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

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

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

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

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

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order & Leptin

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

How to Combine Cardio & Strength?

Exercise Order Reloaded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

High Intensity, Low Volume Training for Optimal Health; Low Dose Caffeine for Mixed Results; Four Commandments of Concomitant Endurance & Strength Training for Max. Gains

It doesn't matter if you want to turn fat into fit, fit into fitter or strong into stronger. Today's SuppVersity science potpourri has something to offer for every physical culturist who is looking for ways to improve his health, performance and physique and for trainers and coaches who work with this challenging clientele.

In view of the fact that the last news-potpourri on appetite related scientific studies was a major success, I thought it may be worth writing another of these long-neglected short-news items. This time about exercise and supplementation, though.

You may already have seen the link to Stuart Philipps latest "Review of Higher Dietary Protein Diets in Weight Loss" with a "A Focus on Athletes" on Facebook. For those of you who have been following the SuppVersity News there's probably little new information in the document, though. When I read the paragraph about optimal protein intakes for maximal muscle retention, I still thought that it may be worth to remind you of the results of the Pasiokos study which clearly suggest that eating more protein is not always going to increase the net protein retention when you are dieting.

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Protein Won't Stop Catabolism

Less Fat, More Muscle!

A fact that brings me back to Philipps' review in which he points out that dieters commonly overlook that any increase in protein intake will go at the expense of either fat or carbohydrate. A "side effect" that could be particularly problematic for athletes, for whom Philipps recommends (just like I do) "to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced" (Phillips. 2014). In particular, athletes should "focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance" (Phillips. 2014).

After this brief introductory interlude, I would like to get to the actual topic at hand, a brief overview of a couple of interesting, but not exactly "full-article worthy" papers from the realms of exercise, nutrition and supplementation:

• Low volume, high intensity the exercise key to perfect health? A recent paper in the latest edition of Sports Medicine reviewed the health benefits of two different low volume exercise regimen: The classic sprint interval training (black spikes in Figure 1) and a HIIT protocol (grey bars in Figure 1).
  
  The researchers from the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, highlight that the currently available evidence is largely based on short-term interventions. And while long(er)-term interventions would be needed to " to advance our basic understanding of how manipulating the exercise stimulus translates into physiological remodeling" (Gibala. 2014), it can already be said that...

  

  Figure 1: Comparison of the power output (% of VO2peak) during sprint interval training (SIT, black peaks), high intensity interval training (HIIT, grey bars) and moderate intenstity continuous training (MICT, striped box)

  "[f]rom an applied perspective, there is value in trying to establish the minimum ‘dose’ of HIIT or SIT needed to stimulate meaningful improvements in clinical markers that are associated with disease risk.
  
  This is particularly germane given that ‘lack of time’ remains the most commonly cited barrier to regular exercise participation, and considering evidence that suggests that low-volume interval training is perceived to be more enjoyable than MICT." (Gibala. 2014)

  As Gibala et al. point out, there is also evidence that nutritional interventions can influence both acute and chronic adaptations to interval training - with one of my personal favorites, i.e. sodium bicarbonate being the #1 candidate to among the "interval-specific" ergogenics that are currently available on the market (learn why).

  

  Figure 2: Everything works, as long as you pick the right type of exercise for your type.

  Moreover, as suggested by van Loon and Tipton (van Loon. 2013), the significantly greater adaptation efficiency compared to "regular" steady state cardio training has clinical relevance, especially for individuals with severe exercise intolerance.
• Low dose caffeine (200mg) not effective for everyone - A recent study from the University of Guelph found that low doses of caffeine (<3 mg/kg body mass, ~200 mg) can be ergogenic in some exercise and sport situations, but for most athletes they will not alter the peripheral wholebody responses to exercise, or improve vigilance, alertness, and mood and cognitive processes during and after exercise.
  
  

  

  Figure 3: Effects of ingesting no caffeine (0) or 3, 6 or 9 mg/kg body mass of caffeine (dose) on running time to exhaustion at ~85 % of VO2max (Graham. 1995).

  In view of the fact that low dose caffeine regimen are also "associated with few, if any, side effects" (Spriet. 2014), and generally depend on an athletes individual response to caffeine, Lawrence L. Spriet still suggests that athletes should "determine whether the ingestion of ~200 mg of caffeine before and/or during training and competition is ergogenic on an individual basis" (Spriet. 2014); and, assuming that it is, make use of the lowest effective dose, of which the data in Figure 3 clearly indicates that it is not necessarily the one with the lowest performance benefits.
• Science-Based Recommendations for Training to Maximize Concurrent Training - Right from the desk of Keith Baar comes a set of recommendations to maximize the benefits of concomitant training, i.e. combined / sequential endurance and strength training that consists of a set of four tips:
  
  • Do HIIT in the AM: Any high-intensity endurance training sessions should be performed early in the day. Then, a period of recovery of at least 3 h should be given, so that AMPK and SIRT1 activity can return to baseline levels, before resistance exercise is performed. This suggestion is based on the fact that AMPK activity increases rapidly and then returns to baseline levels within the first 3 h after high-intensity exercise (Wojtaszewski. 2000), whereas mTORC1 activity can be maintained for at least 18 h after resistance exercise (Baar. 1999; MacKenzie. 2009).

  • 

    Build 3.2kg of lean mass overnight w/ 40g of casein pre-bed | learn more.

    Drink your whey protein shake right after your strength workout: Resistance exercise should be supported by readily digestible, leucine-rich protein as soon as possible after training to maximize leucine uptake, mTOR recruitment to the lysosome, and protein synthesis.
    
    In view of the fact that Baar recommends to do your RT sessions later in the day, it is also advisable to consume another protein shake right before bed to maximize the synthetic response overnight (learn more).
  • Fully refuel between the morning high-intensity endurance training session and the afternoon strength session: It's not going to reduce the exercise induced increase in AMPK and SIRT1 activation, but will allow you to perform at maximal intensity during your resistance training session later in the day.
    
    As Baar points, out athletes who have to diet during certain phases of their training cycle should make sure to "reserve a portion of the offseason (and short periods in season) exclusively for increasing muscle size and strength and then use higher dietary protein intakes to maintain that muscle mass as the aerobic load increases through the season" (Baar. 2014).
  • If you do low-intensity cardio, do your resistance training right after cardio: To improve the endurance response to lower-intensity endurance training sessions and provide a strong strength stimulus, Baar recommends performing strength training immediately after low-intensity, non-depleting, endurance sessions.
    
    Performing a strength session immediately after a low-intensity endurance session results in a greater stimulus for endurance adaptation than the low-intensity endurance session alone (Wang. 2011) and the low-intensity session will not affect signaling pathways regulating strength gains (Coffey. 2009; Lundberg. 2012; Apró. 2013).
  At first, these rrecommendations may sound somewhat random. If you take a closer look at the long paper, you will yet have to concede that the simple recommendations are based on our current understanding of the molecular response to exercise. In that, they should allow for the maximal adaptive response to both endurance and strength exercise.
  

Figure 4: Using the above data on the muscle protein synthetic response to 20g of various types of protein as an example, a recent review of the protein recommendations for the aging population highlights the need for 30-40g of fast digesting protein after workouts (Wall. 2014)

Bottom line: I hope there has been at least something new in today's SuppVersity short-news round-up you found useful. Maybe the overview in Figure 2 helps you determine the optimal exercise protocol for a new client? Maybe the four principles of combined endurance and strength training help you to take your training to the next level? Or, maybe, the reference to the Phillips study made you rethink your own protein intake?

I mean, have you ever thought of determining the optimal protein intake on a "per meal" basis? I always suggest 30g+ of quality high EAA protein (whey, casein, fish, meat, chicken, pea, soy) per meal - that's somewhat more than the 2.5g/meal Phillips suggest but still significantly less than some wanna-be bodybuilders consume in their futile effort to counter the anti-anabolic effects of exercise (learn why this won't work) while compromising their exercise performance by cutting back on fats and more importantly carbohydrates | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Apró, William, et al. "Resistance exercise induced mTORC1 signaling is not impaired by subsequent endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 305.1 (2013): E22-E32.
• Baar, Keith, and Karyn Esser. "Phosphorylation of p70S6kcorrelates with increased skeletal muscle mass following resistance exercise." American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 276.1 (1999): C120-C127. 
• Coffey, Vernon G., et al. "Consecutive bouts of diverse contractile activity alter acute responses in human skeletal muscle." Journal of applied physiology 106.4 (2009): 1187-1197.
• Graham, T. E., and L. L. Spriet. "Metabolic, catecholamine, and exercise performance responses to various doses of caffeine." Journal of Applied Physiology 78.3 (1995): 867-874. 
• Lundberg, Tommy R., et al. "Aerobic exercise alters skeletal muscle molecular responses to resistance exercise." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 44.9 (2012): 1680-1688.
• Pasiakos, Stefan M., et al. "Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial." The FASEB Journal 27.9 (2013): 3837-3847.
• van Loon, Luc JC, and Kevin D. Tipton. "Concluding Remarks: Nutritional Strategies to Support the Adaptive Response to Prolonged Exercise Training." (2013): 135-141. 
• Wall, et al. "Dietary Protein Considerations to Support Active Aging." Sports Med (2014) 44 (Suppl 2):S185–S194.
• Wang, Li, et al. "Resistance exercise enhances the molecular signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis induced by endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle." Journal of applied physiology 111.5 (2011): 1335-1344.
• Wojtaszewski, Jørgen FP, et al. "Isoform-specific and exercise intensity-dependent activation of 5′-AMP-activated protein kinase in human skeletal muscle." The Journal of physiology 528.1 (2000): 221-226.

Exercise Order Reloaded: Testosterone Advantage of Doing Weights First Does Not Persist over 24 Week Study Period ➲ Strength Gains Identical, But GH Difference is Suspicious

Could the "wrong" exercise order be holding you back?

If you take a look at the SuppVersity articles with the keyword "exercise order" (click here to do that now), you will probably find "good" arguments for both: Doing cardio before and  doing cardio after weights - this begs the question, whether it is merely a question of personal preference, doesn't it?

I, for my part, have done both in the past and didn't notice much of a difference. For mere time reasons I do my cardio completely separate from my workouts, but in general, I would probably do longer 20min+ low intensity steady state cardio after the workouts. Not the least for the beneficial effects of very low intensity exercise on both metabolic and performance markers of recovery (Corder. 2000).

You can learn more about workout routines at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study Proves: Overtraining Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

If we take a look a the results of a recent study by Moritz Schumann et al., these acute recovery effects may yet have about as little effect on the real-world outcome of your training sessions as the temporary reduction in testosterone the researchers from the Public University of Navarra, the Edith Cowan University and the University of Connecticut observed in those 12 of their ca. 30 years old, ca. 179 cm tall and ca. 79 kg heavy male, recreationally active study participants who had been randomized to the "cardio before weights" (E + S: endurance before strength training) group. It goes without saying that the exercise prescriptions for the E+S and S+E groups were identical:

Additional read: "Cardio&Strength What Do I Do First?" Plus: Could the Answer Be Sex-Specific?" | more

"During the first 12 weeks of training, the subjects per formed according to their corresponding training group either 2x[1E + 1S] or 2x[1S + 1E] per week.

During the second 12 weeks, the frequency was increased so that two combined training sessions were performed in every 1st and 4th week and three combined training sessions in every 2nd and 3rd week (i.e., 2x[1E + 1S] or 2x[1S + 1E] or 3x [1E + 1S] or 3x[1S + 1E], respectively). " (Schumann. 2014)

For the "E" in "E + S", the subjects cycled on a regular ergometer at an intensity that was controlled by heart rate zones determined from subjects’ individual aerobic and anaerobic threshold obtained during the baseline measurement at week 0 and 24. 

Figure 1: Overview of the 24-week study protocol (Schumann. 2014)

They were asked to maintain a constant pedaling frequency at about 70–80 rpm during each training session, while the magnetic resistance of the ergometer was used to achieve the prescribed cycling intensity:

"The endurance program consisted of both steady-state and interval exercise sessions while the intensity was progressively increased from low (below the aerobic threshold) to high (above the anaerobic threshold) throughout both 12-week periods." (Schumann. 2014)

If you add the 30-50 minutes it took the subjects to complete the periodized (circuit training 2-4 sets of all exercises at 15-20 reps  40-60% in week 1-2; 2-5 sets of 8-10 reps @80-85% during the rest of the study) strength training routine, that consisted of exercises for the lower and upper body, i.e.

• lower body -bilateral dynamic leg press, as well as both bilateral (weeks 1–7 and 13–18) and unilateral (weeks 8–12 and 19–24) dynamic knee extension and flexion -
• upper body - vertical shoulder press and lat pull down, as well as exercises commonly used to improve trunk stability -,

to the 30–50 min of cardio the subjects performed on each of their three weekly workouts, the total duration of the workouts would be 60–100 min for each combined training session.

Post workout testosterone = statistically significant, practically irrelevant difference

In view of the fact that the total training time, the exercises and the workout frequency were identical, the previously mentioned inter-group differences in post-workout testosterone are attributable to the exercise order - irrespective of whether they were mediated by a reduced performance in the strength training session or whatever crazy counter-evidence you were just about to mention in the comments ;-)

Figure 2: Serum testosterone concentrations during loading and recovery before (a) and after (b) the combined
training (left); changes in basal serum markers after 24 weeks of training (right; Schumann. 2014).

If you take a closer look at Figure 2, you will also notice that the initial difference in post-workout testosterone levels (left) is lost over the course of the 24-week study period. Against that background and in view of the inter-mediate increase in testosterone in the E+S vs. S+E group, it is not surprising that the relevant outcomes, i.e. the 1-RM, the increase in maximal voluntary contractile force (MVC) and the gain in aerobic power didn't differ between the S+E vs. E+S groups.

Figure 3: Rel. change in performance parameters within the 24 week study period (left); acute responses and recovery of maximal isometric leg press force (MVcmax) before (a) and after (b) the combined training (right; Schumann. 2014).

What is interesting though and may even be interpreted as evidence to support my previous suggestion to do "cardio after weight" for its beneficial effects on recovery is the slightly more pronounced decrease in creatine kinase in the S+E group (see Figure 3). Even if we take into consideration that CK is not the reliable marker of muscle damage everyone says it was (Chrismas. 2014), the relative CK values may still serve as a proxy of recovery, which could be enhanced with cardio after weights.

The GH response would also speak in favor of "weights first": With post-workout GH levels of 54.4 vs. 13.7 in week 1 and 56.7 vs. 19.1 mIU/l in week 24, the difference between the groups is huge and could be associated with an increased consumption of fatty acids post-workout, as well as greater increases in muscle fiber size as it was observed by West et al. (2012) in their seminal paper on the correlations between exer- cise induced changes in GH, testosterone, cortisol & co on the one, and size and strength gains, on the other hand.

Bottom line: If the study at hand was able to prove one thing, it would be be the non-significance and absurdity of the never-ending debate about "cardio before or after weights". While you may argue that doing light intensity cardio on your off-days has the "activity on almost 7 days of the weeks health advantage", there really isn't a reasonable argument why you would prefer doing it before or after your strength training sessions that would apply to everyone.

Irrespective of the potential GH advantage, I discussed in the box to the right, my suggestion would thus be: If you cannot or don't want to separate cardio and strength training, listen to my body and do whatever you feel suits you better.

If that's cardio before weights and thus not what I prefer, personally, that's perfectly fine - I mean, if I meet someone to talk to while doing cardio, I will also prepone my cardio workout and hit the weights afterwards ;-)

Reference:

• Chrismas, Bryna CR, et al. "Reproducibility of creatine kinase: how useful is this measurement tool?." International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings. Vol. 10. No. 1. 2014.
• Corder, Keith P., et al. "Effects of active and passive recovery conditions on blood lactate, rating of perceived exertion, and performance during resistance exercise." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.2 (2000): 151-156.
• Schumann, Moritz, et al. "The order effect of combined endurance and strength loadings on force and hormone responses: effects of prolonged training." European journal of applied physiology (2014).
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

Cardio or Weights? What's The Best Tool For a Non-Obese Active Individual to Lose 20% of Belly Fat in 10 Weeks?

Slowly, painfully slowly the message transpires: Men and women are different, but the means by which they achieve the physique many of us desire are the virtually the same: Diet and exercise. Needless to say hat both lifting weight & doing "cardio" (LISS & HIIT) are obligatory for either sex. But is that true for fats and carbs, as well (learn more)?

If you are not one of those people who simply  ignore the fact that SuppVersity articles have "telling" titles, you will already have realized that the subject selection is one of the greatest strengths of the 10-week experiment Jorge Perez-Gomes and his Spanish colleagues have conducted recently. While we are bombarded with information on how walking in the park strips tons of body fat off the bodies of morbidly obese "big losers", detailed information on what works for people like the 26 healthy young men (age 22.5 ± 1.9 yr) who participated in the study at hand is surprisingly scarce.

"Dieting" does not necessary imply "eating less"

The participants, whose body composition was measured by the means of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were all healthy and physically active and with an average BMI ~22kg/m² and body fat levels of  ~17% at a level comparable to that of the average gymrat striving "to [eventually?] look good naked" ;-) According to the research design, all participants were required to keep their dietary habits unchanged during the 10-week study period.

Since they were free to eat as much as they wanted, you can however safely assume, that the subjects in the endurance and strength training groups did increase their caloric intake in response to the energetic demands of their workouts (the subjects trained three times per week).

Table 1: Detailed outline of the strength training protocol. The scientists had used the exact same protocol in a previous study in the course of which 18 male physical education students lost a whopping 7% BF in 6 weeks (Ara. 2006).

• endurance training group (EG) - "The EG performed running and cycling sessions with a load intensities ranging between the ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1) and 2 (VT2), during 90 minutes per
  session. The VT were calculated from the cardiorespiratory tests that were performed at the same time of the day (16:00-19:00 h) under similar environmental conditions (20º C; relative humidity, 45-55%, 720 mmHg) on an electrically braked cycle-ergometer" (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

• strength training group (ST) - "Briefly, RG trained with 5 different exercises (parallel squat, leg extension, inclined leg press, leg curl and hip flexors), for which 1RM was assessed before and after 10-week training. The ranged between 50-90% of 1RM values obtained were used for the training. A 90-s rest period was taken between exercise sets." (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

With the nutritional aspect off the table, you may be asking yourselves: "Why on earth we are we seeing a lower-body-only-workout, here?" Obviously, I cannot ask the scientists directly, but I would guess that it is a combination of (a) the proven efficiacy of the workout, which has been used by the same group of researchers in a previous study, in the course of which the 18 male physical education students had lost a whopping an statistically highly significant 7% body fat (Ara. 2006), and (b) the fact that it would be unfair to compare a whole body strength workout to a "leg only" endurance workout on a cycle ergometer.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition compared to baseline (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

Still, the advantage of the endurance training as far as overall fat loss is concerned is not a simple result of not training the upper body. You can even argue that the overall energy expenditure on a classic body part split would have been even  lower. With the latter, as well as the degree of dietary compensation for the "used" energy in the time between the workouts being the main determinant of the amount of weight you'll lose it should thus  not surprise you that a 90min of pretty intense cardio had an edge over a classic resistance training regimen (slow paced, progressive; cf. table 1)

Exercise doesn't just make you hungry

Don't trust anyone who wants to tell you that "exercise will just make you hungry" or that calories didn't count at all - regardless of how prominent he/she may be (learn why)

Now, you will probably remember that a fast paced, more versatile CrossFit-esque workout (learn more) would have been a better option for someone whose main goal is to shed that belly fat of his (or hers!), but could you honestly say that the 10 weeks of training on either protocol didn't server their purpose? I don't think so.

Moreover, the differential effects the two "types" of exercise had on the body composition of the subjects, as well as the observed correlations between improved HDL levels and increases in lean muscle mass (EG) and trunk fat (ST), and lower LDL levels with waist circumference (EG) do actually confirm that there is something healthy about striving to be lean and muscular.

---

Sometimes it also takes doing less, less of "dieting" and less of "training" to make progress again. I know it sounds like something only women who need a psychologist would fall for, but the Athlete's Triad (learn more) is neither a female thing, nor something only psychos would get trapped in. On the contrary! My personal experience tells me that it's often the smartest and most determined physical culturists who fall victim to their own burning ambition... much contrary to their often prominent role-models they don't have a team of shrinks and trainers to help them get back on track. So you better make sure not to sacrifice your friendships on your quest for perfection!

Bottom line: You don't have to reinvent the wheel. The simple combination of endurance and resistance training that has worked for the fathers of physical culture still works, today. If you need some inspirations on how you can combine them into a training program that matches your individual needs, professional schedule & social life and will take your physique another step closer to where you want it to be, check out the SuppVersity "Step by Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" (learn more)...

I guess, I don't have to tell you that 90min of LISS may be one way but certainly not the best way to improve on your physique - specifically if you are way past the "Homer Simpson" stage. You can learn more about training & dieting for your type and measuring your progress in one of the previous installments of the Intermittent Thoughts.

Ah, and one last word of wisdom: Don't forget that looking and feeling great is not all about having a cover model physique.

So, once you've got rid of the unhealthy blubber, it's often time to re-think whether taking the next and for the "non-genetic freaks" among us not necessary healthy step to being totally jacked is really what you want, or if the desire to look like X,Y or Z does not have much different roots.

References:

• Ara I, Perez-Gomez J, Vicente-Rodriguez G, Chavarren J, Dorado C, Calbet JA. Serum free testosterone, leptin and soluble leptin receptor changes in a 6-week strength-training programme. Br J Nutr. 2006 Dec;96(6):1053-9.
• Perez-Gomez J, Vicente-Rodríguez G, Ara Royo I, Martínez-Redondo D, Puzo Foncillas J, Moreno LA, Díez-Sánchez C, Casajús YJA. Effect Of Endurance And Resistance Training On Regional Fat Mass And Lipid Profile. Nutr Hop. 2013;28(2):340-346.

Cardio & Strength Training in a Single Workout: "What Do I Do First?" Plus: Could the Answer Be Sex-Specific?

"Men are different women, too..." We all know that, but can we still train together or will women have to do cardio first, while men would be better off starting out lifting weights?

This is not the first and certainly not the last article on what should come first, if you actually have to or want to do endurance and resistance training in single workout session. Today's SuppVersity article is however the one on the study with the most detailed evaluation of the differential effects of "endurance vs. resistance training first" on the endocrine response, neuromascular fatique and power in men and women, I have seen in a while. The pertinent paper is titled "Acute Hormonal and Force Responses to Combined Strength and Endurance Loadings in Men and Women: The 'Order Effect'" and has been written by Ritva S. Taipale and Keijo Häkkinen from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland (Taipale. 2013).

60 minutes LISS + 45 min leg circuit or vice versa - what's best?

The intention of the researchers was to "to examine the acute exercise induced serum hormone and neuromuscular responses and the time course of changes during recovery in response to a combined strength and endurance training session in recreationally endurance trained male and female runners and whether this response would differ if the participants started their workout with a ...

• steady state running exercise at an intensity between each subject’s previously determined individual lactate threshold (LT) and respiratory compensation threshold (RCT) for 60 minutes, or 

• a circuit leg workout with 2 minutes rest between sets that implemented both maximal and explosive strength exercises at loads of 70–85% of the individual 1RM for three sets of 5–8 repetitions, with the final repetition of each set being performed to "near failure" and explosive strength exercises of 8-10reps at a maximal velocity using only 30-40& of the 1EM load on the bilateral leg press (3 sets maximal and 3 sets explosive), the squat (3 sets maximal), loaded squat jumps (3 sets explosive), and calf raises (2 sets maximal).

In short, the question the researchers had in mind when they came up with the research design was: "What's the best way to combine 60min of steady state cardio and an intense 45min leg routine into a single workout"?

Figure 1: Change in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in men (left) and women (right) during, immediately after and in the recovery period after the endurance first (ES) and strength first (SE) workouts (Taipale. 2013)

As the data in figure 1 goes to show you, the results were not exactly flattering to the strong sex (=us men), whose absolute maximal bilateral isometric (MVC) strength in the endurance first (ES) trial decreased significantly (28%, p = 0.002) following the 60 minutes of jogging (E), while it remained stable in the 10 female study participants. Luckily, there was still a follow up after which we were back on par (-22% in men and -21% in women).

"The relative loading-induced decreases (D%) in strength between ES and SE differed significantly at mid in men (p<0.001). The relative decreases (D%) in strength in men and women were similar at MID; however, at post, a significant difference between ES men and ES women was observed. The absolute rate of force development (RFD) decreased during both loadings in ES and SE men (at post -19%, p< 0.001 and -22%, p = 0.003, respectively)." (Taipale. 2013)

So once again, the "fairer sex" had an "unfair" advantage, as the rate of force development of the women did not decrease significantly after either the ES or the SE trial. However, it was on ony after the "endurance first" (ES) trial that this effect reached statistical significance.

Level playing field? You must be kiddin' the girls are on dope... ah estrogen ;-)

A similar advantage was observed for the recovery of the initially equally decreased maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) in men and women. Contrary to the ladies who bounced back to normal within the first 24 hours, the MVC of the men remained significantly below the baseline levels in both the strength- (ES) and endurance first (ES) arms of the study 24 h after the endurance first trial (-14% and -15%, respectively) and was still below baseline 48 h post (p < 0.01  -11%).

Figure 2: Endocrine response to endurance (ES) or strength first (SE) workouts in men an women (Taipale. 2013)

If we set these performance outcomes in relation to the endocrine changes the scientists observed, it's quite intriguing to see the that the highly significant increase in post-workout cortisol levels right after the strength-first trial in the men coincides with faster recovery in response to doing strength before cardio workout... or should I rather say in response to doing a steady state cardio session after your strength workout the guys recovered faster?

"Men better start with strength training. Women do whatever they like?! "

The faster recovery after the strength first, endurance second (SE) trial, as well as the 343x higher GH levels after the in this arm of the study appear to speak in favor of doing your strength training first, before you hop onto a recumbent bike or treadmill and add in another 40-60min of light intensity steady state training (LISS), if you are a man! In the fortunate case that you are a member of the estrogen driven fairer sex (= a woman ;-), the study at  hand appears to suggest that it would not really make much of a difference, whether you hit the weights first or second.

For people whose main goal it is to shed fat, the reduction in leptin with cardio first may argue in favor of during your cardio first (read more).

The SuppVersity veterans out there may now feel reminded of a 2012 study by di Blasio et al. that was likewise covered in the SuppVersity news. Di Blasio et al. were the first to investigate the effects of "doing cardio in between", i.e. hopping on the treadmill or cardio equipment of your choice after the completion of a strength circuit or any other given time point in your strength workout and returning to the weights, afterwards (learn more). Unfortunately, this still isn't the answer to everthing. In fact, you don't have to browse the SuppVersity archives for posts on exercise order for very long until you hit onto an article that carries the title "Cardio First if You Want to Leave the Gym More 'Anabolic' Than You Were When You Came in?" (read more) and points you into yet another direction...

So, which of the myriad of studies do we trust?

If it were not for one major glitch in the study at hand, I  would probably end this article on the note that the singularly long follow up period in the study at hand would clearly suggest that the results Taipale et al. generated in the course of their experiment had more practical value (we all know about the fallacy of the narrow minded focus on the immediate post-workout endocrine response; don't we?) the fact that they did not control for the workload is a real bummer.

Imagine the guys simply lifted way more weight in the strength first, endurance second trial - wouldn't an increased GH response to an identical endurance workout with way more depleted glycogen stores actually be what you would have to expect? Also, we all know that when you put men and women together in the gym, the former train until they drop, while the latter do as they are told and take their time looking at the sweaty guys while fumbling around with the weights... ok, that's a cliché, but there is way more than just the splinter of truth that's at the bottom of every of these commonly held prejudices.

---

Doing (intense) cardio first could promote anabolism (learn why).

Bottom line: In the end, I can only give you this advice. Try both! Try doing cardio before and after your workouts for 2 weeks each and decide afterwards which exercise order you like best. Things you should base your decision on are (a) the amount of weight you lift, (b) your performance during the cardio part of your workout, (c) how smooth the transition between one and the other goes, (d) how you feel the day after and during your next workout.

And don't forget, a glycogen depleting cardio session before your strength workout could increase the expression of the muscle building isoform PGC-1a (learn more)

References

• Di Blasio A, Gemello E, Di Iorio A, Di Giacinto G, Celso T, Di Renzo D, Sablone A., Ripari P. Order effects of concurrent endurance and resistance training on post-exercise response of non-trained women. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2012 Aug; 11:393-39.
• Taipale R, Häkkinen K. Acute hormonal and force responses to combined strength and endurance loadings in men and women: the "order effect". PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55051.

Exercise Threesome: Heart Protective Effects of Lifelong Weight Training ✰ Cortisol Doping in High Intensity Sports ✰ Lifelong Exercise Normalizes CVD Risk of T2D Patients

Which of these news do you find more dubious? The fact that weight training is good for the heart or that cortisol doping can make the difference between victory and defeat in high intensity sports?

It's Sunday and I am still trying to figure out, if Sunday or Saturday is the day with the least visitors here at the SuppVersity. I am not sure what exactly you are doing on the weekend, but I guess after reading today's "Exercise Threesome" you will certainly feel "caught in the act" - in the act of working out or in the act of not working out on the weekend ;-)

In the end it does yet not matter if you are a weekend-warrior or loafer, the mere fact that you are here tells me that you must have some kind of interest in exercise and will thus probably not mad at me if I tell you that today's installment of the Short News is an exercise exclusive.

What? Oh right, the topics. Well I guess with heart health, performance and longevity I managed to cover some of the most interesting aspect of exercise training, didn't I?

• Long-term intense resistance training has beneficial effects on heart health / morphology -- (Morra. 2013) In their latest paper in the Journal of Hypertension, Morra et al. do away with the often-heard prejudice that resistance training as bad for your heart.

  

  Figure 2:  Central and peripheral hemodynamics and cardiac structural parameters (left), as well as Crude and adjusted central augmentation pressure (cAP) of intense resistance trained, endurance runners, and healthy untrained controls (Morra. 2013)

  As the title of the study already tells you, their analysis of the radial tonometry-pulse wave, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and echocardiogram's of sixty-nine 25-50 year-old male participants (19 intense resistance trained (IRT) group, 21 endurance runners, and 29 CON) revealed "preserved cardiac structure/function, decreased aortic stiffness, and lower central augmentation pressure" in the long-term intense resistance trained study participants.

• 

  If you don't want to resort to prescription drugs to boost your HIT performance, I'd suggest you take a closer look at the effects of baking soda (NaHCO3) and beta alanine on 4-min All-Out Sprints Even in Highly Trained Athletes.

  Glucocorticoids improve high-intensity exercise performance in humans -- (Casuso. 2013) That's not just the result, it's also the title of a paper in the December edition of the European Journal of Applied Physiology in which  Rafael A. Casuso, Lars Melskens, Thomas Bruhn, Niels H. Secher, and Nikolai Baastrup Nordsborg describe a statistically significant increases of +29% in one-legged dynamic knee-extensor exercise time to exhaustion, and +19% total running distance during a shuttle run test in response to the ingestion of 2 mg of dexamethasone or placebo in the morning (between 7 and 9 a.m.) and evening (between 5 and 9 p.m.) for five consecutive days.
  
  These improvements didn't come without a minimal downside though: The twitch relaxation was slower (P < 0.05) after dexamethasone compared to placebo treatment after 45 s of exercise. In view of the fact that the rate of force development was higher in the dexmethasone treated subjects, this is yet probably a "downside" professional athletes can cope with. The ~30$ and ~20% increases in strength and sprint endurance, respectively, could after all make the difference between victory and defeat.  
• Life-long physical activity restores metabolic and cardiovascular function in type 2 diabetes -- (Schreuder. 2013) While the overwhelming majority of epidemiological evidence suggests that the impact of type II diabetes (T2DM) on metabolic and cardiovascular health will necessarily limit our life-expectancy, the results of a recent study from the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre in The Netherlands clearly suggests that this may apply only to the lazy majority of T2DM patients.

  

  Figure 1: Lifetime risk score (%, risk of cardiovascular mortality in the next 30 years) in inactive and age-, sex- and body weight-matched life-long  active T2DM patients, and healthy controls (Schreuder. 2013).

  According to the results of their analysis (see Figure 1) of fitness, HOMA-IR (insulin resistance), brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease in 15 exercising T2DM patients, 12 age-, sex- and weight-matched sedentary T2DM patients and 9 sedentary men that were free of established cardiovascular and metabolic disease and served as controls, being physically active before the diagnosis of T2DM (7.8 ± 6.9 years duration of T2DM at the time of study), and having been physically active for 37.4 ± 8.4 years (18–47 years), with an average number of 5.3 ± 1.8 hours / week of physical activity, nullifies the negative effects of type II diabetes on the lifetime risk if cardiovascular mortality in the next 30 years.

Addison's disease is the consequence of a hereditary cortisol deficiency... looks like pimped up "adrenal fatigue", doesn't it?

Let me guess, you dig the news about the heart protective effects of weight training and are by no means surprised by the CVD protective effects of exercise in type II diabetics, but the thing about the performance enhancing effects of cortisol is giving you headaches, right?

I am not sure how often I will have to repeat that, but cortisol is more important for you than testosterone and growth hormone together. You just have to look at the poor wretches who are born with a congenital cortisol deficiency... I don't even want to start talking about the (usually self-induced) phenomenon people call "adrenal fatigue". If you experienced that once, you will certainly be inclined to believe that cortisol is ergogenic and can help you lose body fat (learn more).

References:

• Casuso, R. A., Melskens, L., Bruhn, T., Secher, N. H., & Nordsborg, N. B. (2013). Glucocorticoids improve high-intensity exercise performance in humans. European journal of applied physiology.
• Morra, E. A., Zaniqueli, D., Rodrigues, S. L., El-Aouar, L. M., Lunz, W., Mill, J. G., & Carletti, L. (2013). Long-term intense resistance training in men is associated with preserved cardiac structure/function, decreased aortic stiffness, and lower central augmentation pressure. Journal of hypertension.
• Schreuder, T. H., Maessen, M. F., Tack, C. J., Thijssen, D. H., & Hopman, M. T. (2013). Life-long physical activity restores metabolic and cardiovascular function in type 2 diabetes. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1-9.

How Much Cardio Messes W/ Your Weight Training Results Depends on Recovery Times: Cardio + Weights in One Session vs. AM + PM Training vs. Doing Each on One Day

Who would have thought that? After dozens of contradictory and highly inconclusive studies, this could finally be the one study designed to yield the answers to many of our questions about the effects of concomitant endurance and strength training.

A "concomitant trainer" that's my way of labeling someone who performs both strength and endurance workouts. Someone like the fifty-eight amateur rugby players who volunteered for an experiment ([mean ± SE] age, 25.5 ± 0.4 years, ranging from 21 to 28 years) scientists from the French federation of rugby union conducted last year. All were free from severe injuries for the last year. Their practice volume was ~4 to 5 hrs per week with only minimal experience in resistance training.

For the whole seven-week training period, the volunteers were randomly assigned to one of the five experimental groups with three concurrent strength and endurance training groups, one strength-training group and one control group.

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2015? Find inspiration in these articles:

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

1, 2, or 5 sets per Exercise? What's "best"?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The entire experiment was performed during the summer off-season. Therefore, subjects performed only one of the five training programs. They were asked to restrict fatiguing efforts at least two days before each test session and were also advised to maintain their normal dietary intake throughout the study. No food supplement was administered during all the protocol duration.

Speaking of which, the experiment itself was 10 weeks long with the first week dedicated to familiarization with all equipment and testing procedures, the second week involved the initial tests, the next seven weeks the training programs and the last week the final tests .

Overview of the timing of endurance and strength training in the experimental groups.

The independent variable was the treatment effect of five different 7-week training programs with one control group (CONT), one strength only training group (STR) and three concurrent strength and endurance training groups. The latter consisted of two sequences a week of each quality.

• Aerobic Training: Aerobic exercises included three 6-min sets of high intensity 15 s/15 s interval training on a field. Subjects, wearing cleats, alternated 15 s runs at 120% of their individual MAV with 15 s of passive recovery.
  
  A 5-min warm-up, consisting of moderate to cruising runs, preceded each aerobic training session. Subjects wore an individual heart rate monitor (Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) during each session in order to assess the cardiac workload and to regulate the distance to cover during the 15 s efforts.
  
  Distance to cover for the next sessions was higher if heart rate was lower than the rate of 90% of the maximal heart rate.
• Strength training: Every session began with a warm-up focused on abdominals/core training. Strength-training sessions consisted of 3-4 sets of 3-10 RM of the lower limbs (half squat - HS and leg press . LP) and upper limbs (bench press BP and BR).
  
  
  

  

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

  Training was divided into three periods during which the intensity progressively increased. The first period (weeks 1-2) aimed to prepare participants for a maximal strength training by performing 3 or 4 series with 10 repetitions a set at 70% of the 1RM. The second (weeks 3-5) and the third periods (weeks 6–7) were designed to increase maximal strength performing 3 or 4 series with 6 and 3 repetitions a set close to 80 and 90% 1RM, respectively.
  
  The 1RM was checked each week in order to regulate strength workload. Each set of HS, done on a guided machine, was immediately followed by plyometric jumps. Also, sets of LP were combined with eccentric exercises on hamstring muscles. Rest between sets ranged from 2 to 3 min according to strength-training recommendations (hypertrophic vs. maximal strength),
  
  All contractions during upper limbs exercises were performed in isoinertial conditions with free weights. The ones done during lower limbs exercises were performed with specific Cybex guided machines (Medway, USA). Exercises were randomized during each training session, alternating lower- and upper body tasks.

With the workouts being identical (see above), the only difference between the C-0h, C-6h and C-24h groups was the recovery delay between strength and endurance sequences. In all groups, strength training was always performed first and was followed

• strength training was done immediately after resistance training - 0h rest (C-0h),
• cardio in the AM, strength training in the PM - 6h rest (C-6h) or
• cardio on day 1, strength training on day 2 - 24h rest (C-24h)

by endurance training. The STR group which served as an active control for the "maximally possible" strength gains (without concomitant endurance exercise) only completed the strength sequences.

Figure 1: Rel. changes (%) from baseline for the strength parameters maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs), test exercises and counter-movement jumps (CMJ | Robineau. 2014)

The training routines were planned to ensure that there were at least 72h between the two strength sequences for all training groups (C-0h, C-6h, C 24h and STR). The CONT group, which served as a passive control did not train during the entire duration of the experimental protocol and only performed pre- and post-tests. Accordingly, the training effects had to be judged against both the CONT and the STR group, to answer the questions: (1) Were there any significant gains in strength and endurance performance; and (2) Were there significant disadvantages in the concomitant training groups when it comes to strength gains compared the STR (strength only) group?

Before you are asking about body fat and lean mass data: The scientists did not measure the effects on the body composition of their subjects. Quite a pity, because I suspect that this could well have tipped the scale in favor of the concomitant training. Sillanpää, et al. (2009), for example, found that a combined resistance + endurance training protocol lead to 110% more body fat loss in middle-aged and older women. Similar improvements in body fat loss were observed in middle-aged women on a endurance + resistance training protocol that would resemble the C-24h regimen in the study at hand (Park. 2003). Without at least some body impedance data from the study at hand, it's yet just an educated guess that we would have seen improvements in body composition - specifically increased fat loss - in all of the C-groups.

Figure 2: It should not come as a surprise that trained football players don't get an endurance benefit from doing resistance training (Robineau. 2014) - Maybe you remember this fact, the next time you are huffing and puffing, because you had to run to catch the train or realize you can't keep up w/ your 5-year old, bro?

As the data in Figures 1-2 tells you, there were such differences. As the scientists point out, gains in maximal strength for bench press and half squat were lower in C-0h compared to C-6h, C-24h and STR.

Moroever, the maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) during isokinetic knee extension at 60°·s-1 was likely higher for C-24h compared with C-0h, and the changes in maximal voluntary contractile force (MVC) at 180°·s-1 were likely higher in C-24h and STR than in C-0h and C-6h.

On the other hand, differences in the training-induced gains in isometric MVC for C-0h, C-6h, C-24h and STR were unclear and the VO2peak, a measure of aerobic conditioning increased only in those groups who actually did cardio training, i.e. C-0h, C-6h and C-24h.


In that, it is interesting to observe that the long(er) rest periods between endurance and strength training in the C-24 group lead to significantly greater increases in VO2peak in the subjects in said group compared to those who had been randomized to the C-0h and C-6h (AM, PM) group. With respect to the mean strength gains, on the other bench, the half-squat and the bench row, though, the AM-PM, i.e. the C-6h protocol appears to offer a non-significant advantage that stands in contrast to the ameliorated gains in maximum voluntary contractile force in this group. This part of the results is thus in fact "unclear" (Robineau. 2014).

So no concomitant training? Bullsh*t! Firstly, if you can do "cardio" and "weights" on seperate days, there is no problem at all. Secondly, if you can train only thrice a week, but pack in morning cardio + a strength training session in the PM, that's unlikely to hamper your gains significantly - specifically if you replete the glycogen stores and consume enough protein in the time between the AM+PM workout. Thirdly, even if you cannot do either cardio and weights on separate days or AM + PM sessions, the most significant result of the study at hand is that the cardiovascular disad- vantage of doing no cardio at all is significantly larger than the marginally reduced MVC gains if you do cardio and weights in one session. So what? Get your ass off that bench and move it ;-)

Bottom line: Overall, the study at hand proves that the interference between cardio and strength training depends on the recovery delay between the two sequences. That's practically news and has not been tested by any previous studies, which implies that "[d]aily training without a recovery period between sessions (C-0h) and, to a lesser extent, training twice a day (C-6h), is not optimal for neuromuscular and aerobic improvements." Accordingly, the Julien Robineau et al. are right, when they recommend: "Fitness coaches should avoid scheduling two contradictory qualities, with less than 6-hours recovery between them to obtain full adaptative responses to concurrent training" (Robineau. 2014).

Practically speaking this would mean: No cardio before strength and AM+PM cardio + strength sessions only as an exception to the rule. That's a sound recommendation, but if you look at the actual data, the strength gains on the bench, half-squats and the bench row do not necessarily warrant this advice (see Figure 1). The same goes for the improvements in counter-movement jumps. Are the detrimental effects on MVC gains, really relevant enough to warrant the previously cited recommendation if this is the only way you can do both, cardio and weights? I am not sure.

Furthermore, it remains to be elucidated, whether the existing detrimental effects would occur in trainees who have adapted to this routine over years of practice... personally, I have my doubts. Likewise questionable is, whether the use of protein and/or carbohydrate supplementation in-between the sessions would have changed the study outcome. And last but not least: For those of you who have decided to kick 2015 off with a weight loss regimen, the potential decrease in strength gains are irrelevant | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Park, Sang-Kab, et al. "The effect of combined aerobic and resistance exercise training on abdominal fat in obese middle-aged women." Journal of physiological anthropology and applied human science 22.3 (2003): 129-135.
• Robineau, Julien; Babault, Nicolas; Piscione, Julien; Lacome, Mathieu; Bigard, André-Xavier. "The specific training effects of concurrent aerobic and strength exercises depends on recovery duration." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: December 24, 2014.
• Sillanpää, Elina, et al. "Body composition, fitness, and metabolic health during strength and endurance training and their combination in middle-aged and older women." European journal of applied physiology 106.2 (2009): 285-296.