The Latest on Combined Training: 15% Increase in Muscle Size in 24 Weeks in Healthy Moderately Active Young Men Regardless of "Cardio First" or "Weights First" Training

If you think even non-significant differences in "lean gains" are significant, "weights first" is for you.

If you are about to embark on a combined strength + endurance training regimen in 2015, it does not matter if you do "cardio first" or "strength first"... well, almost. If you stick to the traditional exercise order, you may gain a non-significant 2% extra on your vastus lateralis (some people would wrongly say "quads") size.

You've read evidence for both, the superiority of "cardio first" and "strength first" on the SuppVersity before and it may in fact be a matter of personal preference, whether you do your cardio or strength training first.

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order & Leptin

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

How to Combine Cardio & Strength?

Exercise Order Reloaded

The latest study from the University of Jyväskylä and the Edith Cowan University actually appears to confirm just that. In their 24-week study Schumann et al. had 34 physically active and healthy young men performed a combined strength and endurance exercise program with 16 subjects performing the endurance and 18 subjects performing the resistance training exercise first, 2-3 times a week for 24 weeks. Or, more precisely, ...

"[d]uring the first 12 wk, the subjects performed according to their corresponding training group two times 1E+1S or two times 1S+1E per week. The frequency was then increased during the second 12 wk so that two combined training sessions were performed in every first and fourth week and three combined training sessions in every second and third week (i.e., two times 1E+1S or two times 1S+1E or three times 1E+1S or three times 1S+1E, respectively)" (Schumann. 2014)

To reflect tapering before testing, both week 12 and week 24 were conducted by maintaining the training frequency but reducing training volume and intensity by reducing the number of sets, lowering the loads during the strength loading, and reducing both the total duration and time spent at high intensity (i.e., above the anaerobic threshold) during endurance cycling.

Dietary control: To control nutritional intake, food diaries were collected for 3 days including one weekend day at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Subjects received both verbal and written nutritional recommendations and were instructed on how to report nutritional intake in the diaries. The food diaries were analyzed by a nutrient analysis software (Nutri-Flow; Flow-team Oy, Oulu, Finland). Subjects were asked to maintain constant dietary intake throughout the study period. In preparation for all testing, subjects were instructed to consume a light meal 2–3 h before the start of each test and were asked to maintain similar nutritional intake before the measurements at weeks 0, 12, and 24. During each training session, a standardized low dose of glucose was provided at the midpoint of each combined exercise session (after E or S, respectively) whereas water was allowed whenever the subjects felt thirsty.

The intensity of the endurance training was controlled by HR (Polar S410; Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) associated with subject’s individual aerobic and anaerobic threshold determined during measurements at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. Subjects were instructed to maintain a constant pedaling frequency of approximately 70 rpm during each training session while the magnetic resistance of the ergometer was adjusted to achieve the required exercise intensity.

Concomitant Training: Cardio Before or After Weights? Cardio First Triggers 916% Increase in Growth Hormone. Plus: 7x Higher Testosterone & 3x Higher IGFBP-3 Peaks | read more.

"During weeks 1–7, steady-state cycling of low-to-moderate intensity (below and above the aerobic threshold) was performed, and during the remaining weeks, additional high intensity interval sessions (below and above the anaerobic threshold) were incorporated into the training program. The duration of endurance cycling progressively increased throughout the 12 wk of training from 30 to 50 min. During the second 12-wk period, the major endurance program structure was maintained whereas both training volume and intensity were further increased. The aerobic threshold represented intensities (% HRmax) of 65% T 5% and 67% T 6% in E+S and 68% T 8% and 67% T 6% in S+E at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. The anaerobic threshold represented intensities of 85% T 5% and 86% T 5% in E+S and 82% T 8% and 86% T 5% in S + E at weeks 0 and 12, respectively. The loads used during the strength training were determined by the number of repetitions and execution velocity and progressively increased throughout the two 12-wk periods" (Schumann. 2014)

Exercises for the lower body were bilateral dynamic leg press and bilateral (weeks 1–7 and 13–18) and unilateral (weeks 8–12 and 19–24) dynamic knee extension and flexion. Additional exercises for the upper body included dynamic seated vertical press, lat pulldown, and exercises commonly used to improve trunk stability (crunches, torso rotation, and lower back extension).

• During the first 2 wk, training was performed as a circuit using 2–4 sets of 15–20 repetitions at an intensity of 40%–60% of 1RM. 
• Thereafter, protocols aiming for muscle hypertrophy (2–5 sets of 8–10 repetitions at 80%–85% of 1RM, 1.5- to 2-min interset rest) and maximal strength (2–5 sets of 3–5 repetitions at 85%–95% of 1RM, 3- to 4-min interset rest) and, during the last 2 wk, protocols targeting explosive strength (two sets of 8–10 repetitions at 40% of 1RM with maximal velocity, 3- to 4-min interset rest) were performed. 
• During the second 12-wk period, the major strength program structure was maintained whereas both training volume and frequency were slightly increased to maximize fitness and health outcomes and to avoid a training plateau. 

The overall duration of the strength protocol within each combined training session was 30–50 min, resulting in a total duration of approximately 60–100 min for each combined training session (i.e., E+S and S+E, respectively)

Figure 1: Changes in leg press strength (left), time to exhaustion and aerobic power (right | Schumann. 2014).

Similar to the muscle size, the strength (Figure 1 | left) endurance performance (Figure 1 | right) increased non-significantly more in the "weights first" (S+E) group. In that, it is interesting to observe that the discrepancy between the "endurance first" (E+S) and "weigths first" (S+E) group increase over time. A fact that may suggest that after another four weeks the already measurable difference would have become significant.

Figure 2: Changes in vastus lateralis muscle cross sectional area (CSA, left) and lean mass (right | Schumann. 2014).

This is yet as speculative as the corresponding assumption that the inter-group difference in increase in lean muscle mass and vastus lateralis cross sectional area (CSA) would have achieved statistical significance if the study duration had been longer. On the other hand, that would probably imply that the "strength first group" would have ended up with significantly larger increases in upper body muscle mass.

You know what? Who cares! If there is a bottom line to this article it is the same, I used for previous articles discussing the question whether you "should" do your cardio training before or after your weight training: Do whatever works for you!

Beware of the "training frency" - Chronic Resistance Training Reduces the Anabolic Signaling in Response to Exercise - 12 Days of Detraining Restore It | read more.

And in the unfortunate case that neither "weights first" nor "cardio first" works for you, you can still do cardio and weights on separate occasions. Either on a single day with AM and PM sessions, or on separate days, which is what I would suggest to all of you who are aiming for maximal effects on their physique: Three resistance training workouts and two cardio sessions of which at least one should be a high intensity interval workout on five days of the week. If you stick to a whole-food based higher protein diet (30g of high quality = high EAA protein with every meal), that's going make a difference in the mirror... promise! Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Schumann, Moritz, et al. "Fitness and lean mass increases during combined training independent of loading order." Medicine and science in sports and exercise (2014).

"Just One More Set" (2/2): Three Sets of Three Exercises Three Times Per Week - High Volume Can Work. With Appropriate Rest Also to Build Strength & Power

High , not insane (!) volume training can be productive.

I hope that you have already being waiting for this post, so I'll try to cut myself short and get right to the facts. In yesterday's first part of "Just One More Rep" it turned out that a higher training volume sucks, when it comes to what is often thought would be its prerogative, i.e. using strength training to induce excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) and lean out.

In view of these results you could argue that it would be totally logical that a higher training volume cannot be ideal for muscle gains either. After all those require energy and if the RMR does not go up, this would suggest that there was little to repair and supercompensate. A recent study (Naclerio. 2012) does yet refute this already intrinsically non-stringent considerations.

High volume can work! As long as it's high, and not simply insane.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Greenwich, the College of New Jersey, the European University of Madrid and the Appalachian State University and it has one caveat I don't want to hold back to the discussion of the results at the end of this post (although it will reappear and be addressed there): Though we are dealing with college athletes (20 male soccer and 12 female volleyball college players)  none of them had previous strength training experience. This may not be exactly representative of a dumb- & barbell god like you are *rofl*, but is at least better than taking totally untrained participants, where you never know if the the higher volume was too demanding for their musculature or their overall conditioning.

Moreover, the separate analysis of upper and lower body strength gains could shed some more light on whether or not legs do in fact need some more hammering to adapt than the smaller musculature of the upper body (cf. "Three is more than one").

Who and at which intensity for how many sets and reps?

The 32 athletes (age = 23.1± 1.57 yrs, injury free) with at least 3 years of experience as regular team sports practitioner were randomly assigned to one of four groups (all performed 8 reps at 75% of their 1-RM max per set!):

• low volume(LV), 1 set per exercise and 3 sets per muscle group per session;
• moderate volume (MV), 2 sets per exercise and 6 sets per muscle group per session;   
• high volume (HV), 3 sets per exercise and 9 sets per muscle group; 

and of course, the obligatory non-exercise control group (this leaves us with only 8 subjects per group, so don't expect all too meaningful p-values). Before and after the 6 week each subject underwent a progressive resistance test aimed to determine the 1RM and the maximal average power produced from light to heavy weights on two upper body exercises (bench press (BP) and upright row (UR)) and one lower body exercise (parallel squat (SQ)). The individual tests, were structured as follows:

"After a standardized warm up, each subject started the PRT  which consisted of 8 sets of 2 repetitions performed with maximal acceleration, alternating with rest periods between 2 min for the light load, 3 to 4 min for the moderate load and 5 minutes for the higher load. The 1st and 2nd sets were performed with a light weight (~25 to 45% of estimated 1RM), the 3rd and 4th sets with a medium weight (~50% to 65% of estimated 1RM), the 5th and 6th sets with a medium to heavy weight (~ 70% to 80% of estimated 1RM), and the 7th and 8th sets with a maximum or near maximum weight (~85% to 100% of estimated 1RM)." (Naclerio. 2012)

For the subsequent analysis the scientists picked those sets and reps, on which the subjects had lifted with the greatest average power (no sure whether this was the best idea, but alas).

The workouts - chest, shoulders, biceps + legs, back, triceps

It stands to reason that the exercises that were part of the testing procedure, i.e. bench presses (BP) and upright rows (UR), which were performed using Olympic bars and plates, as well as the classic back squat (till thighs were parallel to the floor, SQ), which was performed on a Smith machine, "in order to standardize exercise", were also the core exercises of the  actual workouts, the participants performed during the 6-week training phase.

Day 1 (chest, shoulders, biceps)	Day 2 (legs, back, triceps)
Bench press Incline Bench press Dumbbell Fly Upright Row Lateral Raise Posterior Lateral Raise Barbell Biceps Curl Dumbbell Biceps Curl Machine Biceps Curl	Smith Machine Parallel Squat Leg Press Knee Extension Lat Pull down Seated Row 1 Arm Dumbbell Row Machine Triceps Extension Standing Triceps Pushdown 1 Arm Triceps Extension
Table 1: Workout schedule, for set and rep scheme see text above .

Overall each subject took part in 18 training session, i.e. 3 per week. The training sessions were scheduled on non-consecutive days in a day 1 v.s day 2 fashion, with day 1 being 'chest + shoulder + biceps day ' and day 2 being 'legs + back  + triceps day'. Given the aforementioned volume prescriptions you see that the actual routines were actually more or less representative of what you will see the relatively sane part of the trainees actually do at the gym.

Figure 1: Relative change (in % of baseline) in 1RM and maximal average power during the 6-week intervention period (Naclerio. 2012)

If you take into account that these were the first real lifting sessions for most of the study participants, the same can be said of the strength gains I plotted relative to the respective baseline levels in figure 1. In fact, the multivariate analysis the scientists conducted showed that all training protocols yielded statistically significant increases in strength.

When gains are the goal: Volume (or stimulus?) does count!

In contrast to the EPOC values, of which we have learned yesterday that they do by no means benefit from increases in total workout volume, Naclerio et al. did actually observe a clear trend toward greater improvement in strength and power with the high vs. the low and even the medium volume protocol (at a similar overall volume, though with different exercises in a classic split routine). Thte most evident downsides to the lower volume programs, were

• no significant increases in the 1-RM squat in both the low and medium volume group, and
• no significant increases in the average power during the bench press,

where both, the medium (MV) and high volume (HV) protocols achieved significant before vs. after differences of 10% and 16%, respectively.

If you look at the overall pattern in figure 1 once more, there is still no clearcut picture emerging. While it does in fact appear as if the high volume routine appears to be in front in the majority of 1-to-1 comparisons, this is mainly based on an analysis of the improvements in maximum strength. With respect to the average power measurements, on the other hand, the authors are (partly) right to point out that you could argue in favor of both the low and medium volume protocols as being "better strategies for enhancing lower body or upper body average power performance." (Naclerio. 2012)

So is high volume the way to go - or no?

For the subjects who participated in this study (and maybe some of you), the last mentioned equivalence, if not superiority of the low(er) volume routines (1-2 sets per exercise) the low and medium volume training do in fact appear to be superior to support their regular sports specific training program. After all, mere strength is not so much of an issue in either soccer or volleyball; and given the fact that at least for soccer the lower limb power is what really counts, a low volume strength training approach would, aside from obviously being highly economic, also yield the most pronounced sport specific performance increases.

It stands to reason: If neither brute strength nor tons of muscle are your goal and strength training is just an adjunct to your sports-specific training, high volume sucks!

Whether the surprising superiority of the low volume routine as a 'average strength builder'  for soccer and volleyball players does mean that legs need less, rather than more work than the chest, which appears to like the constant hammering, is however highly questionable. In fact, this is where the bias of previous training comes into play. For both volleyball and soccer players, the latter does obviously include a hell lot of 'leg work' and while you do push-ups in soccer (and I guess volleyball as well), there is no training component that would correspond to the sprinting and HIIT exercises that involve the legs only. Now, of the latter you know that they can in fact have 'anabolic' effects on skeletal muscle. These may not be so immediate as they would be for someone doing a BB-like hypertrophy training, but they accumulate over time; and with three years of more or less 'professional' training in their respective sports, we may savely assume that all participants had their share of muscular hypertrophy in the quads, glutes and hams.

Moroever, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains require a certain degree of overload. Allegedly, when the training induced or the overall stress becomes too much, your training won't yield the desired results either. For someone whose main goals are skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, and who does not compete in any other sports that requires separate training,  the data from the study at hand would yet still support Arnold's way of doing "just one more set " - as long, as this is done in conjunction with adequate rest not just in-between sets, but in-between workouts, as well!

I can however guarantee you that doing 27 sets today and another 27 tomorrow, just to follow that up by some HIIT on day 3, in order to have a "day off" without a guilty conscience and to be "recovered" to do chest shoulders and biceps, your day 1 on day 4 again (thus starting another "cycle"), will yield neither muscle, nor strength gains. It will simply burn you out and pave your way right into the Athletes' Triad.

References:

• Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, Perez-Bibao T, Kang J, Ratamess NA, Triplett NT. Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes: a pilot study. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct 5.

Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume! Greater & Steadier Strength Gains with 8 Sets of Squats. Plus: Over 6 Weeks, 1 Set and 4 Sets Equally (In-)Effective.

Image 1: Look at his legs, Ronnie Coleman must have done something right... and guess what, the study at hand suggests that part of it could have been his insane training volume.

Studies on different exercise protocols are scarce and many, if not most of them are conducted with obese, sick, elderly or otherwise physically impaired individuals. And even the infamous "recreationally active" study participants are not a very suitable model for aspring physical culturists like you and me *rofl*, right? Daniel W. Robbins, Paul W.M. Marshall and Megan McEwen, three researchers from the University of Sydney, the University of Western Sidney (obviously not identical to the former!?) and the University of Auckland obviously felt the same, when they set out to investigate the effects of a 6-week training intervention with different training volumes (as measured by sets per workout) on the lower-body strength (barbell squat) of 31 experienced (mean training experience ~6.7y) strength trainees (Robbins. 2012). By setting a minimum barbell squat performance of 130% of their own body weight as an inclusion criteria for their subjects, the scientists also made sure that none of their male participants (mean age 27.8y) had only been going to the gym to hit on the ladies at least twice a week for the last 2 years.

Finally a study on subjects "like you and me" ;-)

After an initial 2-week standardization phase with 9 training sessions on a 3-way split, in the course of which the subjects did not squat, they were randomized to one of the three volume conditions (Low  = 1-Set; Medium = 4-Sets; High = 8-Sets, cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Outline of the training protocol that was used in the study (adapted from Robbins. 2012)

In the following 6 weeks, all subjects trained according to a 2-way split program (cf. figure 1), which differed only in the amount of working sets the subjects had to perform on the regular barbell squat, the only lower body exercise in their programs. The lower leg strength of the study participants was assessed at 4 time-points: (1) at the end of the initial standardization period, (2) after the third week and (3) at the end of the 6-week volume manipulation phase, and (4) after the completion of the 4-week post-program phase.

Figure 2: Repetitions per set in the first set and average repetitions per set in all working sets (left) and minimal (avg. - 1x standard deviation) and maximal (avg. +1SD) total number of barbell squat repetitions the subjects in the 1-, 4- and 8-SET groups performed during the 6-week volume manipulation phase (data adapted from Robbins. 2012)

As the data in figure 2 goes to show, the comparatively higher training volume in the 4- and 8-SET (cf. figure 2, right) conditions took a toll not only on the average number of repetitions per set, but also on the the number of reps they cranked out on their first working set of barbell squats. Robbins et al. attribute this effect to the psychological burden of having to perform another 3, respectively 7 sets and advise practitioners (i.e. trainers) to be "cognizant of this [tendency to] 'hold back' in early sets to perform better in later sets", when they design a program.

There is no "one size fits it all" volume, but ...

If we now take a look at the actual study outcome in figure 3 it becomes obvious that at least a certain sub-group of those "practitioners" will probably also have to revise their approach to building strength from a very low, to a higher volume approach. After all, the 1-SET group did not only register the smallest gains in lower body strength, a statistically significant increase in strength (as denoted by the asterisk "*" in figure 3) did occur only in the second half of the intervention period, whereas the subjects in both the 4- and 8-SET groups experienced statistically significant strength gains right from the start.

Figure 3: Maximal squat strength (kg) and relative increase in squat strength during different periods of the study; * statistically different from baseline, # statistically different from 1-SET group (data adapted from Robbins. 2012)

In the 4-SET group, on the other hand, we do see a statistically significant increase in strength in the first 3 weeks of the intervention period, already. In the following 3 weeks, however, the strength of the subjects in the 4-SET group stagnated, so that the overall increase in lower body strength of the 1-SET and 4-SET groups at the end of the both the 6-week volume adaptation as well as the 4-week post program phase did not show statistically significant differences. This lead Robbins et al. to speculate that...

[...] over the longer 6-week period, the accumulated volume and associated training stimulus were sufficient to elicit an effect similar to that elicited via the 4-SET condition

This does yet not change the significantly greater and above all steady increases in lower body strength in the 8-SET group, which - somewhat surprisingly - continued even into the post 4-week post program phase, when the study participants were again training according to identical full-body workout plans.

... for advanced trainees a higher volume appears to illicit favorable lower body strength gains.

Image 2: Only a few "gifted" and often "artificially enhanced" athletes can train still intense, when they increase their training volume to Coleman'ish or in this case Tom Platz'ish levels,

Against that background the main take-home-message of the study appears to be that advanced strength athletes benefit from an increase in training volume from 1 or 4 to a still very reasonable level of 8 working sets per workout.

These results do yet  not justify the insane 2h+ "mammoth" leg workouts especially bony beginners (I would hope they are beginners, as they surely look like that) like to do to "bring up their wheels" - I mean, come on, even if you use Coleman'ish "supplements" doing 5 sets of squats, 4 sets of leg presses, 3 sets of lunges, 3 sets of leg extensions and whatever else may come to your mind will either burn you out within 2 weeks, or amplify the aforementioned tendency "to hold back" to a degree that will turn your strength into a whacky cardio workout.

So, please bear in mind: If some is good and more is better, this rarely means that even more would be even better... but I guess this is enough "wise-assing" for today ;-)

Three is More Than One: Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs, and Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps. Plus: Data on Myostatin, IGF1, MGF & Co.

Image 1: The green dots that are crowding left and right from the blue myonucleus are the satellite cells (Hanssen. 2012)

In case you are not really sure what a "satellite cell" is and why you should care abouts it's "recruitment", you have probably missed the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle series and should get into detention. Otherwise, here is the news: In a study that has been published in the latest issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine in Sports Science T.S. Hanssen et al. published a paper with the auspicious title "The effect of strength training volume on satellite cells, myogenic regulatory factors, and growth factors" (Hanssen. 2012). Exactly that kind of study that would have the potential to take the mostly common or bro-sensical reasoning behind the current recommendations on training volume to the next, a scientific level, if it the scientists would finally realize that strength training noobs are hardly a better model for advanced trainees than rodents :o(

Full body training 3x /week: How many sets are optimal?

For their study, Hanssen et al. recruited twenty two healthy untrained men (age 26.5y; height: 181.8cm; weight: 81kg) and assigned them to one out of two full-body workouts, with identical exercises (leg press, leg extension, leg curl, seated chest press, seated rowing, latissimus pull-down, biceps curl, and shoulder press), but different amounts of sets for a given body part:

• 3x Legs & 1x Upper Body: Trainees in this group performed 3 sets for each of the leg exercises and 1 set for the upper body exercises
   
• 1x Legs & 3x Upper Body: Trainees in this group performed 1 set for each of the leg exercises and 3 sets for each of the upper body exercises

All subjects started out with 10 reps per set in the first two week. In weeks 3-6, the intensity was increased to 8RM and in the last 5 weeks (7-11) all participants trained at their "7-rep max":

Participants were encouraged to continuously increase their RM loads during the intervention and they were allowed assistance on the last repetition.

In addition to the three strength training sessions per week, the participants were allowed to perform one (not more!) additional steady-state cardio session. And while this may help with standardization, my mathematical skills tell me that the 3L-1UB group performed only 14 sets per workout, while the 1L-3UB group performed 18 sets, simply because the number of lower and upper body exercises was not identical. Now, everyone who does not claim that he or she does not need to train legs (for whatever stupid reason) will know leg training is much more draining than upper body workouts, so "intensity-wise" the workouts were probably still identical.

Single vs. multiple-set training? Nothing new or exciting if it was not for the specific data

We have seen similar studies before - most of them with the same, very unfortunate limitation of being performed on strength training novices, by the way - and the results of this study would hardly be exciting, if it were not for the sheer amount of data Hansson et al. recorded:

Image 2: If those acronyms don't ring a bell, click here to learn more.

• muscle strength and muscle fiber size,
  
  
• the number of satellite cells and number of satellite cells positive for myogenin and MyoD,
   
• the number of myonuclei, myogenin and MyoD content of muscle samples, and
  
  
• myostatin and a whole host of growth factors, namely IGF-1, MGF, HGF, FGF2 and VEGF

This is what I call a "comprehensive" analysis ;-) And one which brought about some pretty interesting results, of which the increases in muscle strength and fiber size are unquestionably the most straight-forward and least surprising ones (cf. figure 1):

Figure 1: Changes in 1RM strength and fiber area after 11 weeks on the training regimen with different set schemes (data calculated based on Hanssen. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 strength-wise, only the leg (m. vastus lateralis), yet not the back (trapezius) muscle benefited from the increased training volume. When you do take a look at the fiber size, however, it becomes obvious that as long as we compare 1 vs. 3 sets more is actually more +24%, to be precise (the 4% difference for the fiber size in the legs is statistically non-significant).

Figure 2: Relative changes in myonuclei number per muscle fiber and the number of satellite cells after 2 and 11 (post) weeks of the training intervention (data calculated based on Hanssen. 2012)

If you also take into account that the data in figure 2 clearly shows that an increase in training volume leads to increased satellite cell recruitment (indicated by the increases in the number of myonuclei per muscle fiber) and number, it becomes obvious that you are missing out on the growth promoting effects of strength training. The decrease in myonuclei per muscle fiber in the latter 9 weeks of the training intervention in the low volume upper body group (dark red bars in figure 2) would also suggest that this is particularly true for the experience strength trainee in whom the initial 2-week growth spurt of which Hansson et al. state that it was one of their two "main observations":

The novel finding in our study was the early increase in the proportion of activated satellite cells, the early increase in total number of satellite cells and the dependence on training volume in the leg muscle. The number of activated satellite cells, indicated by myoD and myogenin expression, increased from ~2% before training to 6–10% 2 weeks into the intervention.

So as "novel" as this finding may be, it is still somewhat unsatisfying for experienced strength trainees, who will have to rely on the hypothesis that their response will be an ameliorated version of the "late" growth response in the study at hand, which would support my personal observation that 3x3 i.e. three exercises à three sets per body part is at the lower end of the "optimal" volume continuum for advanced trainees. A volume continuum, by the way, that is capped at 12-15 sets for the largest body parst, i.e. legs and back and does by no means extent into the "insanity realm", where people perform 20 sets for biceps and 20 working  sets for triceps on a 5-day body-part split.

Surprise: No statistical significant differences in growth factors

What I found quite surprising though, is that this advantage of 3- vs. 1-set training was not reflected by greater increases in myostatin and/or MGF (want to know more about MGF, click here for the pertinent installment of the Intermittent Thoughts). MGF was even higher in the vastus of the 1 set group and the smaller incline in myostatin levels in the 3-set group (1.1x vs. 1.8x) did not reach statistical significance.

Figure 3: Changes in mRNA levels of myostatin, IGF-1, MGF, HGF, FGF2, and VEGF in the 10 subjects with the largest satellite cell response (seven from 3L-1UB and three from 1L-3UB; data adapted from Hanssen. 2012)

If we do yet take a look at the changes in mRNA levels of myostatin, IGF-1, MGF, HGF (hepatocyte growth factor; growth factor for satellite cells, cf. Sheehan. 2000), FGF2 (fibroblast growth factor; promotes cell adhesion and proliferation, as well as the build up of callege, cf. Yun. 2012) and VEGF (cf. figure 3) in the 10 subjects with the largest satellite cell response (seven from 3L-1UB and three from 1L-3UB), we do see that all but myostatin and VEGF were statistically significantly elevated above baseline. These results stand in line with the main message of the Intermittent Thoughts which was that it is the interaction of a whole host of "hormones" (and peptides) that "builds muscle" - and not as the producers of a certain category of 100% useless "all-natural" supplements want to make you believe, testosterone (or any other growth factor) alone.

And while it was to be expected that the expression of those growth factors would decline over the course of the 11-week intervention period, I am honestly wondering, whether the decrease in reps from 10 (initial two weeks) to 8 and subsequently 7 reps per set had anything to do with it... but I guess, this is an issue for the next study, about which, you will read nowhere else than right here, at the SuppVersity, the place where bro- and pro-science unite in the spirit of true wisdom - but I guess you know that by now, don't you? ;-)

Order of Exercises Does not Matter if you Train Upper Body & Lower Body in One Session - Testosterone & Cortisol Response Identical

You will probably remember my post on the effect of leg training on biceps size!? Well, although it is necessary that you train your legs, if you want to grow, a recent study by Jason D. Miller (Miller. 2011) indicates that hormonally it does not make a difference which part of your body you train first; or, in other words, you will get the same hormonal response (measured as testosterone (T) to cortisol (C) ratio) if you bench press (BP) first and do leg presses (LP) as your second exercise (both at 73.5% of 1RM for 4 sets), as you will get if you start with the leg press and finish your workout on the bench.

There does not appear to be an affect of resistance the exercise order of LP [leg press] and BP [bench press] on T [testosterone] and C [cortisol]. The exercise orders resulted in the same exercise volume and lactate responses which in turn resulted in no interaction in T and C between the UB-LB and LB-UB exercise orders.

Miller does yet speculate that a higher volume and or other/supplemental exercises may have changed the picture. But let's be honest: Do you really think it would be wise to do squats, leg presses and deadlifts, followed by bench presses, dips and flys? Probably not.