, cordyceps looks like the perfect substitute for what you may call the "Tour de France performance package", i.e. the combination of testosterone (e.g. Landis) and erythropoietin (e.g. Riis). Consequently, one should expect that an 8-week (3 training sessions per week)randomized double-blind place-controlled study with sixteen previously not resistance-trained young volunteers (male, age: 19-25; BMI: 24kg/m²; body fat: 14.65%), like the one performed by Hsu et al. at the Graduate Institute of Sports Science at the National Taiwan Sports University, should show at least some measurable effects on strength and muscle gains and/or body composition of the subjects.

Figure 1: Muscle strength as maesured by 1RM after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

Figure 1, however, shows no greater strength improvements in the Cordyceps sinensis (6 caps à 400mg of an extract containing 0.33% soluble protein, 5.81% sugars, 5.92µmol/g adenosine derivatives (5.92 µmol/g), 1.23µmol/g cordycepin and 8.81 µmol/g ergosterol) supplemented strength trainees (CS) compared to the subjects in the placebo group (PL). And even the +7% greater increase in 1RM strength on seated rows does not reach statistical significance.

Figure 2: Changes in body composition after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

Similarly, the cordyceps supplement had no measurable beneficial effects on the accrual of lean or the loss of fat mass in the course of the 8-week strength training protocol (cf. figure 2). Although statistically non-significant, the subjects who received the CS supplement did in fact lose some lean mass and gain some fat mass... certainly not what you would have expected from the purchase of a "testosterone boosting adaptogen"!?

Figure 3: Testosterone levels after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

A pros pos "testosterone boosting", as the data in figure 3 clearly shows, there was a "boost", but the latter was identical between groups and - as the body composition data in figure 2 shows - the placebo group, whose baseline testosterone levels were 7% lower than those of the subjects in the CS group, took greater advantage from this probably exercise-induced and in view of the diurnal fluctuations of serum testosterone statistically non-significant increase.

Figure 4: Changes in serum levels of BUN, Creatinine, ALT and AST after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

It would be unfair though to say that the ingestion of 2.4g of Cordyceps sinensis was totally pointless. After all there was a non-negligable decrease in the purported "liver values" ALT and AST. Now, as a diligent reader of the SuppVersity you are among the few chosen ones who outsmart 99% of the general practitioners and know that the enzymes ALanine Transaminase (ALT) and ASpartate Transaminase (AST) are by no means "liver values", i.e. liver-specific. In fact, their elevation in hard training athletes is completely normal and an indicator of muscular, not hepatic, damage, as both, ALT and ALT, are expressed in skeletal muscle, as well (Petterrson. 2007). This does not change that - once again - beneficial effects that have repeatedly been observed in rodent studies did not translate to humans, but it could explain why Quinc, senior member on the Mind and Muscle Forum and a true believer in the potency of cordyceps maintains:

I can't say I have noticed any 1RM gains, but I have noticed a quicker recovery time between sets and more endurance. (Quinc. 2011)

In view of the beneficial effects on the amino acid transferase enzymes, it may well be that the scientists just measured the wrong parameters. If their subjects had participated in the Tour de France, it could well be that the CS group had survived a few kilometers more, before they had had to be picked up by one of the team vehicles ;-)

"Stretching Before Workouts Makes You Weak!" Mostly True, But Your Workout Volume Will Decline Even More. Plus: Stretching vs. Doms & Stretching for Couch Potatoes

Image 1:Avoid performing stretches before your workout; if you don't do them at all, things like this are out of reach and for the avg. 'no stretcher', 'all bencher', the hunched over look is just right around the corner.

Stretching is one of those topics most trainees are not really interested in. In that most of you are probably happy that most researchers agree that passive stretches, as they may have been prescribed 50 years ago, are counter-indicated before workouts. And though the experts still disagree on whether or not certain active stretching regimen may be useful, most trainees read the headline "Stretching Before Your Workout Reduces Your Strength" once and gave up the in their eyes bothersome, unnecessary ("I've never hurt myself, although I never stretch, bro!") and with the said headline "officially" detrimental pre-workout routine and spend the they otherwise have invested in a couple of stretches either guzzling a caffeine-laden pre-workout product (which is by the way to be consumed 30-45min before a workout) or doing another three to five sets of bench presses, biceps curls and crunches, before, during or after their workout. Even if we discard the fact that neither of those practices will be largely beneficial, this does still raise the question...

Is stretching actually detrimental? And if so, how detrimental is it?

When Renato Barosso and his colleagues from from the Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training at the School of Physical Education and Sport of the University of Sao Paulo recruited the 12 young strength-trained men (20.4 years, 67.9, 173.3cm), they probably had a very similar question on their minds.

Figure 1: Graphical outline of the time-course of the 2 x 4 (1RM or maximal repetition) testing sessions (Barosso. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 this was a trial in which all participants ,who had been familiarized with the respective protocols on 3 familiarization sessions on separate days, underwent every of the three stretching sessions which consisted of three sets of the supine knee flex, side quadriceps stretch, the sitting toe touch which were performed in the form of

• static stretches (SS) This is probably what you would call "the classic stretch", where you hold each stretch for 30s, make a 30s pause and continue
• proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) You perform a passive stretch and hold the stretching position for approximately 5 seconds; then, you perform a 5s near-maximal isometric contraction (Sheard . 2010), relax and passively hold the stretching position for another 20s
• ballistic-stretching (BS) Same procedures as in the static stretch session, but instead of holding the stretching positions for 30 seconds, the subjects had to bob in 1:1-second cycles for 1 minute

and the non-stretched control workouts with subsequent 1RM or maximal number of repetition tests. With the 3 + 1 conditions and the two measuring outcomes being tested on different occasions, this sums up to a total of 8 testing sessions of either 1-RM max leg presses or 80%RM leg presses to failure.

Figure 2: Absolute changes in ROM during the "sit and reach test" (in cm) and rel. changes compared to no-stretching condition in 1-RM strength and maximal number of reps during 80%RM leg presses (data based on Barroso. 2012)

As you can see in figure 2 this is not one of the many SuppVersity posts that's going to bust a myth. Stretches, no matter how you perform them, will negatively effect your strength on the subsequent workout; only the PNF protocol with its short bursts of maximal contractions, however, lead to statistically significant, yet still relatively small (-5.4%) reductions in 1RM strength. What will suffer much more than your strength, though, is your ability to endure longer workouts, or I should say, longer sets: With reductions of

• -8.2 reps (-23%) after the "classic" static stretching routine
• -7.5 reps (-21%) subsequent to the PMF stretching routine, and
• -6.4 reps (-18%) in the maximal rep test after the ballistic stretch

it seems counter-indicated to perform any of these before your training session (the mean number of reps in the control condition was 36).

But doesn't stretching help against soreness? No! Neither pre- nor post-workout stretching offer a significant protection against muscle soreness, a Cochraine Review by Herbert et al. from July 2011 found "improvements" of 0.5 or 1pt, respectively, on a 1-100pts soreness scale after reviewing 12 relevant randomized controlled studies, of which one had more than 2,000 subjects (Herbert. 2011).

So, aside from preventing shortening of the muscles and increasing flexibility is there another reason to stretch? Yes! One surprising finding is that if you are a total couch-potato and don't train at all,  40min of stretching performed 3x / week over the course of 10-weeks will not just increase your flexibility (18.1%), they will also bump your standing long jump (2.3%), vertical jump (6.7%), 20-m sprint (1.3%), knee flexion 1RM (15.3%), knee extension 1RM (32.4%), knee flexion endurance (30.4%) and knee extension endurance (28.5%) performance... what? You are no couch-potato? Great, but these results do still tell you that part of the detrimental effects of stretching on your training performance may well be mitigated by the "training effect" - it's a stressin mini "workout" for your muscles and you would not do 100 body weight squats before your 80% 1RM max-rep test, either - would you?

Despite the fact that the most-heard science based argument against stretching before a workout does in fact involve its well-established negative effects on maximal strength performance, Nelson et al., Franco et al. and Marques et al. reported similar results for knee flexor exercises performed with 40, 50 and 60% of the body weight (Nelson. 2005), 1-3 sets of 20 reps of bench presses (Franco; 2009) and rep-max tests at 40, 60 and 80% knee extensions and bench presses on non-trained individuals (Marques. 2011) as Barroso et al. in the study at hand. The real "news" is thus...

"[...] that not only SS and PNF but also BS impaired the number of repetitions and the total volume (i.e., number of repetitions x external load) performed after stretching when compared with NS [and] that in strength-trained individuals, only the PNF stretching mode impaired the maximal strength production." (Barroso. 2012)

In a more general context, the latter finding, i.e. the influence of the exercise status on the strength declines subsequent to static stretches before a workout, is probably of even greater significance than the notion that you will hamper your strength endurance (note: I stick to this term here, although I am aware that most of you won't think of training at a 80% RM as "strength endurance" training): the questionable significance of data that was generated in an experiment with strength training rookies for the average physical culturist.

In the case of the effects of classic static stretching and ballistic stretches before a workout on the performance during a subsequent 1-RM max strength test, it is now clear that the results from rookies, whose performance drops compared to the no stretch condition, regardless of the protocol, the rookie data is of little to no value for anyone with a coupe of months, let alone years of weight lifting experience.

Bottom line: Irrespective of the last-mentioned problems, the take home message from this and previous studies would be the same for all strength athletes who don't just walk into the gym, crank out a single max set and head home again - Refrain from performing any kind of quasi-static stretching protocol before your workout - and don't forget to look at the study population the next time you see one of the rare studies on resistance training ;-)

References:

• Franco BL, Signorelli GR, Trajano GS, de Oliveira CG. Acute effects of different stretching exercises on muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1832-7. 
• Herbert RD, de Noronha M, Kamper SJ. Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;(7):CD004577.
• Marques MC, Costa PB, da Silva Novaes J. Acute effects of two different stretching methods on local muscular endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Mar;25(3):745-52. 
• Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Arnall DA. Acute muscle stretching inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):338-43.
• Sheard PW, Paine TJ. Optimal contraction intensity during proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for maximal increase of range of motion. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Feb;24(2):416-21.

Up & Down The Rack: Study Compares Strength & Size Gains from Good Old Double-Pyramid and Reverse Loading

Image 1: Persian Wrestling Champions, Tehran, Persia (Iran), September 1949

Everyone who is following me on Facebook, will be aware that I am currently spending the little free time I have devouring Randy Roach's Muscle Smoke & Mirrors Volume 1 & 2. Aside from the fact that the two volumes are simply amazing (and can come handy, whenever you need some weights and have no dumbbell at hand ;-), they are - contrary to what you would expect from a historical approach to physical culture - full of practical training and nutrition tips. Stuff that - contrary to the results from the latest rodent studies - has worked for generations of bodybuilders and strength athletes, and exercise regimen, real foods and supplements of which scientists are still trying to figure out how they actually work.

The "Great Pyramids" - Ancient, Yet Still Around

And while our understanding of the "muscle building magic" of protein powders and individual amino acids is ever-advancing, my latest investigations (for the "Step by Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine") into relevant (i.e. neither sports-specific, nor rehabilitative) research on strength training regimen for building size, gaining strength and losing fat did only confirm what I have been stating numerous times before: as far as training techniques are concerned, bro-science and the practical experience of generations of trainees is still way more valuable than the sum of all hitherto published studies (which are not too many, anyways ;-).

Figure 1: I don't know if the rest was literally "lost in translation", but the information on the exact workout (exercises, sets and frequency) is missing - all we have are the details on the loading pattern ( adapted from Mirzaei. 2012)

With the bad rep the testosterone driven urge of building muscle and getting stronger appears to have within the Western medical science community, it is actually no wonder that - just as with the "Strength, Cardio or Both" study from April, 4, 2012 - it is once more a group Iranian scientists (allegedly with one American aboard ;-) who conducted an 8-week controlled training intervention that was intended to elucidate the differential effects of a double-pyramid loading pattern (figure 1, left) and a reverse step loading pattern (figure 1, right) on the muscle strength and size of 22 trained wrestlers (again: I won't grow tired of pointing at the importance of having trained athletes, not obese sedentary couch potatoes as subjects, when you want to know something about your potential response to different training regimen... well, unless you consider yourself an obese sedentary couch potato ;-).

Double Pyramid vs. Reverse Step Loading - Round 1: Wrestle!

In view of what I have stated before, i.e. the superiority of broscience, or, in this case I should say anecdotal evidence vs. proscience, it is interesting to note that Mirazei et al. resort to the same experiential resources, when they comment on the purported advantages and disadvantages of these training techniques:

The  double  pyramid  consists  of  two  pyramids,  one  inverted  on  top  of  the  other.  Most  proponents  of  this  pattern suggest  that  the  last  sets, are  meant  to  improve  power.  On  the  contrary,  because  the  fatigue  may  impair rapid recruitment  of  the  fast-twitch  fibers,  the  outcome  of  the  last  sets  of  this  loading  pattern  will  be  development  of muscle hypertrophy rather than power. In the reverse step loading, the load decreases rather than increases from step  to step.  Performance improvements  are  possible  only  when  training  capabilities  have  increased.  Endurance improvements are much better achieved by step loading.

And as it turned out, the growth and strength response of the young male wrestlers (age, 17.30 ± 2.42 yrs, height, 170.41 ± 6.14 cm, weight, 72.29 ± 13.18 kg, BF%, 12.36  ±  7.39  %) in the pyramid and reverse loading groups seem to actually support the notion that the good old pyramid, technique - performed in the Schwarzenegger'esque "up and down the rack" way - makes a very valuable strength and hypertrophy workout.

Figure 1: Change in bench press and leg press strength, as well as changes in cross sectional area of the arms and thighs after 6 weeks of strength training using a double-pyramid or reverse loading scheme; note: there is no detailed information on the exercise selection and workout frequency available (data adapted from Mirzaei. 2012)

Upon closer scrutiny of the data, I plotted in figure 1 it does yet become evident that the initially impressive +2% greater increase in thigh size (if we make the hilariously unrealistic assumption that this continued over the course of a year, this would result in roughly ~20% more muscle mass!) is statistically non-significant and the increase in leg press strength (1-RM) goes at the cost of a reduced increase in leg press endurance (as measured by the maximal amount of repetitions that could be performed at 60% of the 1-RM).

Training for strength involves heavy weights, training for endurance higher reps

If we put these results into perspective, there are two distinct take home messages, none of which should actually surprise you:

1. The heavier weights used in the double-pyramid method elicit a favorable strength response.
2. The higher reps in the reverse loading protocol allow for greater increases in muscular endurance.

If we take both of these results and try to formulate an even more simplistic take home message, that would be: "Train sport-specific! As long as you are using heavy weights, hypertrophy will follow!"

Don't play soccer, if you want to become an NBA star!

Image 2: Do You want to take advantage of both high(er) and low(er) rep work in your routine, but have no idea of how to incorporate that into your workouts? In this case you should go back to the last installment of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" for a few tips on how periodization can help you make continuous progress - strenght- and size-wise.

This may sound stupid, but in the end, it should remind you of a common fallacy of many (if not all of these studies). I mean, would you expect to become a top basketball player if you trained with the local soccer team? I don't think so. In the same vein, you cannot actually expect to make great progress with respect to your one-repetition-max, when you never get even close to it in your training. If you wanted to take an objective measure of the strength gains you get from say a 5x3 vs. a 3x12 regimen, it would appear prudent to determine the 7-8RM max... if we do now take this a step further and simply add another gem from our treasure chest full of broscientific wisdom, namely that the 6-8rep range is where the greatest hypertrophy response occurs - what does this tell us about periodization? Well, right! It confirms what I have suggested in the last installment of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine": For skeletal muscle hypertrophy it appears imperative to train in both the lower and the higher rep ranges.

45x More Testosterone Yet Identical Increase in Protein Synthesis: MPS Response to Exercise + 25g Whey in Men vs. Women Challenges Common Wisdom About Androgens

Image 1: Is it not testosterone that makes the difference?

It is an open secret that women are having a much harder time building muscle than men, and it is another instance of (bro-)scientific wisdom that the obvious lack of testosterone in female strength athletes would be the underlying reason. Right from Stuart M. Phillips lab at the Department of Kinesiology of the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, comes a new study (West. 2012) which puts yet another questionmark behind the anabolic prowess of testosterone (if you still believe that a transient increase in testosterone will help you build muscle, I suggest you read up on "The Big T" in the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle).

Women are different, but it's not about protein synthesis

In the recently conducted trial Daniel W.D. West, who has also been the lead author of the "Never Sip Your Whey" study, I covered back in November 2011, undertook another attempt to identify the intricate endo- and paracrine mechanisms of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and its sex-specific variability. To this ends, West et al. recruited 5 male and 5 female subjects, who "who were habitually engaging in two to five sessions of physical activity per week including", yet did not train legs more than twice a week.

Image 1: In this case, testosterone took a backseat, as well. With synthol, protein synthesis is yet unnecessary anyway.

Note: The selection of advanced trainees as study participants is the first huge plus of this study. After all, we all know that the exercise induced hypertrophy response diminishes with training and those of you who read the whole Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle series will also be aware that the protein synthetic response is limited by the maximal domain size. Further growth thusly requires restructuring / the recruitment of satellite cells and installment of new myonuclei (cf. "Growing Beyond Temporary Physiological Limits"), a time-consuming and complex process which is probably one of the underlying reason for the "growth difference" between beginners and advanced strength athletes.

On the day of the experiment, the study participants, who had consumed a standardized diet containing 15% fat, 30% protein and 55% carbohydrates (the macronutrient ratio was adapted to their habitual diets) on the previous day, reported to the lab at 6am. After the infusion of the tracer that is necessary to evaluate the protein flux and an initial biopsy, all subjects performed a bout of  intense, high-volume lower body exercise consisting of

• 5 sets of 10 repetitions of leg press at ~90% of their individual 10RM, and
• 3 super-sets of 12 repetitions of leg extension/leg curl at ~90% of 12 RM

The rest intervals between the sets were 60s, so that the whole workout should not have lasted longer than max. 20min. Directly thereafter, the subjects consumed the "obligatory" (for Phillips lab this has in fact become obligatory ;-) 25g of whey protein from the usual New Zelandian source, Phillips et al. used in all their previous study (as ridiculous as this may sound but this is a nice means of standardization ;-) and rested in a supine position for the rest of the trial. Biopsies were taken and the subjects who were sent home with a launch packet consisting of their standardized meals had to report back to the lab on the following morning for another three biopsies 24h, 26h and 28h after the test workout (the subjects remained fasted and received another 25g of whey 26h post, i.e. before the last four blood samples were drawn and the last biopsy at 28h post was performed).

Figure 1: Serum testosterone levels (in nM) and myofibrillar fractional protein synthesis rate (in %/h) before and after the resistance workout, as well as on the morning and at noon of the 2nd day (data adapted from West. 2012)

As the data in figure 1 shows, the (expected) huge difference in both basal as well as exercise induced increases in circulating androgen levels (45-fold in men vs. women) had no (not even a statistically non-significant) beneficial impact on the exercise induced increase in protein synthesis in the 28h window of opportunity (cf. "Opening the 'Anabolic Barn Door' with the Key of Science").

Akt Ser473 phosphorylation increased at 1h ( P < 0.001, main effect for time) and to a greater extent in men (sex × time interaction, P = 0.018). Phosphorylation of mTOR Ser2448 was increased at 1, 3 and 5 h (P < 0.001; Figure 4B); there was a main effect for sex (men > women, P = 0.003). Phosphorylation of mTOR Ser2448 was elevated similarly between sexes after next-day protein feeding, approximately 26 h after the exercise bout (sex  × time interaction,  P = 0.49; main effect for time, 28 > 26 h,  P = 0.006).  Phosphorylation of p70S6K1 Thr389 increased at 1, 3 and 5 h (all  P < 0.001; sex × tim e interaction,  P = 0.13) and there was a significant interaction with next-day feeding (28 > 26 h in women only, sex × time interaction,  P = 0.016; data not shown). Androgen receptor content was greater overall in men (P = 0.049) but there was no significant interaction ( P = 0.47).  

The greater increase in mTOR and Akt (both hitherto regarded as the "gas pedals" of the skeletal muscle protein synthetic machinery) are not only less pronounced, than one would expect if there was a direct interaction with testosterone levels, they also lack real world significance. After all, the area under the myofibrillar protein synthesis curve (a measure for the total protein synthetic response to exercise) was identical in the 1-5h period right after the exercise and - although West et al. did not include the respective data in their article - I would suspect that the data from the subsequent day (cf. figure 1, right) would even suggest that it must have been slightly greater in the female participants.

Testosterone useless and mTOR and Akt unreliable indicators at best?

Now, which conclusions shall be drawn from these results? Is testosterone useless? Does it not contribute to the overall greater muscle mass in men compared to women? It stands to reason that this conclusion would be about as flawed as the notion that testosterone alone would suffice to build muscle. Rather than its "inefficiency" in building muscle, this study only shows that its importance in relation to the exercise-induced increase in protein synthesis is probably way overrated.

A similar point could be made for mTOR and Akt, as well, though. Or as West et al. put it in their discussion of the results and the respective implications for future studies:

In light of this disconnect, it is worth recognizing that the phosphorylation of signalling proteins is a temporal snapshot of the propagated signal for translation initiation. It is also unclear if there is a minimum threshold signal required to initiate and completely activate or  ‘turn on’ translation. If  there is such a threshold then it seems plausible that greater phosphorylation above such a  threshold would be unlikely to further amplify the signal/lead to increased rates of translation.

For a physicist or anybody who knows a thing about "energy levels" the existence of "threshold" levels in processes taking place at a molecular level should not come as a surprise.

I suspect, we are still missing the boat with our focus on protein synthesis alone

Another question, I have been hinting at in many of my previous blogposts on the insightful studies from Stuart Phillips lab at the McMaster University, is yet whether or not the acute increase in protein synthesis (alone) is actually an acceptable predictor of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, a process which, as I have explained in detail in the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle is only partly mediated by the simple accrual of amino acid chains (=proteins) within existing myofibrillar domains.

Figure 2: Graphical illustration of the processes and their respective triggers which contribute to the exercise induced increase in skeletal muscle mass (click here for detailed elaborations).

If you take another look at the complex network of endo- and paracrine signalling cascades and the number of factors which contribute to a process that is generally reffered to as "skeletal muscle hypertrophy" (cf. figure 2) and is, at least in my mind, falsely reduced to the influx of amino acids into the muscle, it should be clear that testosterone does play a central role in the actual exercise induced growth response. That the latter is less pronounced than bro-science would have it (esp. when we are talking about physiological levels, cf. "Quantifying the Big T") and that testosterone itself and its metabolites, DHT and estrogen are probably of greater importance in the "restructuring" process, which in turn facilitate the accrual of even more protein within the muscle, does after all not imply that the huge differences in androgen levels are not the reason for the differential hypertrophy response in men and women - and I guess, I don't have to tell you that you just have to take a glimpse at the female IFBB (International Federation of Bodybuilding and Fitness) competitors to know that androgens can make a difference ;-)

Farmer's Walk or Squat, Tire Flip or Bench Press, Stone Lift or Seated Row - Is Strongmen Training as "Anabolic" as Classic Hypertrophy Training and Which is "Best"?

Is he (or she?) going to be muscular when he grows up, or is this kind of exercise just making him strong?

I guess we all know that the most muscular guys are not necessarily also the strongest men in the gym - but why is that the case? And moreover, how does this fit in with the notion that you'd have to use heavy weights to induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy? Yeah, I know. Many scientists believe that's nothing but "broscience" (cf. Burd. 2012) and if you look at the muscle fiber composition of a bodybuilder in this previously published article, you will see that it is by no means type II and thus "strength-specific". And let's be hones does not the advent of blood flow restricted training signify that we are about to witness a "paradigm change"? With the classic approach (heavy weight and 8-10 reps) being on the upper end of a "optimal growth continuum"?

Notwithstanding this contemporary trend towards "making light weights heavier" (let's be honest, BFR for example does exactly that), a group of researchers from the Health and Human Performance Laboratory at the Hofstra University and the Gridiron Training Facility in Hempstead, New York, did actually dare to "waste" their time on research on the opposite extreme of the heavy vs. light lifting divide.

Don't forget: The paradigm determines the research design

Before we delve further in to the methodological issues, let me briefly get one thing straight. Ghigiarelli and his colleagues firmly believe in the significance of the immediate and early endocrine response to a workout. They specifically cite the work from Stuart Phillips lab, I have been referring to numerous times times, but (and this is science, guys!) politely disagree with the conclusion that the relationship between elevated endogenous testosterone levels and hypertrophy function was non-existent or at least irrelevant, stating that...

Suggested read "Anabolic Workouts Revisited"

"[...] a much larger body of evidence supports the integral role that the acute hormonal response to RE [resistance exercise] has on muscle hypertrophy (Schoenfeld. 2010; Vingren. 2010) and its role in strength training adaptation (Hansen, 2001;Kvorning. 2006). Those in support of an endogenous testosterone response stand by the belief that RE causes an initial downregulation on AR content in the target tissue (i.e., skeletal muscle) followed by a subsequent upregulation during the recovery period, thus increasing free testosterone uptake facilitating protein synthesis." (Ghigiarelli. 2013)

It is therefore not a design flaw, when the scientists take the acute testosterone response to the workout as a measure of it anabolic potential and speculate that a strongmen-esque workout, which engages much more muscle fibers than even a compound based bodybuilding workout does, would elicit a stronger hormonal response than a "classic" hypertrophy training (additional read => the Saturdaily installment of On Short Notice) .

Real trainees, real workouts, real (?) results?

To probe their hypothesis the scientists recurited trained athletes from various athlete backgrounds. The mean age of the

• tan recreational strength trainees (>4 training sessions per week, >2 years of training),
• one wrestler and one football player, 
• two competitive bodybuilders, 
• one competitive powerlifter and one competitive o-lifter

was 24 years, whose mean 3-RMs , i.e. the weight the participants can maximally perform for 3 reps, were 161kg for the squat and 126kg for the bench press.

Main result: Not superior, but "similar"testosterone responses

I guess, when you read the word "similar" (which is a real quotation from the full text) in the above subheading and take a loot at the actual data in figure 1 some of you may not without good reason complain that Ghigiarelli et al. use the word "similar" pretty generously.

Figure 1: Salivary testosterone response to immediately after (post) and 30 min after work-matched classic hypertrophy,  strongmen and mixed routines (Ghigiarelli. 2013)

If you look at the raw data on the left, it does after all look as if the classic hypertrophy workout with its squats, the leg presses, bench presses and seated rows was way more "anabolic" than

• its strongmen counterpart that consisted of tire flips, chain drags, farmers walks, keg carries and stone lifts, 

• the mixed protocol which was build around tire flips, squats, chain drags, bench presses and stone lifts 

when all exercises were performed for 3 sets x 10 reps with 75% of the weight the subjects could lift... and what should I say? You are right!

"Hold on! I don't see any 'similar' response!?"

What the average data in figure 1 (left) does yet not convey, are the large inter-individual differences. If you take those into account and use some statistical shenanigan to compensate for differences in the workout duration and the individual exercise intensity (whatever that may be, see Steele's recent paper on the absence of a clearcut definition of "intensity"), the superiority does turn into "a nonsignificant trend of greater testosterone release after the H protocol" (Ghigiarelli. 2013) - a trend, the researchers ascribe to the "abnormal response" they observed in response to the hypertrophy training (abnormal as compared to other studies, where the reponse hypertrophy training is usually in the 70% range, as well), which in turn would be attributable to 6 high responders with extreme spikes testosterone spikes of 165-493%.

Does true mastery of the exercise determine skeletal muscle anabolism?

Usually outliers like that are a problem, but sometimes there are cases where the exception from the rule has the greatest explanatory value and in this case, the latter may well be the case. How come? Well, the two hypothesis Ghigiarelli et al. come up with to explain the differences is simply too attractive to discard it as being irrelevant. Firstly, the scientists believe that it would be plausible that the anxiety level due to the unfamiliarity of strongman lifts may have reduced the testosterone spike.

You have no goals or don't track your results? Huge mistake (learn why)!

"This possibility is supported by previous literature examining the hormonal responses to different RE protocols in seasoned trainers (Beaven. 2008). Beaven et al. suggested that the novelty and stress of the situation are likely to be perceived based on experience. Thus, the stressors of the ST and XST sessions and the lack of familiarity of the exercises can suppress the actual physical nature of the stimulus. This psychological nature of the hormonal response in our subject pool may have caused a different response to protocols with which they were unfamiliar with or disliked." (Ghigiarelli. 2013)

Now, if you go one step further and expand on this idea by involving my mantra that training is not about moving weights from point A to point B and rephrase all that using a term Nicolas Burd et al. mentioned in their recent review in Applied Phyisology and Nutrition, in which they advance the idea that it does not really matter on which extreme of the low vs. heavy weight continuum you train, as long as your protocol elicits "high intensity contractions" (Burd. 2012), you could also argue that the subjects may have moved the weight for 3 sets of 10 when they did the farmer's walk etc., but did not to so using "high intensity contractions".

The intensity of the contraction determines the gains

Knowing the "101 of Pre Workout Protein Supplementation" can make a difference. Over all the supplement shenanigan many trainees do yet tend to overlook the basics and simply  assume that as long as they move weight from A to B the use of the right powders and popping the right pills at the right times would have the largest impact on their results - big mistake!

In other words, the calculated "intensity" and the real muscular tension, i.e. the intensity of the contraction, were not identical and certainly sub-optimal for those of the trainees who have never flipped tires or carried kegs before. The bodybuilders and certainly also most of the recreational athletes may well have been so focused on the novel exercise that they could not pay any attention to the one thing that's at the bottom of skeletal muscle growth the "high intensity contraction".

Now, it is probably undebatable that the actual work that is done by the muscle and not the physical work, you would calculate by multiplying the weight (respectively the force you would apply to it in an ideal scenario) and the length of the way along which you dragged, carried or flipped it, is the physiologically relevant number here. In this context it would also be irrelevant, if the endocrine response to a workout does actually correlate with the net gains in muscle size or strength, as long as the "intensity of the contraction" did. In the end, it is thus not the weight or the exercise that determines the actual growth stimulus, but rather your ability to use a given weight in a given exercise to induce those damn high intensity contractions.

---

Bottom line: For 90% of the trainees out there, the first step to improve their gains would thus to improve their game. To take the true meaning of "training", of which the venerable Oxford English Dictionary says that it is  "the sustained instruction and practice (given or received) in an art, profession, occupation, or procedure, with a view to proficiency in it." (OED Online. 2012). For the majority of trainees I see at the gym, it would thus be much wiser to follow Adelfo Cerame's recent advice and focus on a handful of exercises, instead of hopping from one exercise to the next, whenever a study says: Subjects, X,Y and Z gained 0.5% more mass doing farmer's walks vs. squats.

For others, it may yet be time to move on or to expand their arsenal of exercises with what Ghigiarelli et al. feel are "unique and exciting" exercises which provide "effective alternative to traditional resistance training, but require a lot of training to even master them "manipulate the specific combinations of rest intervals, loading, and volume toward [your] desired training goals" (Ghigiarelli. 2013).

References

• Beaven CM, Gill ND, Cook CJ. Salivary testosterone and cortisol responses in professional rugby players after four resistance exercise protocols. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):426-32.
• Burd NA, Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Phillips SM. Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: evidence from acute muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012 Jun;37(3):551-4. doi: 10.1139/h2012-022. Epub 2012 Apr 26.
• Ghigiarelli JJ, Sell KM, Raddock JM, Taveras K. Effects of strongman training on salivary testosterone levels in a sample of trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Mar;27(3):738-47.
• Hansen S, Kvorning T, Kjaer M, Sjøgaard G. The effect of short-term strength training on human skeletal muscle: the importance of physiologically elevated hormone levels. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001 Dec;11(6):347-54.
• OED Online. "training, n.". December 2012. Oxford University Press. < http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/204425 >  accessed March 04, 2013.
• Kvorning T, Andersen M, Brixen K, Madsen K. Suppression of endogenous testosterone production attenuates the response to strength training: a randomized, placebo-controlled, and blinded intervention study. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Dec;291(6):E1325-32.
• Schoenfeld BJ The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.J Strength Cond Res. 2010; 24: 2857–2872.
• Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports Med. 2013 Feb 12. 
• Vingren JL, Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA, Anderson JM, Volek JS, Maresh CM. Testosterone physiology in resistance exercise and training: the up-stream regulatory elements. Sports Med. 2010 Dec 1;40(12):1037-53.