Eight HIIT Sessions on the Rowing Ergometer Cut Body Fat, Increase Adiponectin, VO2Max & Performance in National Level Rowers - Workmatched Classic "Cardio" Does Nothing

If you have hitherto ignored my previous advice (e.g. "Choosing Your Workout Style") to give the rowing machines a try, maybe the study at hand will rise your interest. Give it a try. It's an awesome whole body workout and highly effective, even if you just do 20min of steady state after lifting weights.

Yesterday you've learned that even the most idio... ah, I mean unconventional - not to say "experimental" in the literal sense - one-legged leg training routine is more likely to get you those six-pack abs, of which everyone appears to believe that it was a natural sign of outstanding health and a thing everybody must have (just like the new iPhone, you know ;-), than a bazillion of sit-ups. Today, you will see that a somewhat less "experimental" training regimen will not have you reach your goal faster and more efficiently, it will also have the welcome "side effect" of making you healthier and improving your conditioning. And you know what's the best about all that? It does not only work for sedentary baby-boomer, but also for highly trained athletes. 5 male and 2 female19(± 1.2)-year-old junior state and national level rowers from the Tasmanian Rowing Team (height: 1.77 ± 0.10 m, body mass: 74.0 ± 10.7 kg, body fat: 17.1%, VO2max 62.1 ± 7.0 mL·kg/min), to be precise (Shing. 2012).

Healthier, leaner, fitter - that's a HITTer ;-)

To evaluate the influence of two different training regimen, namely the traditional steady training (SST/LISS) on a rowing ergometer (a piece of equipment of which the regulars among you already know that I highly suggest you incorporate it into whatever cardio routine you may be doing), or a high intensity interval training (HIIT) variety of the latter the researchers from the School of Human Life Sciences at the University of Tasmania in Launceston, Australia put their participants, the aforementioned young national rowers, on two different workout protocols with matched cumulative energy expenditures (my emphases in Shing. 2012):

• SST: "The traditional training program involved rowers completing two ergometer sessions per week; one with a duration of 35 minutes and the other 40 minutes. [...] The intensity of each session
  was relatively low and more aerobic in nature when compared to the interval training protocol. The intensity of the traditional ergometer sessions was set to power outputs that corresponded to blood lactate concentrations of 2 and 3 mmol/l determined from the incremental exercise test."
• HIIT: "The interval training sessions consisted of eight 2.5 minute intervals at 90% of mean four-minute maximal power achieved during the incremental exercise test. Recovery between each interval was at an intensity of 40% of mean four-minute maximal power and the recovery duration was until heart rate returned to 70% of maximum heart rate, up to a maximum of five minutes."

The 2x four week experimental period (remember: we are dealing with a cross-over design, where all subjects participate in both protocols in random order) involved the incorporation of two ergometer sessions per week. Since all participants were part of the same squad the rest of their training regimen was identical, so that confounding factors - at least as far as the training is concerned - can be ruled out.

Body composition and adiponectin took a HIIT - a highly beneficial one that is ;-)

Performance tests were done and body fat mass (DXA), as well as a general blood profile and adiponectin values were taken at baseline and the end of both 4-week periods. Moreover, all participants had to keep a detailed training and diet log, so that the scientists could make absolutely sure that non of the effects they observed were due to unexpected changes in either activity levels or dietary habits.

Any potential influence of the randomized order, i.e. whether the rowers performed the classic training first and the HIIT sessions 2nd or vice versa was ruled out by statistical means before the scientists eventually analyzed their data sets and got the following results:

Figure 1: adiponectin levels before (pre) and after the respective workout at the beginning and end of the respective 4-week training period and body fat levels before and after 4 weeks of steady state (SST) or high intensity interval training (HIIT) in national level rowers (Shing. 2012)

I must admit, the changes are not earth-shattering, but there are changes - beneficial ones that is  - and they are statistically significant despite the small number of participants, and the fact that the subjects were already highly trained individuals and - I figure this may be the most convincing argument not to discard this effects - participated in no more than a total of only 8 HIIT sessions.

Bottom line: I guess, you could certainly argue that the novelty of the training stimulus was part of the reason, the HIIT regimen had so beneficial effects on the fitness, body composition and even the adiponectin levels of these already highly trained rowers (Adiponectin? That's the "new leptin", which promotes insulin sensitivity and exerts profound anti-inflammatory effects); but does this take away from the efficacy of this 4x2.5 min @90% max. + 5min active rest high intensity interval training regimen? I don't think so.

Click here to learn more about the "Iranian HIIT Solution" a minimalist program with maximal results

There is nonetheless one thing I want to add before I close the SuppVersity doors for today. The 4x2.5 minute protocol is certainly appropriate for trained athletes; in fact, previous studies even suggest that it requires those long(er) intervals in order to elicit gains in VO2max in highly trained (endurance) athletes (e.g. Franch. 1998; Laursen. 2002). The initially mentioned sedentary baby-boomer - obese or not - may however be better off, if they follows a different regimen, such as the one I outlined in the "Iranian HIIT Solution" (see image on the right) and incorporate that in a three-day split (e.g. A, B, hypertrophy, C strength) or a two-day full body circuit training.

The main message here is that starting out "low" (in terms of both volume and intensity) is not just possible, it's even advisable, so that there is still enough room to do more, and/or preferably up the intensity. I know I have been telling you that before, but I feel it's worth stating again: Real cardio training, i.e. the type of training that strengthens the cardiovascular system is progressive. If you do the same thing day in and day out the best you can hope for is to keep the status quo. Remember that before you start out way too high (esp. on the volume side of things) and either bunk directly, or end up without any room to make progress.

References:

• Franch J, Madsen K, Djurhuus MS, et al. Improved running economy following intensified training correlates with re-duced ventilatory demands. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 1250-6.
• Laursen PB, Jenkins DG. The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training: optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance athletes. Sports Med. 2002;32(1):53-73.
• Shing CM, Webb JJ, Driller MW, Williams AD, Fell JW. Circulating Adiponectin Concentration AND BODY composition ARE Altered in Response to High-Intensity Interval Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Dec 4.

Glutamine or BCAA, Which is the Better Fatique Buffer? 18g GLU Suprisingly Effective, 9.5g BCAAs (Un-)Surprisingly Useless as Blood Fatigue Factors & Cytokine Buffers

Rowing is an excellent cardio exercise for wanna be bodyuilders, by the way!

I am not really a fan of glutamine, but unlike BCAAs that are still hyped all over the Internet, the conditionally essential amino acid which is the most abundant of all amino acids in human blood is at least not falsely heralded as a potent catabolic, anabolic, weight loss adjuvant and what not, any longer.

Against that background I have to admit that I am not exactly unhappy to tell you that Ga Hee Koo, Jin Hee Woo, Sung Whun Kang, and Ki Ok Sjin who work at the Dong-A University and the Republic of Korea Airforce Academy, have recently observed that BCAAs have absolutely no, glutamine at least a minimal impact on the blood fatigue factor response of juvenile athletes in response to a 2,000 m all out rowing challenge w/ placebo, BCAA or glutamine supps.

Learn more about glutamine and BCAAs at the SuppVersity

Glutamine Helps W/ Diabetes

Whey + Casein Beat GLU + BCAA

Alanyl-Glutamine is it any good?

GLU for Glycogen Repletion?

GLU as Intra-Workout BV?

BCAAs deplete neurotransmitters

In the corresponding experiment, the scientists from the College of Sports Science at the Dong-A University had five male juvenile elite rowing athletes perform the same 2,000m rowing test at maximal intensity after having received a placebo, BCAA, or glutamine for 7 days before
the test. The specific supplementation regimen included:

• BCAA (Spomax, Seoul, Republic of Korea) was given three times a day (25% valine, 50% leucine, 25% isoleucine, 3.15 g/day).
• L-glutamine (Optimum Nutrition, Aurora, IL, USA, 6 g/day) was given three times a day.

Blood samples were collected from the antecubital vein on the day of testing while resting before the test, immediately at the end of test, and 30 min after the test. All tests were conducted with a 1-week interval to eliminate the potential effects from potentially longer-lasting effects of the previously administered supplement.

Which parameters did the researchers test and why? Koo et al. tested lactate, the accumulation of which will eventually impair ATP synthesis and lead to muscular fatigue. They tested the accumulation and clearance of ammonia, which can trigger central fatigue, when the levels increase rapidly during high intensity exercise. And they tested creatine kinase (CK) which is a classic marker of muscle damage and IL-8 and IL-15, two cytokines that will be elevated, when the activity of the immune system is not sufficient to deal with exercise induced stressors.

The actual test was conducted with an indoor rowing machine (Concept², Morrisville, VT, USA) two times each for supplementation with the placebo, BCAA, and glutamine. All the subjects performed a 2,000 m (Olympic single scull race) race at their own individual maximum paces (42–45 pace for 0m~250m, 40 pace for 250m~500m, 36–38 pace for 500m~1,500 m, and over 42 pace for 1,500 m~2,000 m)

Figure 1: Serum markers of fatigue and muscle damage, expressed relative to placebo (Koo. 2014)

There were no significant differences in lactate levels; a significant phopshorus-sparing effect from BCAAs (small effect size) and glutamine (large effect size) of which the scientists believe that it was mediated by the use of the amino acids to maintain adequate muscular ATP levels; and there was a non-significantly elevated level of ammonia in the glutamine group (some arginine could help clear those | learn more) that returned to normal 30 min after the test.

The dosages are not the same! That's unfair! No, it's not necessarily unfair, but it would still have been better to test 18g of glutamine vs. 18g of BCAAs. There is after all one thing both have in common: They both can be used as workout fuel in the muscle, so the advantage of glutamine may have become smaller (maybe even non-significant), if both had been administered at the same amounts.

The creatine kinase levels (a marker of muscle damage) and the levels of interleukin-8 and interleukin-15, however, were significantly lower in the glutamine than they were in either the BCAA or placebo group. This is a result of which the authors of the study believe that, it may...

"[...]represent the effects of energy supplementation from glutamine supply, which activated as a fuel in the muscle and as a nitrogen precursor for nucleotide synthesis" (Koo. 2014). 

An alternative explanation would be that glutamine (probably via its connection to glutathione; see Roth. 2002) had a direct protive effect on the skeletal muscle tissue during the workouts.

Figure 2: Serum levels of inflammatory cytokines expressed relative to placebo (Koo. 2014)

This hypothesis would also be supported by the changes in interleukin expression. i.e. the blunted increase of interleukin-8. IL-8 is an inflammatory cytokine that serves as a chemical signal which attracts neutrophils at the site of inflammation. The corresponding increase in IL-15, which was likewise reduced in response to sub-chronic glutamine supplementation, on the other hand, indicates a reduced production (not activity!) of natural killer cells.

Table 1: Intense exercise is not the only condition / disease that's associated  with low blood glutamine levels (Roth. 2002)

In that, it is crucial to understand that the authors (imho reasonably) believe that the increase in IL-8 & IL-15 is a compensatory mechanism which is initiated to counter the reduced immune function that occurs, when the amount of glutamine in the blood and skeletal tissue drops. We do after all know for sure that the this will result in a significant decrease in the cell proliferation rate of lymphocytes, the amount of antioxidants, peptides, amino sugars related to cell resistance against apoptotic processes, purines, as well as the synthesis of key molecules such as pyrimidines which are all involved in redox reactions (Roth. 2002).

Whether supplementation is warranted with low(er) intensity exercise, as well, is however questionable. Previous research by Ostrowski et al. (2001), who had their subjects exercise at significantly lower intensities, did not find comparable increases in IL-8. This difference is probably due to a comparably lower amount of exercise induced stress that corresponds to the reduced intensity. In this context it's also worth mentioning that Fischer et al. (2006) report that the blood chemokine concentrations would increase little or remain stagnant unless a sufficient muscle mass is mobilized and maintained at a certain level of intensity sufficiently... now, everyone who has ever done an all-out rowing time trial will confirm: This is (a) intense and will (b) involve almost every muscle in your body.

If maximal muscle hypertrophy, not performance increases in all-out (aerobic) exercise and protecting your immune function is your goal, buy some whey + casein and stay away from glutamine & BCAAs unless you insist on wasting money on hitherto unproven promises of strength & size gains | learn more

Bottom line: In contrast to BCAAs which will "only" blunt the increase in debilitating phosphorus in the blood,  "glutamine supplementation could be helpful for enhancement of immune function and the defensive inflammatory reaction after exercise." (Koo. 2014)

The results of the study at hand do thus confirm an older piece of broscience, i.e. the importance and efficiency of adequate amounts of glutamine (15g or more per day!) for recovery and immune function. They do yet also put another question mark behind the ergogenic potential of brach-chained amino acids about which I have written repeatedly in previous articles here at the SuppVersity (in other contexts, BCAAs may well be superior to glutamine, but long-term studies to prove any of the claimed benefits are missing, as well).

Whether the results from the study at hand warrant the consumption of 18g of glutamine per day for all of us, is still questionable. If you are in a phase of your training that requires a lot of all-out exercise and already feel that your immune defenses are dwindling, it probably won't hurt to buy a cheap 500g bag of glutamine from the bulk supplier you trust. Don't expect instant results of illusive tingles as you'll get them with certain other supplements. If there are benefits they will only be visible over time and will include faster / more complete recovery, reduced rates of infection and overall fatigue. Eventually, these would help you to make faster gains in strength and size, though | Comment on Facebook.

References:

• Fischer, Christian P. "Interleukin-6 in acute exercise and training: what is the biological relevance." Exerc Immunol Rev 12.6-33 (2006): 41.
• Koo, Ga Hee, et al. "Effects of Supplementation with BCAA and L-glutamine on Blood Fatigue Factors and Cytokines in Juvenile Athletes Submitted to Maximal Intensity Rowing Performance." Journal of Physical Therapy Science 26.8 (2014): 1241-1246.
• Ostrowski, Kenneth, et al. "Chemokines are elevated in plasma after strenuous exercise in humans." European journal of applied physiology 84.3 (2001): 244-245.
• Roth, Erich, et al. "Regulative potential of glutamine—relation to glutathione metabolism." Nutrition 18.3 (2002): 217-221.

2-3g of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) Slam the Brake on Muscle Damage and Hit the Gas Paddle on Muscle Growth, Race Performance & Fat Loss in Elite Canoeists

With their intense strength + endurance training in the pre-contest phase canoeists may be among those athletes who benefit most from the muscle protectant anti-catabolic advantage of HMB.

It's funny how the leucine metabolite β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) disappeared into oblivion in the early 2000s, only to rise like Phoenix from the ashes, now that the 21st century is in its teenage years (Thomson. 2009; Wilson. 2013a,b) From previous SuppVersity news (read more about HMB), you know that β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate has slightly less pronounced anabolic, yet better anti-catabolic effects than its precursor leucine. You may also remember that many of the studies with beneficial outcome have been conducted on elderly or sick subjects (e.g. May. 2002; Vukovich. 2001) and that these studies showed (more or less across the board) favorable effects that could not be replicated in younger and/or trained subjects (e.g. Slater. 2001).

Now, despite the fact that it seems logical that HMB would have a greater "muscle building effect" for those of us who are - due to their age or other confounding factors - more prone to muscle protein catabolism than for someone like a competing elite canoeist in the strength phase of his seasonal training cycle - or, without further beating around the bush, the average 78.5kg, 11% body fat male participant of a study, the results of which have recently been published in the online edition of the Journal of Exercise Physiology (Ferreira. 2013).   

"Old school", but neither out-of-date nor "for the oldies only"

To "determine whether HMB supplementation at 37.5 mg·kg/d during intense endurance training affects markers of catabolism, body composition, and sports performance in kayak athletes’ high performance sprints" (Ferreira. 2013), the scientists from the Laboratory Cell Metabolism (LABMETAB) and the Laboratory Motor Behavior at the Federal University of Parana in Curiba, Brazil, randomized their 20 subjects to receive either a placebo (n = 6) or the active treatment dose of 37.5 mg·kg (2.5-3.0g; depending on body weight) "classic" powdered calcium HMB per day during the six strength training weeks of their prep. To minimize any non-supplementation-related influences, ...

HMB & leucine could also help you shed fat & live longer (learn more)

"[a]ll meals were kept under strict control by the nutritionist. None of the subjects was allowed the use of creatine and/or beta-agonists for at least 8 wks prior to the study. [Furthermore, a]ll subjects (i.e., athletes) were instructed to not ingest other dietary supplements with ergogenic effects during the study." (Ferreiara. 2013)

As the data in figure 1 goes to show you, the use of the supplement, which was to be taken in three seperate doses equally spread across the day (morning, afternoon, and evening), had statistical significant effects on the the results of the subjects’ training sessions.

Training like the "pros": Frequent high volume training

The workloads of the latter had been individualized and averaged ~ 6 hr/wk of resistance training (1 to 3 sets of 2 to 8 repetitions at intensities ranging from 80 to 95% of 1 RM) on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday plus 10 hr//wk of specific sprint technique training in the boat. Overall, the subjects were thus training two times a day for a total of 11 training sessions a week (bear that in mind, because it will be important in the bottom line). All trainings sessions ha been conducted under the supervision of certified coaches by CBC and subjects who missed a training session were required to make them up in accordance with the procedures of the study.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition, blood lipids, race performance, creatine kinase (CK), lactate dihydrogenase and creatinine (Ferreira. 2013)

 All subjects underwent monthly testing of venous blood samples, body composition analysis, and specific testing for performance in the water (boat) in the course of which the scientists observed that the paddlers in the HMB group showed...

• significantly more pronounced improvements in body composition than the subjects who had been randomized to the placebo group (-10.26% reduction in body fat % vs. +0.21% in the placebo group), and
• likewise highly significant -34.4% decreases in the skeletal muscle specific iso-form of the "muscle damage gauge" creatine kinase (CK-MM; -34.44% vs. + 40.42% in the placebo and
• pronounced reductions in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; -20.92% vs. -1% in the placebo group), as well as

Moreover, the race-times of the participants in the active arm of the study improved by 2%, while the elite paddlers who consumed the placebo supplement increased their race-performance by only 1%

---

The green dots on the left and right of the blue myonuclei are satellite cells that thrive on high(er) volume routines (learn more)

Bottom line: The overall image that emerges is clear. β-Hydroxy-β-Melthylbutyrate (HMB) works! And the improvements the Brazilian researchers observed in their 20 highly trained subjects were so pronounced that there is no debating with their conclusion that the "improvement in strength and development of muscular hypertrophy [may help] not only athletes but the general population".

For us, all devoted trainees who are well-versed in the previous literature on HMB, the most important conclusion to be drawn is yet that the early Y2K "muscle builder of the elderly" works for everyone, if - an this is the hypothetical part of the conclusion - the training regimen is intense enough to generate similar muscle damage as the relatively low volume, medium intensity resistance training protocols that were used in previous studies with older and mostly untrained subjects (e.g. Baier. 2009).

Whether training twice a day and 10+ times a week is the way to go for everyone, does still remain questionable. After all, the fundamental rule that you cannot 'out-supplement' insufficient regeneration is still valid (learn more). This is particularly true in view of the fact that the majority of trainees is not as well-conditioned as the elite athletes in the study at hand. This does yet also mean that they will suffer similar eustress from lower volume / intensity / density workouts and could still benefit from 2-3g of HMB... I am yet still waiting for study to investigate how significant this effect is, when the subjects already use a pre-/post workout protein supplementation strategy as outlined in yesterday's post, but alas - this is no research request program.

References:

• Baier S, Johannsen D, Abumrad N, Rathmacher JA, Nissen S, Flakoll P. Year-long changes in protein metabolism in elderly men and women supplemented with a nutrition cocktail of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB), L-arginine, and L-lysine. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009 Jan-Feb;33(1):71-82. 
• Ferreira HR, Rodacki ALF, Gill P, Tanhoffer R, Filho JF, Cláudio L.The Effects of Supplementation of β-Hydroxy-β-Melthylbutyrate on Inflammatory Markers in High Performance Athletes. Journal of Exercise Physiology. 2013; 2:53-63.
• May PE, Barber A, D'Olimpio JT, Hourihane A, Abumrad NN. Reversal of cancer-related wasting using oral supplementation with a combination of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate, arginine, and glutamine. Am J Surg. 2002 Apr;183(4):471-9.
• Slater G, Jenkins D, Logan P, Lee H, Vukovich M, Rathmacher JA, Hahn AG. Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation does not affect changes in strength or body composition during resistance training in trained men. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001 Sep;11(3):384-96. 
• Slater GJ, Jenkins D. Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation and the promotion of muscle growth and strength. Sports Med. 2000 Aug;30(2):105-16. 
• Thomson JS, Watson PE, Rowlands DS. Effects of nine weeks of beta-hydroxy-beta- methylbutyrate supplementation on strength and body composition in resistance trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 May;23(3):827-35. 
• Vukovich MD, Stubbs NB, Bohlken RM. Body composition in 70-year-old adults responds to dietary beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate similarly to that of young adults. J Nutr. 2001 Jul;131(7):2049-52.
• Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Joy JM, Walters JA, Baier SM, Fuller JC, Stout JR, Norton LE, Sikorski EM, Wilson SM, Duncan NM, Zanchi NE, Rathmacher J. β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate free acid reduces markers of exercise-induced muscle damage and improves recovery in resistance-trained men. Br J Nutr. 2013a Jan 3:1-7.
• Wilson JM, Fitschen PJ, Campbell B, Wilson GJ, Zanchi N, Taylor L, Wilborn C, Kalman DS, Stout JR, Hoffman JR, Ziegenfuss TN, Lopez HL, Kreider RB, Smith-Ryan AE, Antonio J. International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB). J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2013b Feb 2;10(1):6.

Does the Usefulness of Vitamin E Supplementation Depend on Your Activity Level? Profound Decreases in Baseline and Peak Exercise Induced DNA Damage Would Suggest So

Image 1: If you are an athlete, let's say a competitive rower who trains 3+h per day, it appears as if 400IU of vitamin E would be nothing, but beneficial. If you are a couch potato, though, even that may hamper the small hormetic response you get from taking the stairs once a week ;-)

I don't know if you do remember, but it is actually not all too long ago that vitamin E was what vitamin D is know: The highly celebrated non-pharmacological savior of the ailing human race. Cancer? Heart disease? Diabetes? Alpha-tocopherol, which proved to be the most potent anti-oxidant in the tocopherol family, would solve all your problems and with its ability to "scavenge" the bad "free radicals" (sounds like a story from the Brother's Grimm, doesn't it?) it would also prolong your life-expectancy. After all, those mischievous reactive oxygen species were the primary drivers of the aging process... well, today we know better. Supplemental vitamin E alone does neither prevent nor cure any of the diseases of the civilization. And the "free radical theory of aging" has come under fire, as of late (cf. previous blogspots on hormesis).

Vitamin E - fallen angel or an angelic demon!?

After being disregarded by the disappointed lay-press for years, vitamin E has gotten quite a bad rep, as of late. "Journalists" claimed that scientists had found that instead of offering protection, supplemental vitamin E (+selenium) would actually increase the risk of developing cancer. Those of you who have been following my posts for more than the last two weeks, will yet probably remember that this was a similarly single-sided presentation of intrinsically questionable epidemiological data, as the latest upheaval about the life-shortening effects of multi-vitamin pills (cf. "Vitamin E & Cancer?" & "Is Your Multi Killing You?").

In view of the emerging image of the critical role of "inflammation" in the highly beneficial adaptive response to exercise, it may yet still be worth to re-evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of vitamin E supplementation. If we temporarily disregard the discussion that revolves around the use of natural vs. synthetic and isolated vs. complex forms (I would always recommend using a natural supplement with alpha-, gamma- and delta-tocopherol), and focus on the athletic or at least physically active population who is leading an otherwise relatively healthy lifestyle (whatever that may be ;-), we could probably narrow this complex issue down to the question whether or not, and in which contexts, the use of vitamin E to sooth down overall inflammation could turn out to be advantageous.

Sedentary or trained. Does it make a difference?

The first of two pertinent studies, which resurrected my personal interest into this topic has been conducted at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland (Debski. 2012). It is a 10-day rodent study in which 27 of the 54 vitamin-E deprived young male Wistar rats that were maintained on diets with 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 4.0 mg of alpha-tocopherol (as alpha-tocopherol acetate) per day, had to run on one of those funky rodent treadmills for 15 minutes a day, while the rest of the rats led their usual "sedentary" lives. The intention of the study was to elicit the effect of physical exercise on the vitamin E status and requirements of mammals and its downstream effects on insulin levels - both are issues which would obviously be important for any aspiring physical culturist, as well, since previous research has shown that low alpha-tocopherol levels impair the beneficial effects of physical activity on blood glucose management. On the other hand, you will probably remember my previous blogposts on the research of two German scientists, which suggests that very high doses of anti-oxidants could be similarly detrimental, as they could potentially impair the hormetic response to exercise / stress (cf. "Are You Stressed Enough?" and "Update on Antioxidants and Exercise").

Figure 1: Plasma vitamin E levels (in mg/L) in previously vitamin E deprived rats after 10 days on diets containing 0, 0.5, 1.0 and 4.0mg of alpha-tocopherol acetate (left) and relative change vs. baseline (left; data adapted from Debski. 2012)

If you take a closer look at the differential effects the four different amounts of supplemental vitamin E had on the alpha-tocopherol concentration in the plasma of the lab animals, you may be surprised that despite an initially greater response in the sedentary rodents, the exercised rodents exhibited a more favorable response to the highest doses of vitamin E (4mg for a rat ~1200IU for a human). Although the overall effect of exercise on the plasma level was non-significant (the amount of vitamin E in the diet was the critical determinant), the greater "vitamin E capacity" of the exercised rats could in itself be a "hormetic" response to the low grade stress. And - and this is certainly the data you are waiting for - the beneficial effects on insulin levels were present in all groups, including the high as well as the no supplementation group.

So, vitamin E is not harmful, but useless?

In isolation, the results of the Debski study would thusly support the hypothesis that the beneficial, as well as the potential detrimental effects of vitamin E, which were perpetuated by the lay-press, as of late, are largely overblown. That vitamin E was basically useless... well, if you are a rat, running on a treadmill for 15 minutes a day (which I would say is probably less "exercise" than a natural rat is "supposed to have" < attention: paleo reasoning at work ;-) that may well be the case. If you are a competitive athlete who trains 3-3.5h per day, like the rowers in a study which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Toxicology, things may be different, however (Sardas. 2012).

Semra Sardas and her (?) colleagues obviously had a similar question in mind when they conducted a study to assess the potentially differential and hopefully beneficial effects of two months (note: for this kind of studies this is a very long and thusly meaningful study period!) of 400IU/day of supplemental alpha-tocopherol on the exercise induced DNA-damage in "recreational active" individuals (physical education students; >1h of exercise min. 2x/week) and the aforementioned competitive rowers.

Figure 2: Relative change in DNA-damage in response to 60 days on 400IU/day vitamin E in competitive rowers (highly trained athletes) and physical education students ("active individuals"; data calculated based on Sardas. 2012)

If you take a look at the relative change in DNA-damage (comparing the pre- vs. post-supplementation period) subsequent to a standardized exercise test (high intensity for the rowers, medium intensity for the students) which was performed at the beginning and the end of the 60-day study period, the first thing that will probably catch your eye are the statistically significant decreases in baseline (pre-exercise) and peak (post exercise) DNA damage in both groups. What may appear to as if it was a source of concern, though is that the relative increase in DNA damage to the acute exercise bout in the rowers was more pronounced after, than before the intervention period.

In view of the fact that the total DNA damage was yet still -9% and thusly statistically significantly reduced, it does not appear likely this would be a consequence of an inadequate ability to adapt to stressors... it is rather a consequence of the profoundly (-25%) reduced baseline DNA-damage, which in itself would suggest that especially highly trained athletes should not discard the potential benefits at least moderate doses of vitamin E could have on their overall health - even if there are no noticeable short-term effects in terms of improved body composition and / or performance... always remember: You are in this for a life-time!

6,000IU/Day of Vitamin D3 "Could" Trigger Improvements in Aerobic Metabolism & Performance in Professional Rowers

The study at hand was conducted with liquid vitamin D. Sincecaps and pills increase OHD levels effectively, it's yet unlikely that this explains the differences to other less successfull trials.

Zbigniew Jastrzebski from the Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport found in his latest study that the provision of 6,000IU vitamin D3 per day did not just increase the levels of vitamin D3 in the blood of 14 elite light weight rowers by 400%, but "could be the reason for the improvement of aerobic metabolism in the rowers and reduction of their inflammatory reactions in response to the high-intensity training" (Jastrzebski. 2014).

I know that sounds kind of awkward without knowing what exactly the Polish scientists did. This is why I am going to give you a few more details below.

There are many ways to get your vitamin D learn more the SuppVersity

How Much To Take?

Leucine, Insulin & Vitamin D

Vit. D Speeds Up Recovery

Overlooked D-Sources

Vitamin D For Athletes!

Vitamin D Helps Store Fat

The experiment started on Mondays’ morning. The participants’ blood was taken from the cubital vein. Blood cell count, ASPAT, ALAT, GGTP, LDH, CK, total cholesterol, lipid profile (HDL, TGL, LDL), creatinine, phosphates, calcium salts, electrolytes (natrium, potassium, chloride) and the vitamin 25OHD (=vitamin D) content in blood were determined. In addition the scientists determined the total antioxidative status and the levels of lactic acid, the heart rate (HR), O2 uptake and kinetics as well as the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) in all subjects before and after 12 week supplementation with 6,000IU of liquid vitamin D3 (Vigantol) or identical placebo drops during and after a standardized graded exercise test on a Concept II rowing ergometer.

The same was true for most of the effects of the exercise regimen, which lead to significant increase in liver enzymes AspAT (asparagine aminotransferase), GGTP (gamma-glutamyltransferase) and LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) which suggest that the applied training program, after its completion, improved the function of some organs such as liver, heart or kidneys - with slightly greater increases in enzymes activity in the vitamin D group.

Figure 1: The vitamin D supplement added to the seasonal increase in vitamin D levels and increase the total antioxidant capacity of the rowers (Jastrzebski. 2014).

Significant increases in vitamin D were observed in both groups. In the non-supplemented group due to seasonal variation in the vitamin D group due to season variation and supplementation, which kicked the levels up to 120ng/ml which is more than 2x higher than "normal" (no, in the study at hand there were no side effects). Only in the former the scientists observed a corresponding, albeit non-significant increase in total antioxidant capacity, though.

In some, but not all subjects these changes went hand in hand with higher results of power and oxygen consumption obtained during a continuous graded exercise test in the vitamin D group. At the same time their blood parameters such as IL-1b, CRP, LDH reached lower values. As the author points out, "[t]he results suggest that vitamin D3, whose concentration in blood increased by 400% in GS as a result of supplementation, could be the reason for the improvement of aerobic metabolism in the rowers and reduction of their inflammatory reactions in response to the high-intensity training" (Jastrzebski. 2014) - a result that is quite surprising given the fact that the athletes were, unlike the subjects in previous studies with beneficial results, not vitamin D deficient at the onset of the study.

Vitamin D3 Supplementation for Older Men & Women Done Right: Dietary Fat Can Increase the Bioavailability by 30% | read more

Bottom line: This is one of the few studies that show relevant improvements in performance markers in non-D-fecient athletes with vitamin D supplementations. It's also the first study I see that used (a) really high doses of vitamin D (6,000 IU/day), (b) vitamin D drops instead of pills, and (c) the high intensity rowing as litmus test. Whether (a), (b) and / or (c) are the underlying reason of the benefits and explain the difference to previous studies like Dubnov-Raz et al. (2014) who did not find performance increases despite increased vitamin D levels in response to the provision of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 in vitamin D deficient (!) adolescent simmers, remains to be elucidated | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Dubnov-Raz, G., et al. "Vitamin D Supplementation and Physical Performance in Adolescent Swimmers." International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism (2014).
• Jastrzębski, Zbigniew. "Effect Of Vitamin D Supplementation On The Level Of Physical Fitness And Blood Parameters Of Rowers During The 8-Week High Intensity Training." Analele Universităţii din Oradea Facicula Educaţie Fizică şi Sport 2 (2014): 57 - 67