ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

The squat may be a power exercise, but trust me, it will also help you to "look good naked"!

I guess it would be hilarious to call the simple insight that cutting the time you rest in-between sets during your squats can turn a regular into a killer workout would be news, right? Well, what about some figures to define "killer" as in one minute rest between sets vs. "regular" as in three minutes rest between sets squats, then? Thats news, right; and we have to thank Nicholas A. Ratamess and his colleagues from the College of New Jersey for these insights.

I mean, huffing and puffing is one thing, but your subjectively perceived level of exhaustion and the very concrete, objectively measured data on the difference in energy expenditure and the contribution of aerobic (fat) and anaerobic (glucose) energy sources during a workout, as they are presented in the paper at hand, are two different animals.
Apropos animal, you dont necessarily have to be a similar "animal" as the 22-year old subjects of the study at hand with their ~8-year training experience to perform the tightly controlled experimental workout, the researchers describe as follows:

"After BL [baseline] measures, each subject performed a warm-up consisting of 3 minutes of stationary cycling and 2–3 lightto-moderate sets (40–60% of 1RM) of the bench press and squat. Respiratory masks were temporarily removed from each subject during the warm-up to allow subjects to consume water one last time before initiating the protocols.

Find out how to optimally train your legs - The SuppVersity EMG Series - Gluteus, Quads & Co | read more

The protocols consisted of performing 5 sets of the bench press and 5 sets of the back squat for up to 10 repetitions using 75% of their predetermined 1RM. The BP group performed the bench press first, whereas the S group performed the back squat first. For all exercises, resistance remained constant while total numbers of repetitions were recorded. Heart rate and oxygen consumption data were collected during the entire protocol. In addition, a linear position transducer (Tendo Sports Machines, Trencin, Slovak Republic) was attached to the bar to measure power and velocity during each completed repetition."

On each of the three occasions the subjects reported to the lap, a different rest interval was used. With 1-, 2-, and 3-minutes of rest in-between sets, the and a standard 2-minute RI was used in between exercises, the study represents more or less what I see trainees do at the gym on a daily basis, as well... ok, the lazy "I just want to be strong"-10-minutes-of-rest-between-sets-fat-ass was not accordingly represented in the study at hand, but lets be honest, how many of the average trainees do actually fall into this category? I mean, if you ask people why they are going to the gym, they will either lie or tell you that they are there to "look better naked".

"Looking good naked" is a valid training goal, folks - so admit to it!

For most people sculpting their body may be only one of the reasons, but in the end, it usually comes down to this and "health" or "fitness", when youre getting honest answers from gym users.

Figure 2: The amount of energy the trainees expended on bench presses and squats was significantly higher with the 1-min rest periods (17% and 36%, for squats; 8% and 18% for bench presses; data based on Ratamess. 2014)

Against that background, the insight that short rest periods lead to significant increases in energy expenditure is highly relevant (Note: The energy expenditure was calculated by multiplying the total VO2 for the session x 5.05kcal/L). Losing fat is after all number one on the "looking good naked" priority list of most trainees and in spite of the fact that you wont lose any fat without dieting, the 36% higher energy expenditure of the 1min vs. 3min rest time workout could make the difference between ordinary and outstanding fat loss results... in spite of the increase in the respiratory exchange ratio, an indicator of an increased anaerobic contribution to the energy expenditure, by the way!

Short rest times + 6 Simple Rules of Reasonable Weight Loss = Succes!

Unfortunately, the myth that "burning fat" during exercise was in any way relevant to your weight / fat loss success is as die hard as it is stupid and flawed.

Especially for the leaner folks out there, "burning fat" is absolutely irrelevant. In fact, the whole HIIT research appears to suggest that short intense, highly glycolytic exercise regimen are more suitable to shed body fat for athletic individuals than arduous multiple-hour workouts in the non-existing (!) "fat burning zone".

The reason I still recommend LISS as a preferable type of cardio training for the advanced trainee with three to four resistance training sessions per week is that all the "high intensity stuff" (dont neglect your strength workouts!) is going to overtax the sympathetic nervous system. The classic light-intensity steady state (LISS) work, on the other hand, offers a welcome parasympathetic stimulus to balance all the intense explosive training youre doing at the gym.
References:

• Ahtianen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.
• Ratamess, Nicolas A., et al. "Acute Oxygen Uptake and Resistance Exercise Performance Using Different Rest Interval Lengths: The Influence of Maximal Aerobic Capacity and Exercise Sequence." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.7 (2014):1875–1888.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M. "A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.4 (2006): 978-984. 
• Willardson, Jeffrey M., and Lee N. Burkett. "The effect of different rest intervals between sets on volume components and strength gains." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.1 (2008): 146-152.

Even female volleyball players are wo- men - no wonder they tend to undereat ;)

Usually we are learning about what makes us fat by looking at those who are fat. Studies on athletes like gymnasts and volleyball players, and what influences their body composition, on the other hand, are scarce. Reason enough for me to take a closer look at two thesis by graduates from the Georgia State University who analyzed the relationship between moderate, within day protein intake and energy balance on body composition of collegiate sand volleyball players (Richardson. 2014) and the relationship between daily protein distribution and body composition in elite gymnasts (Paszkiewicz. 2014) - research that could be relevant for both, men and women.

I guess many of you will remember that Ive written about gymnasts before - in July 2013, to be precise. In said article with the telling title "Do Chronic Energy Deficits Make Athletes Fat? The Longer & More Severe You Starve, the Fatter You Are. Irrespective of What the Calories-in-VS-Calories-Out Formula May Say" (read more) I analyzed the negative effects of "starvation" on body composition to highlight that simply not eating or eating like a bird is not going to give you the Shape cover model body, many girls are looking for.
In spite of the fact that the titles of the two studies and hand and the previously cited study by Deutz differ, the objectives are not very different:

• "The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  simultaneously  assess  energy  balance  and
  protein  intake  to  determine  if  these  factors  are  associated  with  body  composition  in  a
  population of collegiate sand volleyball players." (Richardson. 2014)
• "The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between hourly EB and protein intake with body composition" (Paszkiewicz. 2014)

If you look at the exact ways the authors phrase it, it does yet become obvious that Richardson (2014) puts a greater emphasis on the amount of protein, while Paszkiewicz is, just like Deutz back in the day, very interested in the hourly energy balance (EB) and thus the time the subjects remain in a positive / negative energy balance.

Apropos subjects! In the gymnasts who participated in Paszkiewicz study were elite and highly
competitive athletes from several training gyms across the country. The information on their daily food intakes was elucidated by the means of secondary analyses that were performed on previously collected three-day food diaries and the interactions with body composition were calculated by comparing intakes and anthropometric measures (made with DEXA).

Table 1: ?Subject? Characteristics of the Gymnasts ? (N=?40; Paszkiewicz. 2014)?

Table 1 provides an overview of the subject characteristics. If you take a closer look, you will see that there is a pretty broad range from hardly any muscle to pretty muscular and from ripped to the shreds to average body fat.
If we take a closer look at the correlations Paszkiewicz found, some of you may be surprised to see that the relative carbohydrate intake (as percent of macronutrients) was not just positively associated with higher lean mass (see Figure 1), but also negatively with fat mass (R = -0.043).

Figure 1: Minimal, maximal and average energy balance in the gymnasts (left); positive correlates and correlation coefficients R of lean mass in 40 elite competitive female gymnasts (Paszkiewicz. 2014)

The amount of protein the gymnasts ate, however, was not significantly associated with increase lean mass. In fact, when we compare two groups, i.e. those with a high and those with a low protein intake, statistics inform us that "the higher protein group ha[s] a statistically significant lower FFM [fat free masss]" (Paszkiewicz. 2014).

Are high(er) protein intakes bad for gymnasts or, what?

Personally I suspect that this is due to a correlation between high(er) protein intakes, lower cabohydrate intakes (R = -0.595) and, most importantly, a reduced overall energy intake, which is associated with lower lean body mass and (listen up, ladies!), just as it has been reported by Deutz et al. previously, increased body fat % (reread the corresponding article from July 2013).

But why dont we have a look at the other study? Beach volleyball players are regarded as the epitome of health and sexappeal, so things could easily look different for them compared to the "frail" gymnasts, right? With a mean body fat % of 18% and a standard deviation ±7% the twelve women from the GSU sand volleyball team who participated in Richardsons study have a much healthier body fat percentage than the average, let alone extreme gymnast in the previously discussed study (we got to be careful here, because the BF% in the Richardson study was measured by body impedance and could thus easily be 5% off).
With a mean BMI of 22 kg/m², all female participants of the study were normalweight and consumed a diet with >1.94g protein per body weight (mean intake 132 ±52 g per day). An amount of protein most of the ladies spread across the day with a mean 26.06 (±10.51) g being consumed on every eating opportunity. Thats not yet the "SuppVersity suggested" amount of 30g of protein per meal, but its getting close, yet with an uneven distribution from AM to PM:

• 30g from 6-12 AM,
• 63g from noon to six PM,
• another 39g in the evening

In contrast to many average Janes and Joes, the study participants consumed almost half of the mean protein intake during mid-day, while their protein intake from 6 pm to midnight amounted to only 24(±23) % of their total daily protein consumption. Still, Richardson is right to point out that

"[...] protein intake distribution was skewed, on average, toward the latter half of  the  day  with  approximately  19%  of  protein  consumed  in  the  morning  and  34% consumed  in  the  evening." (Richardson. 2014)

Much to my surprise, the ladies in the beach volley ball team were similarly anorexic as their peers in the gymnast group. With -404  (±385) kcal/day the average energy balance was clearly negative; and even if the standard deviations indicate that this was not the case for all of the ladies, the athletes spent 17 hours, on average, in a catabolic energy balance state (< 0 kcal) on a daily basis.

A high relative protein intake was not associated with better body composition!

Interestingly, though, no significant correlation was found between energy balance per gram of protein consumption and body composition.

Table 2: Spearman’s Correlations: Six Zone Protein Intake and Body Composition (N=12; Richardson. 2014); FFM – fat free mass: FFM to Ht ratio – amount of FFM per cm of height; eating Opportunities – number of times athlete consumed calories; 24 Hour EB – net kcal at the end of the day (energy consumed less energy expended)

The picture that emerges from a regression analyses with respect to the relation of energy balance and protein variables is in fact dubious (see Table 2). The only significant correlations (bold) are a positive correlation between fat free mass (FFM) and protein intake late, and a negative correlation between fat free mass and protein intake early in the AM. A similarly confusing, yet at no time significant association arises for the fat mass, which correlates negatively (albeit with p = 0.678 statistically non-significantly) with the number of meals with a protein content of 25g or more.

It takes some effort to avoid making the transition from the sofa to the ICU.

Whats better for heart disease protection - high or medium intensity exercise as it is still prescribed by the majority of doctors? A recent study from the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (Germany) probed the effects of high vs. moderate intensity training on cardiovascular risk markers of 81 untrained, healthy not exactly lean (BMI 27.2kg/m²) men aged 30-50 years.

The subjects were randomized to either a high intensity interval training or a moderate intensity steady state training group who burnt the exact same amount of energy during their workouts.
In contrast to other studies, the groups did not train at the same time. The study started in September. From September to December, the HIIT group performed high intensity interval training

• at 80-100% of their maximal heart rate during 90s-120min intervals,
• with 1-3 min pauses at 70-75% of the maximal heart rate

so that 40% of the total training volume were performed at high heart rates, 35% at maximal heart rates, and 25% of the total volume at 25% of medium heart rates.

Figure 1: Overview of the study protocol (translated from Kemmler. 2015).

During the first three months, the medium intensity steady state group (MIST) group served as sedentary control (see Figure 1). A control group in which the markers of cardiovascular health rather deteriorated than improved.

Figure 2: Changes in left ventricular myocardial mass (LVMI), cardiovascular fitness (CV), intima-media thickness (IMT, associated with increased CVD risk), body fat, and lean mass (Kemmler. 2015).

What is of interest is thus not really the difference between the control and the HIIT group, but the difference between the HIIT and MIST group. A difference of which the data in Figure 2 indicates that there was a significant advantage of doing HIIT vs MIST training - at least as far as the cardiovascular disease markers are concerned.

What may come as a surprise is that despite the significant improvements in fitness and metabolic disease scores (-2.06 pts vs. -1.6 pts with HIIT vs. MIST, respectively), the amount of fat lost was more pronounced in the MIST group; and that in spite of the fact that they performed only 5% of their training at the maximal heart frequency, 10% at high intensities and the vast majority of exercise, i.e. 85%, at a moderate exercise intensity. In view of the fact that the design of the study required that all participants expended the same amount of energy, its quite interesting that the subjects in the MIST study burned more body fat than the subjects in the HIIT study. In the absence of a strictly controlled energy intake, its yet no reliable evidence that would disprove the rule that HIIT is - specifically for leaner folks - the more effective fat burner. The result of the study at hand should thus not be overrated.

Figure 2: Endothelial function measured as FMD (left); maximal oxygen uptake (right) before and after 12-week high intensity interval or moderate intensity steady state exercise in patients with heart failure (Wisløff . 2007)

Before I get to the conclusions, I would like to point out that having a exisiting heart condition is not necessarily a reason to refrain from high intensity exercise. On the contrary, a 2007 study by Ulrik Wisløff et al. clearly indicates that aerobic interval training is superior to moderate continuous training even in heart failure patients. More specifically, the scientists from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim found that "[e]xercise intensity was an important factor for reversing LV remodeling and improving aerobic capacity, endothelial function, and quality of life in patients with postinfarction heart failure" (Wisløff. 2007).

Yet in spite of the fact that the researchers  highlight that their results would have "important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs" - the impact on the real world prescriptions in such programs is negligible.,
References:

• Beniamini, Yael, et al. "High-intensity strength training of patients enrolled in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program." Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention 19.1 (1999): 8-17.
• Kemmler, Wolfgang, et al. "Hoch-versus moderat-intensive Laufbelastung–Einfluss auf kardio-metabolische Risikogrößen bei untrainierten Männern." DMW-Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 140.01 (2015): e7-e13.
• Tanasescu, Mihaela, et al. "Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men." Jama 288.16 (2002): 1994-2000.
• Tinkham, Michelle. "Health Promotion in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients through the Use of a High-Intensity Interval Training Protocol." World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases 4.10 (2014): 493.
• Warburton, Darren ER, et al. "Effectiveness of high-intensity interval training for the rehabilitation of patients with coronary artery disease." The American journal of cardiology 95.9 (2005): 1080-1084.
• Wisløff, Ulrik, et al. "Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients a randomized study." Circulation 115.24 (2007): 3086-3094.

If we go by the convincing results of the study at hand, the fasted cardio myth is obviously busted.

Sometimes the day youve been waiting for comes faster than youd thought... no, I am not talking about a teens eighteens birthday or Christmas (reminds me, I still have to buy a ton of presents), but rather of the recently hinted at "fasted cardio study" by Brad Jon Schoenfeld, Alan Albert Aragon, Colin D Wilborn, James W Krieger and Gul T Sonmez.

The study of which I wrote only 2 days ago in my article about the 50% increase in fatty acid oxidation in fasted vs. fed morning cardio (learn more). And it is in fact the study which may finally solve the "Is fasted cardio good for your weight loss?"-question.

In contrast to the previously discussed paper, Schoenfeld et al. who started with the common hypothesis that "performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat" (Schoenfeld. 2014), did not content themselves with measures of acute fatty acid oxidation. What they did was a study to investigate the actual changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted versus fed aerobic exercise in young women adhering to a hypocaloric diet.
Needless to say that this study has the potentially to give us reliable insights with respect to the previously formulated question, because their subjects, twenty healthy young female volunteers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups,

• a fasted training (FASTED) group that performed exercise after an overnight fast (n =10) or
• a post-prandial training (FED) group that consumed a meal prior to exercise (n =10)

not for one or two testing days, but for 4 weeks! The training itself consisted of 1 hour of steady-state aerobic exercise on a regular treadmill (0% incline) and was performed for 3 days per week for the previously mentioned total study duration of 4 weeks.

"Subjects performed a warm-up for the first 5 minutes at an intensity equating to 50% of maximal heart rate (MHR), determined by the formula 220 - age, then increased intensity to 70% MHR for the next 50 minutes, and finished with a 5 minute cool down at 50% MHR. Heart rate monitors (model F7U, Polar Electro Inc, Lake Success, NY) were used to ensure that exercise remained at the appropriate intensity." (Schoenfeld. 2014)

To ensure that (a) the subjects actually trained and they would (b) only do the prescribed standardized volume of exercise, all training sessions were supervised by research assistants who were upper level undergraduate students in exercise science and the subjects were instructed to refrain from performing any additional structured exercise for the duration of the study.
Subjects were provided with customized dietary plans designed to induce a caloric deficit. In that, their total caloric intake was calculated on the basis of the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation, which yields adequate, but obviously not 100% precise measurements of the resting metabolic rate (max. 10% off in non-obese adults according to Frankenfield. 2005). Since the same method was used for both groups, any possible inaccuracies, due to which the real caloric deficit among the women may not be identical to the calculated one, should carry no real weight, though. And we can simply assume that all women were in the same ~500kcal/day energy deficit the researchers thought to create.

Figure 1: Nutrient composition and total energy intake of the subjects in both groups (Schoenfeld. 2014)

In addition to their regular diet, the adherence to which was monitored on a regular basis, the subjects received a meal replacement shake either

• immediately prior to exercise for the FED group or
• immediately following exercise for the FASTED group,

with this nutritional provision carried out under the supervision of a research assistant. The "Pursuit Recovery" (Dymatize Nutrition, TX) shake you could also buy at your local GNC contains 250 calories, total, and 40 g carbohydrate (from maltodextrin and organic cane sugar), 20 g protein (from whey protein isolate + added leucine), and 0.5 g fat (residues).

Lets  take a look at the results now

As you can see in Figure 2, both groups showed a significant loss of weight (P =0.0005) and fat mass (P =0.02) from baseline, but no significant between-group differences were noted in any outcome measure (which means, that all the differences you see are "random").

Figure 2: Pre- vs. Post-study body composition measures (Schoenfeld. 2014)

As Schoenfeld et al. rightly point out, their findings clearly "indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training" (Schoenfeld. 2014) - in other words, in this pretty realistic scenario (I hope nobody starves himself after a 1h morning cardio session for another 4-8h) the myth that morning cardio on an empty stomach would accelerate fat loss is thus busted.
References:

• Frankenfield, David, Lori Roth-Yousey, and Charlene Compher. "Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105.5 (2005): 775-789.
• Van Proeyen, Karen, et al. "Training in the fasted state improves glucose tolerance during fat-rich diet." The Journal of physiology 588.21 (2010): 4289-4302. 
• Schoenfeld, Brad, et al. "Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.54 (2014)