ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

If you dont have ginger powder, just shred a fresh rhizome. Thats by the way what the researchers did, as well.

Yeah, we all know "Ginger is good for your glucose metabolism". We all know "there are dozens of rodent studies that support its benefits". And we also know that there is evidence from acute interventions that indicate that ginger can ameliorate the glucose response to oral glucose tolerance tests.

But do we know, whether the regular consumption of realistic amounts of pure ginger will have beneficial effects on the glucose levels of those who would benefit the most, i.e. type II aka "lifestyle" diabetics?
The results of the latest study from the Tehran University of Medical Sciences where scientists obviously dont depend on being able to produce patentable agents would suggest: There are benefits!

I have to admit, though, the ginger the 20-60 years old diabetics consumed was not provided in form of whole roots, but rather as a powder made of ginger roots.

"The under study patients were diagnosed with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) by an endocrinologist on the basis of the results of the blood tests and met the criteria of the study. These criteria included: disease duration at least 2 years, HbA1c level of 6-8%, taking no antioxidant supplements such as selenium, zinc and beta-carotene for at least 3 months prior to the study, no smoking and drinking. Exclusion criteria of the study were insulin therapy at baseline or during the study, changes in the type or dose of medication, changes in diet or daily physical activity, any acute illnesses or some chronic diseases including kidney, liver, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases, smoking pregnancy and lactation, consumption of ginger or other botanical supplements, ginger hypersensitivity, and consumption of less than 80% of supplements during the study period." (Khandouzi. 2015)

Patients were divided randomly into two groups (experiment and control, 25 subjects in each) using computers random numbers to receive either ginger or placebo one capsule twice a day for 12 weeks. All subjects were permitted to consume their usual medications according to their physicians recommendation.

Regular ginger powder, nothing else!

The fresh rhizomes for the ginger powder purchased from local market and were ground as a fine particle after drying. The powder was delivered to a pharmaceutical lab (Tehran university of medical sciences, Iran) to prepare capsules containing 1 gram ginger in each. Lactose was also used to make placebo. Information on when the supplements were ingested is unfortunately, not available, but I assume "twice daily" means with breakfast and dinner or something like that.

Figure 1: Changes in fasting blood sugar, HbA1C, Apo-B/Apo-A1 and MDA levels (Khandouzi. 2015).

What is available, is the most relevant information, i.e. glucose, apolipoproteins and MDA levels we can use to access the effects on glucose and lipid metabolism and the peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids.Parameters of which the data in Figure 1 tells you that they were significantly improved over the course of the 12-week study period. More specifically, this means:

• A 12% and 10% reduction in fasting blood glucose and HbA1c that may reduce many of the nasty chronic side effects of type II diabetes, such as its negative effects on heart health (Patel. 2008)
• A 28% reduction in the Apo B / Apo A-I ratio that signifies a significant reduction in coronary atherosclerosis risk (Van Stiphout. 1986)
• A 23% reduction in malondialdehyde (MDA) levels that signifies a reduction in coronary heart disease risk (Khan. 2000)

Overall, there is thus little question that something as simple as adding 2g of pulverized fresh Zingiber officinale rhizomes will have a significant impact on important health markers in middle-aged type II diabetics.
References:

• Khan, Mudassir Ahmad, and Abdul Baseer. "Increased malondialdehyde levels in coronary heart disease." J Pak Med Assoc 50.8 (2000): 261-264.
• Khandouzi, Nafiseh, et al. "The Effects of Ginger on Fasting Blood Sugar, Hemoglobin A1c, Apolipoprotein B, Apolipoprotein AI and Malondialdehyde in Type 2 Diabetic Patients." Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research: IJPR 14.1 (2015): 131.
• Patel, Anushka, et al. "Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes." (2008).
• Schweizer, A., et al. "Comparison between vildagliptin and metformin to sustain reductions in HbA1c over 1 year in drug?naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes." Diabetic Medicine 24.9 (2007): 955-961.
• Van Stiphout, W. A. H. J., et al. "Is the ratio of apo B/apo AI an early predictor of coronary atherosclerosis?." Atherosclerosis 62.2 (1986): 179-182.

In general, you have to count and limit your weekly HIIT sessions. Doing as much as humanly possible, could yet make sense, when youre preparing for Olympia 2016 and realize 5 weeks before the event that you have been lingering for too long ;-)

I think as a SuppVersity reader you know by now that "more wont yield more" - no matter if we are talking about supplements or exercise. Now, while weve had countless examples of the "more aint more" principle thats also at the heart of the "Three Simple Rules of Supplementation" (read article) for supplements (e.g. zinc, chromium, etc.) and the simple notion that eating less wont always result in greater weight loss, evidence for the pro-anabolic / adaptive effects of exercise in general, and non-steady state cardio, in particular is scarce. Against that background its all the more important for us to cherish the publication of a paper from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the St Olav University Hospital in Trondheim Norway, Roy told me about by messaging me via the SuppVersity Facebook Page.

"More HIIT doesnt help more, either"

I guess the above would be the elevator pitch for the mythical "turbo lift" in Star Trek. For someone like yourself who has learned never to swallow "expert" wisdom just like that, the statement "more HIIT doesnt hep more, either" obviously wont be satisfying.

Figure 2: Illustration of the training in the low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) group.

If you look at the illustration above, you will already know somewhat more about the "more" in the previous sentence. As you can see, the parameter that has been modified is not the volume, its the frequency!  - and thus one of the parameters of which many gymrats think that it could hardly be high enough (AM + PM training, 7 days a week - does that ring a bell?). What this people ignore is the simple truth that ...

... adapatation takes time and training more often does not accelerate this process!

In the end, I am actually quite surprised to see that the net VO2 "gain" the scientists measured in the subsequent detraining phase (see Figure 2) was identical. Or, more explicitly, that packing 24 training sessions into three weeks did not blunt the mitochondrial adaptation processes that are responsible for the increase in VO2max, altogether.

Figure 2: VO2max and heart rate values of the 16 healthy subjects before / after high vs. low frequency HIIT (Hatle. 2014)

If we are brutally honest, though, there is obviously an advantage for the 24 sessions in 8 weeks version of this training protocol (see Figure 3, as well). The VO2max scores were after all identical only in the "catch-up" up period in week 11 and due to the rapid decline after week 12 the benefits faded equally rapid in both groups when the 19 healthy, normalweight, but non-athletic subjects returned to their usual laziness (detraining = not training at all).
References:

• Hatle H, Støbakk PK, Mølmen HE, Brønstad E, Tjønna AE, et al. "Effect of 24 Sessions of High-Intensity Aerobic Interval Training Carried out at Either High or Moderate Frequency, a Randomized Trial." PLoS ONE 9(2). (2014): e88375. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088375

Bench press bros, listen up! You better push that weigh up fast, if you want to make maximal strength gains - O-lifting says "Hello" ;-)

Do you train deliberately slow? If so, you may be limiting your strength gains. A recently published paper in the European Journal of Sports Science shows: "Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect" (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2014).

Before we take a closer look at how "large" the effect of training the training velocity actually is, I would like to invite you to take a closer look at the design of the corresponding experiment that was conducted at the Pablo de Olivade University in Seville, Spain.
The experiment was designed in an attempt to clarify the influence of repetition velocity on the gains in strength consequent to isoinertial resistance training. To this ends, the scientists conducted two separate studies:

• Study I compared the effect of two distinct RT interventions on strength gains using movement velocity as the independent variable. Two groups that only differed in actual repetition velocity (and consequently in time under tension, TUT): maximal intended velocity (MaxV) vs. half-maximal velocity (HalfV) trained three times per week for 6 weeks using the bench press (BP) exercise, while the remaining programme variables (number of sets and repetitions, inter-set rests and loading magnitude) were kept identical.
• Study II was a complementary study that aimed to analyze whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different between the type of MaxV and HalfV protocols previously used in Study I

Of the 24 men who volunteered to participate in Study I, only 20 successfully completed the entire study (mean ± s: age 21.9 ± 2.9 years, height 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass 70.9 ± 8.0 kg). Therefore, the scientists recruited 10 additional participants (25.3 ± 3.4 years, 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass 75.2 ± 8.7 kg) for the follow up study (Study II).
The participants were physically active sport science students with 2–4 years of recreational RT experience in the bench press exercise - a fact that may be important if you take into consideration what I wrote about the Pereira study in the red box above.

Figure 1: Schematic timeline of study design (Gonzales-Badillo. 2014)

"Based upon pre-test 1RM strength performance, participants were allocated to one of the two groups following an ABBA counterbalancing sequence: MaxV (n = 9) or HalfV (n = 11) [the non-random allocation to the two groups ensured that there was no significant strength difference between the two groups at the beginning of the study].

The only difference in the RT programme between groups was the actual velocity at which loads were lifted: maximal intended concentric velocity for MaxV vs. an intentional half-maximal concentric velocity for HalfV [note the difference between doing each rep at maximal velocity and trying to do so!]."

Both groups trained three times per week, on non-consecutive days, for a period of 6 weeks using doing nothing but bench presses on each of the workout days. In that, Study I and II were performed 3 weeks apart using a different sample of participant.

Figure 2: Changes in bench press 1-RM over the course of Study I. The relative changes are 16% increase in the maximal 9% increase in the 50% velocity group (Gonzales-Badillo. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 2 the scientists are right, when they say that it seems as if "[m]ovement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect" (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2014). A corresponding difference in lactate production during the workouts was yet detected only if the exercise was performed at low intensities and high speed, i.e. 3 × 8 with 0.79 m/s at ?60% of the 1RM and with 3 × 6 with 0.62 m/s a ?70% of the 1RM.
References:

• González-Badillo, Juan José, et al. "Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training." European journal of sport science ahead-of-print (2014): 1-10.
• Ingebrigtsen, Jørgen, Andreas Holtermann, and Karin Roeleveld. "Effects of load and contraction velocity during three-week biceps curls training on isometric and isokinetic performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.6 (2009): 1670-1676.
• Pareja-Blanco, F., et al. "Effect of Movement Velocity during Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance." International Journal of Sports Medicine EFirst (2014).
• Pereira, Marta Inez Rodrigues, and Paulo Sergio Chagas Gomes. "Effects of isotonic resistance training at two movement velocities on strength gains." Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 13.2 (2007): 91-96.
• Sakamoto, Akihiro, and Peter James Sinclair. "Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press." European journal of applied physiology 112.3 (2012): 1015-1025.