Weight Loss Program for Health: super slow

Showing posts with label super slow. Show all posts

Time Under Tension (TUT) Another Under-Appreciated Determinant of the Protein Synthetic Response to Exercise?

Image 1: Is it really time to buy some revolutionary new exercise equipment to time your time under tension? Or should you keep pumping away like there was no tomorrow?

If you have been following the SuppVersity news for some time now, you know that I am a "fan" of the research Stuart Phillips and his colleagues at the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, are doing. Before I get to some details on their latest coup, I must yet express some concerns about Phillips' focus on immediate changes protein synthesis. Yes, amino acid ingestion and particularly leucine increase protein synthesis, yes, bolus ingestion of whey protein increases protein synthesis over sipping and yes, training with low loads (30%) and slow reps, as in the study at hand, increases protein synthesis,... but hey. Do you really give a damn about protein synthesis? No, you don't. Either you want to gain muscle or you want to get stronger and exactly here I am missing a link that would connect the short-term increases in the protein synthetic response to exercise Phillips and his colleagues are investigating in one study after the other and the long(er)-term real-world outcomes in terms of muscle size and strength gains.

Wait! Is protein synthesis really that important?

I will probably touch on this issue in tomorrow's installment of the Intermittent Thoughts, as well, so let me just say this: Muscle protein synthesis is only one out of two (maybe three processes) and probably not even the most important one, when your goals are getting really big or really strong. I mean, if increasing protein synthesis was all it would take to get as buffed as Phil Heath and as strong as Derek Poundstone, everyone would be training like a sissy (like in this study), take his BCAAs and whey protein and see amazing results... but I am once again getting off a tangent here, and as I already said, you will read more on that here at the SuppVersity in the future. So, for the time being, let's get back to the time under tension, i.e. the exact number of seconds your muscles are actually working (meaning contracting) during a given set.

Figure 1: Basic outline of the study first and second testing session (based on Burd. 2011)

For their most recent study Nicholas A. Burd et al. recruited 8 recreationally resistance-trained men (23.5 ± 1 years; 88.3 ± 5 kg; BMI=26.5 ± 1.0 kg/m²) who had performed lower body resistance exercise training with a frequency of at least 2x/week in the course of the last 2 years prior to the study [note: this certainly is a huge plus of the study, because we all know that you can have a newbie do nothing but climb stairs and he will still grow ;-] The individual one rep-max for leg-extensions was accessed once prior to the infusion trial (105kg right, 101kg left leg) and dietary intakes were recorded prior to both the resting and the exercise infusion trials, in the course of which the participants reported to the lab fasted (at 7am) before a catheter for the tracer infusion was inserted into their arm and a first (fasted) muscle biopsy was taken from their legs (3.5h after reporting to the lab).

Participants subsequently performed bouts of unilateral leg extension exercise at 30% of
their previously established concentric 1RM. Legs were randomized and balanced for dominance based on maximal strength to perform exercise at a slow lifting (SLOW) or an external work-matched control (CTL) conditions. The leg assigned to the SLOW condition performed exercise with a lifting/lowering cadence of 6 s concentric phase and a 6 s eccentric phase with no pauses until volitional fatigue (i.e. failure). Failure was defined as the point at which the participant could not lift through the full range or their technique to lift the load included motions at joints other than the knee. The CTL condition was completed with the contralateral leg and was matched to the experimental condition for contraction volume such that the leg performed an identical number of repetitions at an equivalent load, but not to failure, and was performed with a lifting cadence of 1 s concentric phase and a 1 s eccentric phase.

The participants performed a total of 3 sets with 2 minutes of rest between the sets for each condition. Lifting cadence was monitored by an instructor and by the use of a metronome. Moreover, the exact knee-joint angles were recorded by the means of a goniometer. After a subsequent 2nd blood sample was taken, all participants consumed 20g of whey protein isolate. 6h after, a 2nd bilateral biopsy was taken and the participants were fed a standard cafeteria meal. For the rest of the day they were advised to follow a diet that would mirror their previously recorded food intake, with the last meal being consumed before 22h, "to ensure a 10 h fast prior to the beginning of the 24 h post-exercise protein synthesis measurement", which took place the next morning after the consumption of another 20g of a tracer-enriched whey protein supplement.

Figure 2: Fractional protein synthesis (in % per hour) - left; and relative differences in protein synthesis of slow vs. ctrl condition - right (based on Burd. 2011)

The data in figure 2 clearly shows that going to failure (and this is what I consider even more important than time under tension when training with sissy 30%1RM loads) produces profound (compare the relative increases in the smaller graph on the upper right corner) increases in fractional protein synthesis, which are, in the time-window right after the exercise bout, particularly pronounced in the mitochondrial and sarcoplasmic compartment of the muscle. In this regard, Burd et al. point out that

[w]hat we observed here was a potentiated effect, from that seen in the fasted-state, of prior exercise in enhancing the feeding-induced myofibrillar protein synthetic rates. This effect appears to be dependent on maximal fibre activation during exercise, [...] The current study is noteworthy in that an enhanced effect of protein feeding during late exercise recovery was induced by a longer time under muscle tension rather than intensity-independent contraction volume, which we have previously examined (Burd. 2010).

As far as the delay in the normally immediate increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis is concerned, the researchers speculate that both the timing of the biopsies, as well as the training status of the subjects and the specificity of their protocol about which they state that with its long loading times at relatively low intensities it must have shifted the protein (immediate) myofibrillar protein synthetic response "toward increased synthesis of proteins in the mitochondrial and sarcoplasmic pools" (cf. figure 2) - a process the underlying causes and mechanisms of which are yet unclear.

Why would you change a winning team?

Image 2: When it comes to SST and all the other training types from the alphabet soup, I alway wonder why people keep questioning what has worked well for the majority of bodybuilders and athletes, they are looking up to and whose physiques they are admiring!?

Actually this observation takes us full circle to my introductory remarks on the possible short-sightedness of measuring acute fractional protein synthesis. After all, what we are seeing here is rather the response we would expect as a consequence to a rather endurance-oriented exercise regimen. Whether the latter would entail the "size" (and strength) gains everyone currently associates with the magic words "increases in protein synthesis" remains thusly highly questionable.

This is particularly true if we take into account the results of another pretty recent study be Eonho Kim et al. (Kim. 2011), which found that an even slower (10s concentric, 10s eccentric) training protocol at 50% or the 1RM led to greater increases in flexibility but highly variable and overall lower strength gains than a traditional protocol with (4s total TUT at 80%RM) in college-aged women. This basically confirms what previous studies by Keeler et al. (+39% in traditional, only +15% in slow training; Keeler. 2001) have already established: (Super) Slow Training works, but it does not work as well classic resistance training.

And no matter whether you train slow or fast - in the end, intensity will always be determined by a matrix of loads, volume, TUT and training density and I doubt we will see a study that controls for all this variables even in the remote future (and if that happens you know that the SuppVersity is the place where you will read about it, first) - so the best thing you can do, is to rely on what worked for generations of physical culturists and that was definitely not training with 6s concentric and 6s eccentric reps ;-)

Classic Beats Super Slow; Single 198 Second Sprint More Time Efficient Than Work-Matched HIIT; Exercise Better Than THC; Metformin + Cardio + Lifting = Anti-Obesity Triplet; Self-Efficiacy & Training Adherence - Plus: More!

This is just a random selection of the unlimited movement patterns your body has been designed to execute - don't make the mistake and rely on only one of them!

The amount of really interesting, let alone revolutionary new studies on the effects of different exercise modalities is not exactly high, to say the least. I am not quite sure, what the reasons are, but as I have stated before, part of it certainly is that you cannot monetize on the results by producing patentable drugs based on your findings and will thus have a hard time to find sponsors / get funding. It is therefore no wonder that many published papers are spin-offs of small scale trials that have been conducted as part of dissertations. Others simply use rodent models, which may provide relatively reliable data, when it comes to the effects of running on a treadmill, but are not exactly what I would want to see, when it comes to weight lifting or any other of the myriad complex movement patterns our bodies can, but these days way too often don't do.

I have nevertheless been able to compile another potpourri of studies of which I would hope that one or the other will enlighten or at least entertain you. That being said, let's get started with this weeks installment of the Exercise Science Special of "On Short Notice", here at the SuppVersity...

HIT it short, hit it hard, hit the glucose and be smart! Yo, this awesome rhyme would be my advice to the very busy chubby manager-types with compromised insulin sensitivity out there and it's based on the results of a very recent study by scientists from the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences at the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences of the University of Glasgow in the UK (Whyte. 2012)

Figure 1: Power, workload (top) and metabolic effects of SIT and ES regimen (vs. control; bottom)

When Laura J. Whyte and her colleagues compared the effects of the single bout of very high-intensity exercise (SIT: 4x 30-s maximal sprints w/ 4.5min recovery between each) to a single maximal extended sprint (ES) matched with SIT for work done, they found that the immediate advantage of higher insulin sensitivity (measured via oral glucose tolerance test) in the work-matched continuous sprint the shorter duration 190s (TOTAL!) as well as almost identical...

decreases is RER and carbohydrate oxitation, and
increases in fatty acid oxidation

on the day after the exercise bout, in the presence of statistically significant reductions in insulin sensitivity only after the ES trial.

In other words: A single all out sprint on a braked cycle ergometer (as fast as you can; with obviously decreasing power in the course o the sprint) elicits greater metabolic effects within a 85% shorter timespan (198s vs. 1360s!), than work-matched classic HIIT training, with allegedly very long periods of active recovery.

That being said, I strongly caution against taking the results of this study as an incentive to perform the classic "go as fast as you can, for as long as you can" HIT sessions on exercise bikes, treadmills or ellipticals - those SUCK! *full stop* Be smart and either perform that one 3min sprint (if you really have no more time), or modify your HIIT training to incorporate longer high intensity phases (45-90s) at a work to active recovery ratio of 1:3 - 1:2, so that a resulting workout could look like that 4x 60s sprints, interspersed by 120s of active recovery. I would bet money that this protocol outperforms a work-matched continuous sprint in terms of its immediate and long-term metabolic effects.

Opioid-like effects of exercise depend on intensity I guess you will be familiar with the term "runner's high"? Now, while the latter is usually ascribed to the exercise induced release of serotonin, the improved affect, the sense of well-being, the anxiety lowering and calming effects of exercise are probably mediated by the release of endocannaboids, of which scientists from the University of Arizona, the University of Texas Health Science Center and the Eckert College in St. Petersburg, Florida, have recently shown that the levels of these endogenous THC-like compounds depends on the intensity of the workout (Raichlen. 2012).

Liar, liar, THC junkie on fire ;-) You don't need to smoke weed before a workout if you get the intensity right! But could exercise also help people who recover from major depression to battle their tendency to obsess with negative thoughts and feelings?

At least in the 10 healthy regular runners who participated in the study, the results of which have been published in the Journal of Applied Physiology the endocannaboid exercise induced increase in circulating anandamide was most pronounced (~2x), when the subjects exercised at ~72% of their maximal heart rate (the workout consisted of 30min of treadmill walking, jogging, running at 45, 72, 83, and 92% of their maximal heart rate). Moreover, the post hoc analysis of the blood samples that had been immediately before and after the workout revealed that exercising at both the lowest and highest intensities had the exact opposite effect, although the reductions in serum anandamide were - when considered in isolation - were not statistically significant.

In conjunction with the results of another recent study that has been conducted at the Stanford University, it becomes evident that these results could actually be more than just "scientific masturbation", so to say. The Stanford researchers compared the reactions of 41 female patients who had recovered from major depressive disorder (MDD) and those of 40 healthy control, both of whom had been randomly assigned to either exercise for 15 minutes or quiet rest, to two sad mood inductions (once before and once after exercise or rest) and found that

"[while r]ecovered depressed participants who had not exercised exhibited higher NA [neagtive affect] after the second sad mood induction [...], both recovered depressed participants who had engaged in acute exercise and healthy control participants showed no increase in NA in response to the repeated sad mood induction." (Hogan .2012)

A reaction that goes against the so-called sensitization effect, which describes the tendency of depressed people (or people with a propensity to develop depression) to react with an increased level of negative effect to a repeated negative stimulus (Eisenstein. 2001) and would thus predict an increase in negative affect in response to the second stimulus as it was observed in the non-exercise group (figure 2, red box).

Figure 2: Negative and positive affect after 1st and second sad mood induction (left) and before and after exercise (right), respectively, in 41 female patients who had recovered from major depressive disorder (data from Hogan. 2012)

Moreover, the 15 minutes of exercise at an intensity the participant felt comfortable with led to an increase in positive affect participants in the exercise groups after the exercise bout, but failed to produce the same beneficial effect on the positive affect in the subsequent double-exposure to the filmic sad mood stimuli:

"However, in contrast to our hypothesis, we did not find any interaction between exercise condition and diagnostic group in level of reported PA following the repeated sad mood inductions that would be consistent with the notion of sensitization or habituation." (Hogan. 2012)

And who knows, if the exercise intensity had been higher, so that there had been more anandamide and other endocannaboids floating around in the brains of the study participants, this could even have changed the positive affect trajectory from the first to the second filmic sad mood induction? "Yo, that's so sad... hahaha" ;-)

Image 1: Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima fatty rats (OLETF, right) have a genetic disposition to develop type II diabetes.

When metformin is good for the obese (pre-)diabetic and exercise is good, as well, metformin + exercise cannot be bad, right? At least in OLETF rats, one of the common rodent models of the metabolic syndrome, this assumption appears to apply (Jenkins. 2012).

According to the recently published paper by Nathan T. Jenkins and his colleagues, metformin and exercise do in fact work synergistically - at least as far as the obesity induced inflammation is concerned. While metformin decreased the pro-inflammatory overexpression of leptin, the rodents that have been exposed to an endurance type exercise regimen exhibited higher levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10, which limit and ultimately terminate inflammatory responses (Moore. 2001).

Not just in view of the fact that IL-10 has also been implicated in the prevention and even treatment of auto-immune diseases, such as lupus erythematosus and multiple sclerosis (Beebe. 2002), I would always choose exercise over metformin - this is all the more true, if you are not morbidly obese in the first place!

And if you want to go even one step further, you simply add couple of interval sprints to the equation as those have been shown - in the same rodent model, by the way - to elicit greater improvements in HbA1c, the long-term marker of glucose management that "classic" steady state endurance exercise (Martin. 2012). Since the latter were mediated via differential microvascular changes than those Martin et al. observed in endurance trained OLETF rats, it is furthermore almost certain that they will add up. Probably not 1+1, but 1.5 and even 1.1 would still be better than 1.0, wouldn't it?

The lack of the feeling of self-efficacy is one of the best predictors of not sticking to a workout routine. And you know what? Oftentimes it's not your your, Joe or Jane who is to blame, but simply their cookie-cutter trainer or unqualified cousin who's dragging them to the gym. Now, think about that... could it be that you are a cousin / trainer like that!? No way, right?

A feeling of accomplishment is one of the main determinants of exercise compliance Have you ever wanted why you really enjoy going to the gym, while your obese cousin will only drag his ass over there if you kick him into the latter? Well, according to the latest study from the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing and Division of Cardiology at the The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, it may in fact be you and not Joe or whatever his name is, who is to blame. Probably you are just having him copy what you do, with either way too much weight, or so little weigh that he does not just feel bad about it, but cannot make real progress either (Nam. 2012).

The scientists call that which Joe is lacking a feeling of "self-effiacy", when he is going to the gym training next to his 75lbs lighter cousin, lifting sissy weights and looking like a fat balloon.

No wonder he is falling off the wagon! Specifically, if you also take into consideration that in addition to the missing feeling of accomplishment, which increases his chance of non-compliancy by 19%, Joe also exhibits most of the other features Nam et al. have found to increase the chance of dropping out, specifically,

low fitness - 26% increased chance of dropout and
higher insulin resistance - 17% increased chance of dropout,

in the course of their experiment with 140 overweight, sedentary individuals with type II diabetes, who were randomly allocated to a 6-month, 3 times per week exercise intervention or a non-exercise control. And while bodyfatness, i.e. a higher total and subcutaneous abdominal fat percentage appeared to be indicators of higher compliance, when the scientists just looked at the raw data, these positive effects vanished, when they plied a multiple logical regression analysis.

So what's the take home message, here? Cousin or not, people won't do well on cookie cutter plans that won't allow them to make, see and feel progress.

Isn't it astonishing how versatile and important these stem cells from the bone marrow are (image NIH. 2001)

1h of exercise thrice a week increases hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) count in the bone marrow With the almost magic effects of stem cell therapy being on everybody's lips, these days. You will probably be intrigued to hear that researcher from the McMaster University have recently established that a very reasonable amount of 3x 1h of exercise per week increased the quantity of hematopoietic stem cells in the bone marrow of exercised mice by +20% compared to their sedentary peers (de Lisio).

With it's likewise statistically significant effect on the proportion of whole BM cells in G(2)/M phase of cell cycle (p<0.05 and an increase in the number of spleen colonies (+48%, p<0.05) in those "model patients" who received transplants from the exercised compared to transplants from sedentary mice, it is thus likely that people who exercise regularly will benefit from both the quantitative increase, as as well as the qualitative improvements these multipotent stem cells, which give rise to all the blood cell types from the myeloid (monocytes and macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, erythrocytes, megakaryocytes/platelets, dendritic cells), and lymphoid lineages (T-cells, B-cells, NK-cells), undergo in response to a moderate amount of exercise.

Finally acknowledged: "[C]ombination exercise g[ives] greater benefits for weight loss, fat loss and cardio-respiratory fitness than aerobic and resistance training modalities", alone! And this is only the first part of the conclusion of a recently published paper by Suleen S Ho, Satvinder S Dhaliwal, Andrew P Hills and Sebely Pal, who explicitly suggest that

"Therefore, combination exercise training should be recommended for overweight and obese adults in National Physical Activity Guideline" (Ho. 2012)

How the scientists came to that conclusion? Well they could simply have read the SuppVersity news, but instead they conducted a 12-week trial, in the course of which 97 overweight or obese men (n = 16) and women (n = 81) (BMI >25 kg/m² or waist circumference >80 cm for women and 90 cm for men), aged 40 to 66 years, were randomly assigned to a either aerobic, resistance or combined training regimen (n=16 for each) or a sedentary control group (n=15). The results, spoke for themselves.

Figure 3: Changes in body fat (%; top) and VO2Max (bottom) in the course of the 12-week trial (based on Ho. 2012)

In the absence of statistically significant reduction in energy intake, or macronutient composition, the combination subjects in the combination group were the only ones to lose statistically significant amounts of

body weight (-1.6kg),
body fat (-1.9kg or 1% body fat),
android (=visceral) fat (-1.3kg),

had the most pronounced reduction in waist circumference (-2.6% vs. -2.5% in RT and -2.0 in AT) and were the only ones with statistically significant improvements in VO2Max, a marker of general cardiovascular fitness.

Is there maybe more room in your training regimen for slow reps, than you may have thought? If you go by the statement "Slow speed-resistance training induced a greater adaptive response compared to training with a similar resistance at 'normal' speed" from a paper by Mark D. Schuenke and his colleagues from the University of New England, the Rocky Vista University, the College of Health Sciences and Profession and the Ohio-University that was published in the October Issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology (Schuenke. 2012), it would seem so.

If you do however take a closer look at the actual results you realize how important the adjoining qualificatory remark "However, training with a higher intensity at 'normal' speed resulted in the greatest overall muscle fiber response in each of the variables assessed" really is. After all, the "intensity" is per definitionem 20-45% higher in a classic strength training regimen compared to the often laughed at slow-speed resistance training (SS), which was - at least in the study at hand - defined as follows:

SS: 6-10 reps, super-slow (10s) concentric (no typo!) and slow (4s) eccentric TUT, 40-60% of the individual 1-RM

Both the traditional strength training (TS) as well as the strength endurance regimen (TE) to which this protocol was compared used a TUT of 1-2s on the concentric and eccentric phase, but differed in terms of the weight and rep-numbers, which were

TS: 6-10 reps at 80-85% 1-RM
TE: 20-30 reps at 40-60% 1-RM

So, based on the qualificatory remark and a short glimpse on figure 4 you already know that the TS regimen yielded the best results during this 6-week resistance-training program that targeted the quadriceps femoris muscle group, in a total of 17 training sessions (only 2 in the first week), which were supervised to ensure that the 34 young, untrained female participants went to positive failure within the targeted repetition range on all three sets of the three exercises (leg press, squats, and knee extension) they performed after brief warm-up with ~2 min rest between sets and exercises.

Figure 4: Changes in body composition (left) and changes in muscle fiber cross-sectional area (all expressed relative to group baseline; data calculated based on Schuenke. 2012)

What's still missing though is the effect on overall body composition, where the super slow regimen did in fact produce almost identical results, while the "pump" workout ... ah, I mean the "strength endurance workout" sucked here just as it did as far as its effect on the increase in growth the number of hypertrophy-prone type II fibers is concerned.

So what's the take home message here? If you want some diversity, you can incorporate super slow sets into your regimen... but do you have to? At least based on the results of the study at hand, which was unfortunately conducted with untrained young women (who by the way love this alternative training styles) and is therefore not exactly representative for the average advanced trainee, the answer is "rather not, no!"

What neither the advanced nor the rookie who is striving to improve his or her body composition should do, however, is to train in the hilarious strength endurance range of 20-30 reps per set. If you want to build muscular endurance you either go out sprinting, beat the punching bag or do plyometrics.

As I know you, you still want more, hah? Well, too much volume is not good for you and in case you cannot wait until next week, there will be some intriguing exercise news in the days to come, probably more on the SuppVersity Science Round-Up with Carl Lanore, on the Super Human Radio Network on Thursday, this week and obviously every day on the SuppVersity Facebook Wall @ www.facebook.com/SuppVersity - like it and always be the first to now!

References:

Beebe AM, Cua DJ, de Waal Malefyt R. The role of interleukin-10 in autoimmune disease: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2002 Aug-Oct;13(4-5):403-12.
Eisenstein, E. M., Eisenstein, D., & Smith, J. C. The evolutionary significance of habituation and sensitization across phylogeny: A behavioral homeostasis model. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science. 2001; 36, 251–265.
Ho SS, Dhaliwal SS, Hills AP, Pal S. The effect of 12 weeks of aerobic, resistance or combination exercise training on cardiovascular risk factors in the overweight and obese in a randomized trial. BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 28;12(1):704.
Jenkins NT, Padilla J, Arce-Esquivel AA, Bayless DS, Martin JS, Leidy HJ, Booth FW, Rector RS, Laughlin MH. Effects of Endurance Exercise Training, Metformin, and their Combination on Adipose Tissue Leptin and IL-10 Secretion in OLETF Rats. J Appl Physiol. 2012 Sep 27.
de Lisio M, Parise G. Characterization of the Effects of Exercise Training on Hematopoietic Stem Cell Quantity and Function. J Appl Physiol. 2012 Sep 27.
Martin JS, Padilla J, Jenkins NT, Crissey JM, Bender SB, Rector RS, Thyfault JP, Laughlin MH. Functional adaptations in the skeletal muscle microvasculature to endurance and interval sprint training in the type 2 diabetic OLETF rat. J Appl Physiol. 2012 Aug 23.
Moore KW, de Waal Malefyt R, Coffman RL, O'Garra A. Interleukin-10 and the interleukin-10 receptor. Annu Rev Immunol. 2001;19:683-765.
Nam S, Dobrosielski DA, Stewart KJ. Predictors of Exercise Intervention Dropout in Sedentary Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2012 Sep 24.
National Institute of Health (NIH). Stem Cell Information Webpage. June 17, 2001. < https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/2001report/chapter4.asp > retrieved on Oct 01, 2012.
Raichlen DA, Foster AD, Seillier A, Giuffrida A, Gerdeman GL. Exercise-induced endocannabinoid signaling is modulated by intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Sep 19.
Whyte LJ, Ferguson C, Wilson J, Scott RA, Gill JM. Effects of single bout of very high-intensity exercise on metabolic health biomarkers in overweight/obese sedentary men. Metabolism. 2012 Sep 19.

Slow Down to Build Up? 4x Higher Growth Hormone After Slow (4s) Eccentric Biceps Curls, But What's It Worth?

Fast or slow for eccentric biceps curls? Is that a question of faith or can science provide us with an adequate answer?

"What the ****? Training slow is for pussies!" Ok, admittedly the subjects in the study today's SuppVersity article is going to deal with were ladies (obviously no pussies), but I do not need a study, to tell you that the "pussy" training can hurt significantly more than the "bro" version that usually ends in ballistic movements that are meant to impress the male and female "pussies" at the gym and will yield astonishing increases in trap-size from "bicep curls". Now, I am digressing from the topic at hand, which is: Does it just hurt or does it also work? What? Ah, yeah... I am talking about training at a slow velocity. Eccentric training to be specific. Exactly the kind of training researchers from the ), State University of Campinas have investigated in their latest experiment (Libardi. 2013).

Fast or slow, what's the way to go?

What did the workout look like? Subjects performed ﬁve sets of six maximal eccentric contractions of the elbows ﬂexors with the non-dominant arm on an isokinetic dynamometer (Model 4; Biodex Medical Systems Inc.) at two different angular velocities, 30°/s (SV) and 210°/s (FV) After each eccentric action, the lever arm of the isokinetic dynamometer returned passively to its original position, at the speciﬁc velocity of each group, that is, 30°/s for SV and 210°/s for FV (1:1 work-to-rest ratio). The rest interval between sets was 60 s for both groups.

The intention of the scientists was to elucidate, whether there is an inﬂuence of the velocity at which previously untrained young women in their early 20s on the workout-induced systemic growth hormone, corstisol, free and testosterone response. To shit ends the 17 subjects were randomly assigned to two groups

the slow velocity group (SV), which performed their machine biceps curls at a velocity of 30°/s
the fast velocity group (FV), which performed the identical exercise at a velovity of 210°/s and thus 7x faster

The range of motion was from 125° to 5° of elbow ﬂexion for both groups. The workouts were performed on an isokinetic dynamometer (Model 4; Biodex Medical Systems Inc., New York, NY, USA) at the given velocity. The decision to use eccentric exercises was taken based on previous results by Farthing & Chilibeck, which indicate that isolation exercises will yield greater adaptations such as higher muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength gains compared to concentric actions (Farthing. 2003).

All participants were "encouraged" by the investigator equally, and "visual feedback was provided via Biodex monitor to maximize torque output for each repetition" (Libardi. 2013). Total work and mean peak torque developed in the eccentric exercise were recorded for further analysis and pre-and post.

The slower you go the more you grow?

The Blood samples (20 ml) which were drawn at baseline (Pre), immediately postexercise (IP), and 5, 15 and 30 min following the training session, would in fact suggest that the subheading "the slower you go, the more you grow" wasn't to way off the truth.

Figure 1: Total work, mean peak torque and growth hormone levels immediately, 5 min, 15 min and 30 min after the workout; data expressed relative to arithmetric mean at the given timepoints (Libardi. 2013)

After all, the only significant difference was the post-workout elevation in growth hormone, which was 3.7x, 4.1x and 3.5x higher immediately, 5 min and 15 min after the eccentric biceps curls.

How did this come about? Well the data in figure 1 would suggest that it's neither the total workload or the peak power, but it does not take a physicist to tell that the way the "total workload" is measured has absolutely nothing to do with the associated physiological energy expenditure. "Way times force" may theoretically yield Newton meters and is as such often used as the unit of energy (un-)fortunately the human body is a little more complex than that and I do honestly not know of any way that can accurately calculate the energy expenditure during a workout based on standard equations like these. The same goes for the nondescript term "exercise intensity", so that both - a higher energy expenditure and higher "intensity" are both candidates that could explain the increase in GH (the former would by the way suggest that they are irrelevant for the growth response and and are mainly meant to tap into the energy stores to fuel the workout / post workout glycogen replenishment).

So what does that mean, practically? Similar differences (or trends) were not observed for either free, or total testosterone or the corstiol response to the workout. This is yet not the only reason why the real world significance of the increase in the allegedly growth promoting eponymous hormone remain highly questionable.

Figure 2: The real world speaks a different language - Biceps muscle CSA in young men before and after 8 weeks of fast or slow eccentric biceps training in a previous study (Shepstone. 2005)

Firstly, we still don't really know to which extend the immediate changes in the expression of theoretically growth promoting hormones in the vicinity of a workout can actually induce or at least promote the adaptive response to exercise. It may, for example, well be that there is a certain threshold level beyond which additional increases in GH, teststosterone & co don't make a significant difference.
And secondly, and more importantly, it is not impossible that the results would be very different for (a) a different group of subjects, (b) complete reps (=concentric + eccentric reps), (c) other muscle groups like classic "push" muscles as the pecs or the legs, etc.

Moroever, the results of practically relevant 8-week studies such as Shepstone et al. (2005; see figure 2) do actually speak a very different language and support those researchers who doubt the physiological relevance of improvements in the acute anabolic milieu after a workout.

"80-85% 1RM, 6-10 Reps"? Changes in Muscle Fiber-Type in Response to Classic, Super Slow and Light Training Confirm "Old School Training" Rules and Will Always Prevail!

Image 1: If you don't want to be strong and look good naked, you better not train like "old school" like Arnold, Franco Columbu (img), Dave Draper, Frank Zane & Co.

Although, I do assume that you just dropped everything, went home from work early, or simply did not leave the house at all to be able to listen to my appearance on Carl Lanore's Super Human Radio, yesterday, I know that sometimes more important things (whatever that may be) get into one's way and will thusly give you a second chance, today (click here to download the podcast)... well, so far for the humorous part of this post. Assuming that by now, you did listen to the podcast you should remember that I promised to have something about exercise and strength training in the news, today. And as Carl will probably assert, Super Humans usually stick to their promises, although - and I did mention that yesterday, as well - the number of significant studies, i.e. studies that do not involve frail elderly or morbidly obese people, is relatively scarce.

Bro, you know the revolutionary new "GHRWZAR-642421 training principle"?

Image 2: If you are looking for a collection of proven routines, instead of bunch of old hats with funky new names, the Blueprint would be a good choice.

Beside the fact that our interest in improving our health and the way we look by diet and nutrition is not getting all too much love in the major scientific publications, another factor, which in all fairness should not be forgotten is that we do actually know what works, don't we? Sleep, eat, train... with the "common wisdom" with respect to "what is the best diet" being in constant flux, I guess, we are simply expecting to see similarly paradigm changes in the realms of exercise physiology, but aside from the occasional letter salad people are trying to sell you as the latest and greatest new training technique, which then turns out to be the 1001 iteration of what the fathers of physical culture have been doing for ... I guess, centuries, would be correct... the basics, which are to pick up a heavy weight move it through time and space for about 6-10 reps and rack it, never change - for a good reason as the pretty detailed results of a freshly published (actually still ahead of print) study from Mark D. Schuenke and his colleagues just confirmed anew (Schuenke. 2012).

Lifting heavy objects makes women ... dunno, but not bulky, to say the least ;-)

I guess, I better mention it right away in order to avoid that you get all to psyched out and are disappointed in the end: The study participants were 34 untrained young women (21.1 § 2.7 years). And just to make sure there are no misunderstandings, here - the downside for physical culturists is that these women were untrained not that they were women! The latter, is, as the scientists point out, actually an advantage, because "in pre-vious studies, it has been easy to find eager, untrained female subjects with excellent compliance to protocols", which by the way is another thing, Carl and I talked about in yesterday's installment of Super Human Radio ;-)

The reason that the subjects training status ("untrained") is somewhat of a downside, is yet that the early adaption which occur once you first pick up the weights, are fundamentally different from the painfully slow gains of an advanced trainee or elite athlete. In the end, the latter is yet also part of the reason that scientists don't recruit athletes for studies like this, after all the gains" (both strength- as well as muscle-wise) these subjects would have made over the course of the 6-week study period, in which the ladies in this study performed a total of 17 training sessions (two in the first week, three per week in the subsequent 5 weeks), would have been hardly "significant" - and in this case we are talking about both, statistical, as well as real-world significance.

Figure 1: Graphical illustration of the three experimental conditions / training regimen in the study.

Figure 1 should give you the general idea of the three different training regimen the women were randomly assigned to. With the first one being heavy + fast (TUT was in fact 1-2s for both concentric and eccentric part of the movement; verbal count was provided to make sure the tempo was correct) representing what has worked pretty well for generations of strength athletes, the second one being a variety of the Super Slow principle and the third one representing the "I don't want to build muscle"-approach to weight lifting that is unfortunately still very popular among women, we have the whole spectrum from tried and proven to tried and worthless in here ;-) I guess, it should be mentioned that the number of sets (3 sets, to failure) and the exercises, which were leg presses, squats and knee extensions (I suppose the latter is identical to "leg extensions", but I thought I rather stick to what Schuenke et al. wrote) were identical so that the effective parameters which influenced the study outcome were time-under-tension (TUT + reps) and intensity (% of 1RM) - or to make a long story short: Lift heavy and fast, give yourself a hard time by lifting slow or just pump away with lousy weights to "shape your body" (I hope you see the irony wrt to the last point).

Everyone who believes in "shaping your body with high reps and light weights" raise your hand!

I guess, for most of you it won't come as a surprise, when I am telling you that there were no changes in total body mass in the course of this 6-week training intervention, but what I guess will be surprising is that the body composition of the women did not change either (cf. figure 2)!

Figure 2: Fat mass (in kg) and fat free mass (in kg) before and after 6 weeks with a total 17 leg training sessions (data adapted from Schuenke. 2012)

If you scrutinize the data in figure 2 you could make a point that there was a 0.1% increase here and a 0.025% decrease there, but I guess, even if you have no clue how those p-values, which indicate if the change in a measured parameter could be mere coincidence are calculated, it is quite obvious that none of these changes reached statistical, let alone real-world significance.

If we take a closer look at what happened "inside" the vastus lateralis muscle from which the scientists took muscle biopsies before and at the end of the study period, it does yet become obvious that our "conventional exercise wisdom" is in fact much more reliable than its nutritional counterpart.

Figure 3: Changes in relative fiber composition in vastus lateralis muscle in response to 6 weeks of leg training with different loading / TUT / rep schemes (data adapted from Schuenke. 2012)

As you would expect, the muscle fiber-types shifted according to the load and the TUT / reps that were used with a generally more pronounced increase in the still highly glycolytic type IIA and type IIAX fibers in the classic standard RT group and a shift towards a more oxidative type II fiber type (type IIC) in the super slow group. As those of you who have read the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle will know, the former precipitates both strength and size gains, while the latter would be something a "strength-oriented endurance athlete", as maybe a rower, could be interested in. What all three training regimen have in common though, is the decrease in the exclusively glycolytic type IIX fibers, of which those of you who have followed the aforementioned series will know that they are quasi-nonexistent in elite bodybuilders.

Training light does work, but does not really do the job

What is also noteworthy, is that the light, yet fast training with high reps, induced what you may call a "transition status", with initial changes in the type IIX fibers (becoming type IIAX), but without the a complete switch from the "unflexible" glucose guzzling type IIX fibers to the cornerstones of strong and big muscles - the type IIA fibers. In view of the fact that the scientists did not quantify the strength gains and that the "higher growth propensity" of type IIA fibers is somewhat of an urban myth, the study outcome with the greatest real-world significance is unquestionable the increase in fiber size, which, as the data in figure 4 goes to show was maximal in all three major fiber types in response to the classic training protocol.

Figure 4: Changes in cross sectional area of the different fiber types (data adapted from Schuenke. 2012)

If that is not enough to convince at least the male part in the audience that there is good reason that the good old "6-10 reps in the 80-85% 1RM range" is still around, I guess they must be beyond help... and as far as the ladies are concerned: I know you don't "wanna get big", but let me tell you this - "strong is the better sexy", and as Carl Lenore would probably add "muscle is metabolic currency". So, if you want to stay mobile into your old days, do your joints and bones a favor by strengthening them in time. Moreover, with the mitochondrial powerhouses in full-gear, a few fixes to your diet should suffice to make those "problem areas" not magically, but gradually disappear.

Apropos diet, while the subjects did not have to log their calorie let alone macronutrient intake, I would bet that with a simple protein shake after their training and some general tweaks to their diets, those favorable changes in body composition, i.e. decreases in fat and increases in lean mass, which are at the heart of "looking good naked" would have come about... with the "I love my pasta and red-meat gives you cancer"-diet from the latest cosmopolitan, on the other hand, you better stick to baggy jeans and huge sweaters instead of bikinis and speedos, ladies and gentlemen ;-)

Exercise Research Quickie: HIIT vs. Steady State, More on the Hormonal Response. Light Training, High TUTs & Peak Contractions - Not Just for The Elderly. Train Your Left, Grow Your Right Leg - Contralateral Training Effects

The role of the innervations between our muscles as well as to our brain is often overlooked, when we are talking about size gains. The image shows stained nerve fascicles from the Song study, which brings this wiring back onto the radar.

I know that we have had the short news on Saturday only and that there are of course tons of short news on Facebook everyday, but the studies I am going to present you in this exercise research quickie were so in-between (meaning not really worth a full post, but still way too good to be wasted on facebook) that I decided to devote a post of its own to the research on the hormonal effects of interval vs. steady state training by Hackney et al. (Hackney. 2012b), the impressive and certainly not totally irrelevant effects of slow movement, low-intensity resistance training in the elderly Watanabe et al. describe in their latest paper and the surprising muscle building (Watanabe. 2013) and growth priming carry over effects Song et al. observed in response to unilateral electrical muscle stimulation (Song. 2012).

Although, the latter post is pretty theoretical I hope that all of you will find something that enlightens, amuses or entertains them in this "threesome" ;-)

More T, more DHT, more cortisol - that's the HIIT vs. LISS formula

(Hackney. 2012b) -- In fact the results of two subsequently published papers by Hackney et al. would suggest that it's about as easy. Work out hard and fast and see greater increases in testosterone levels, but also testosterone turnover (into DHT via 5-alpha reductase), but don't forget that aside from these (questionable) anabolic benefits, your thyroid hormone levels are going to take a dive (as reported previously), as well.

Figure 1: Comparison of the hormonal responses measured in the plyometrics (left) and the HIIT vs. LISS (right) study (based on Ozen. 2012 and Hackney. 2012)

The figure above is actually from a post where I discussed this before, so if you cannot remember all the details, briefly go back before you take a look at the summary of results of the more recent study by Hackney.

"Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) - Bigger, Stronger, Faster or just Balder, Fatter and Unhealthier?" That's the question I asked in one of the installments of the Intermittent thoughts on building muscle. A post I would highly suggest you read, by the way ;-)

In this 2nd paper that was published right before Christmas in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigations the researchers were able to show that repeated periods of 90-sec treadmill running at 100-110% maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and 90-sec active recovery at 40% VO2max for 42-47 min (which is obviously pretty long!) caused just a significantly more pronounced increase not just in free testosterone, but also in its conversion to testosterone's big brother DHT (as indicated by statistically higher levels of the 5α-reductase marker 3-α Diol G at 12POST HIIT vs. LISS). This is interesting, as dihydrotestosterone (DHT) which is often falsely associated only with hair loss, prostate cancer and even obesity, does also play an important role in strength development (click here to learn more) and appears to do it's magic via the MAPK receptor. Now, MAPK in turn can activate PGC-alpha and that the latter is way more than just the endurance / mitochondria builder it was long thought to be is something you should still remember from the post on the"The IGF-1 Promoting, Myostatin Reducing, Muscle Building Effects of PGC-1 α-4" (read more).

Bottom line: It is becoming more and more clear that HIIT is in fact somewhat of a chimera that shares beneficial and detrimental effects of both classic cardio and classic strength training with mammoth sessions like the one performed in the studies at hand triggering similar hormonal cascades that will - despite probably causing beneficial adaptations - simply require longer rest times than a classic LISS regimen.

A note of caution: Both these studies point to the highly questionable "value" of taking a bunch of people letting them do whatever type of training once, measure some stuff of which you do only have a very rough idea of what it's actually doing and then have a bunch of morons like myself try to come up with "practical implications"

So if you do HIIT, stick to the principles "short and hard" (I would never suggest doing the >40min interval sessions for anyone whose primary goal is to be healthy and look good naked, by the way; add a walk on the treadmill if you want to train longer like on a combined HIIT + LISS cardio only day. But most importantly don't forget to enjoy your well-deserved, highly productive off-time and remember that it's during those hours, when all the hard work is paying off... ah I almost forgot, this is a tried and proven way that happens to be confirmed by studies like Hackney's and not vice versa.

Light training, high TUTs and peak contractions - not just for the elderly?!

You cannot only implement"light" training into your established routine (see last paragraph), but should also think of the often forgotten benefits of periodization, detraining & co (learn more), as well as times, when you may be injured or otherwise disabled and cannot lift heavy.

(Watanabe. 2013) -- It may sound like a study for the elderly, but just as the best-agers among the SuppVersity readers can learn something from studies done in the the younger fellows, the younger weightlifters may well get some intriguing insights from studies with older participants - studies like the one by Watanabe et al., for example.

When the researchers from the Department of Life Sciences at the University of Tokyo compared the hypertrophy and strength gains of two exercise regimen using a low resistance of 50% of the personal 1-RM max of their 59-76yr old subjects, the scientists found that slow movements with tonic force generation were superior to the regular 1s concentric vs. 1s eccentric reps I guess most of you will be employing in their training routines.

The subjects who had been randomized to the LST group and performed their reps with a 3s concentric, a 3s eccentric and phase and most importantly a peak contraction in-between did gain a similar amounts of strength as those subjects who performed the standard protocol for 10 weeks (the 12-week study had a 2-week familiarization phase), but contrary to they did also record statistically significant increases in muscle size.

Alternative exercises on which peak contractions work well, are the fly (preferably on a machine or using cables), the lat pulldown, cable crunches, all sorts of triceps extensions, the scott curl (where you would do them midrange), every form of calf raises. Always remember, though: A peak contraction is never done in the full stretch position, but always either midrange or as the name implies at the peak of the contraction, before the eccentric phase begins.

So what does that mean? Certainly not that all of you should stop lifting heavy weights, because 50% 1-RM was enough if not superior to the regular 70-90% that are recommended in most serious training regimen. Rather, these results should remind young and old trainees alike of keeping an eye on your form and making sure that you stimulate the muscle and don't just move whatever weight from place A to place B.

That said, try to incorporate peak contractions with every rep on the auxilliary movements of your next workout. Start your leg workout with regular squats, for example, 5x5 TUT 101 (meaning 1s eccentric, 0s rest at the bottom, 1s concentric), but instead of the 4x10 leg extensions you would usually do for your quads, you lower the weight somewhat and do them with a slower rep-speed (somewhere in between 1-3s) and a peak contraction (meaning you really squeeze the muscle in a position, where your knees are almost locked out). Done right, this is going to give the word DOMS (=deep onset muscle soreness) a whole new meaning + you will have to reduce your weights, anyways.

Train your left leg and your right one will grow as well

(Song. 2012) -- Do our bodies know something about aesthetics? Well, if that were the case, the legs of some of the gymbros who "don't train legs, because [they] play soccer" shouldn't look the way they do... but I am digressing here. According to the study by Yafeng Song et al. have just published in the open access journal Plos ONE, there appears to be a certain carry-over effect - at least if the growth stimulus is chronic and profound.

To achieve the latter, i.e. a chronic and profound training stimulus, the researchers from the Umea University in Sweden exposed the soleus and gatrocnemius muscles of rabbits to a 6-week electrical muscle stimulation + exercise protocol and measured muscle changes and inflammation on weeks 1, 3 and 6 of the study. Now, the clue of the study was that the unilateral "exercise" was actually mechanically and electrically enforced, so to say:

"The movements are produced by a pneumatic piston, in which the range of motion can be controlled. The range of movement was set to 9.5 cm, given a range of motion in the ankle of 55–65u of which 20–25u was dorsiflexion and 35–40u was plantarflexion. The right leg was attached to the piston and the pelvis/hip region was strapped down to restrict the motion in the left non-exercised leg. The left leg was unattached. During the plantar flexion of the right leg, an active contraction was induced by electrical muscle stimulation via surface electrodes placed 2 cm apart over the right triceps surae muscle. The stimulation was synchronized with the plantar flexion movement of the piston by a microswitch, which trigged the stimulator unit".

I will spare you the further details... just think of a modern rabbit torture machine that was designed to "work the rabbits right extremities out". As you would expect from any good torture machine this device brought about a significant amount of tissue damage and a corresponding increase in the number of necrotic fibers.

Figure 2: Variability in fiber size, fibers with internal nuclei, inflammation in soleus (left) and gastrocnemius muscle (right) in response to the exercise + electrostimulation program. Mind the similar responses in the exercised (E) and the non-exercised (NE) limb (Song. 2012)

Now what's surprising though is the fact that despite the local damage, the inflammation had a systemic component, which happened to be more pronounced in the untrained soleus vs. gastrocnemius muscle (slow vs. fast twitch, by the way).

Against that background it is still only a little less surprising that the variability in fiber size, the number of fibers with internal nuclei (=sign of restructuring process, cf. "The Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy 101") and even the fiber splitting were virtually identical. After all, this would mean that systemic parameters do matter. But haven't we just discarded this notion yet another time in the first of the items in today's exercise research quickie? Yes we have, but in that case we were talking about the usual subjects, the "anabolic" and "catabolic" hormones, Song et al. on the other hand speculate that

"[t]he collateral muscle changes and inflammation after unilateral EMS/E observed in this study may be caused by [a] neuronal mechanism. Since there is some evidence for a commissural system in the spinal cord that mediates transmedian signaling with a fairly precise bilateral representation, nerve signals from the trained side may pass over to the contralateral muscles through commisural inter-neurons. If this is the case, unilateral injury caused by EMS/E may cause a cross-transfer up-regulation of neuropeptides that can be involved in the inflammatory response in the contralateral muscles." (Song. 2012)

The researchers indicate that their current, as well as previous results from their laboratory would support this hypothesis and that any systemic or circulatory effects must actually be excluded, because these would not have occurred only focally, but generally within all muscles. They also point towards previous studies in which the signalling between contralateral and ipsilateral limb was blocked and the observed cotralateral responses were abolished.

So what's the point? I will openly admit that the practical relevance of these results (esp. for you as a hopefully healthy trainee) is as of now still very questionable, but the fact alone that it brings the nervous system back on the "scientific" radar was certainly worth including it in this "threesome" - don't you think so? No, well... maybe you like the scientists own rational who argue that the findings are (a) important in the context of a wide range of musculoskeletal and neuromuscular disorders and (b) relevant for each and every unilateral exercise experiment, where the contraleteral limb is used as a control - and you know there are plenty of them!

References:

Hackney AC, Kallman A, Hosick KP, Rubin DA, Battaglini CL. Thyroid hormonal responses to intensive interval versus steady-state endurance exercise sessions. Hormones (Athens). 2012a Jan-Mar;11(1):54-60.
Hackney AC, Hosick KP, Myer A, Rubin DA, Battaglini CL. Testosterone responses to intensive interval versus steady-state endurance exercise. J Endocrinol Invest. 2012b Dec;35(11):947-50.
Ozen, SV. Reproductive hormones and cortisol responses to plyometric training in males. Biol Sport.2012; 29 (3).
Song Y, Forsgren S, Yu J, Lorentzon R, Stål PS. Effects on contralateral muscles after unilateral electrical muscle stimulation and exercise. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e52230.
Watanabe Y, Tanimoto M, Ohgane A, Sanada K, Miyachi M, Ishii N. Increased muscle size and strength from slow-movement, low-intensity resistance exercise and tonic force generation. J Aging Phys Act. 2013 Jan;21(1):71-84.

.