ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

Weights works for ladies, too! Really!

I am not sure if you remember it, but youve read about what I would like to refer to as the "proximity hypothesis" before, here at the SuppVersity.

The basic idea behind is eventually similar to the notion of "localized fat loss", yet on the micro- not the macro-scale. In other words, instead of "do sit-ups to burn abdominal fat" the no-bro-science-variety of the "proximity hypothesis" says: "Train your legs to empty the huge intra-muscular fat stores and have them refilled from the abdominal fat."

Probably you will already have realized that this is "proximity" as in "right next to the skeletal muscle mitochondria" and not "proximity" as "a fat depot next to the muscle your train".

SuppVersity Suggested Read: " Spot Reduce Abdominal Fat With Green Tea, Green Clay & Magnesium Sulfate Soaked "Plaster Body Wrap"... Really!?" | read more

As S.O. Shepherd and his colleagues from the Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Birmingham and the University of Stirling point out, it has long been speculated that part of the improvements in insulin sensitivity following endurance training

"[...] are mechanistically linked to increases in muscle oxidative capacity, intramuscular triglyceride (IMTG) utilization during endurance exercise and increases in the content of the lipid droplet-associated perilipin-2 (PLIN2) and PLIN5." (Shepherd. 2014)

These lipid droplet-associated proteins (or short PLINs) coat the lipid droplets in fat and other cells and protect them from lipases of which you, as a SuppVersity reader know that they are enzymes our body uses to break down and "free" stored body fat - a process scientists usually refer to as "lipolysis".

An increase in perilipin in the musculature will thus necessarily increase the storage of lipid droplets in the muscle; and since it does not affect fat storage in the adipose organ and in view of the fact that the fat must come from somewhere (nutrition, endogenous fatty acid production from glucose, or stored body fat) this is not a bad thing.

More fat in the muscle? Thats bad, right?

Its thus not shocking to have a "high" amount of fat in the muscle, as long as it is deposited there as a fat reserves for the mitochondria and serves as an alternative, additional or auxiliary, astonishingly readily available energy source for the muscle. A "range extender" with profound beneficial effects on muscular endurance.

Figure 1: Changes in heart rate VO2max, carbohydrate + fat oxidation, and respiratory exchange ratio (left); blood glucose + insulin levels after an oral glucose tolerance test before and after RT intervention (Shepherd. 2014)

Any marathon runner, ironman or -woman and even pharmaceutically enhanced Tour de France drivers would thus be happy if they experienced a similar increase in intramuscular triglyceride stores (IMGT) as the thirteen sedentary males (20±1 years, 24.8±0.8 kg/m²) in the study at hand.

The guys had perfoemed a 6-weeks whole-body resistance training program (3 sessione per week) in the course of which Shepherd et al. observed not just the previously mentioned increases in IMTG, and PLIN2 and PLIN5 protein content, but also highly significant increases in intramuscular fat breakdown during "light" cardio training (65% VO2max; +43% in slow-twitch type I and +37% in fast-twitch type II fibers).
References:

• Geirsdottir, Olof Gudny, et al. "Physical function predicts improvement in quality of life in elderly Icelanders after 12 weeks of resistance exercise." The journal of nutrition, health & aging 16.1 (2012): 62-66.
• OConnell, Matthew DL, et al. "Do the effects of testosterone on muscle strength, physical function, body composition, and quality of life persist six months after treatment in intermediate-frail and frail elderly men?." Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 96.2 (2010): 454-458.
• Rizzoli, René, et al. "Quality of life in sarcopenia and frailty." Calcified tissue international 93.2 (2013): 101-120. 
• Shepherd, Sam O., et al. "Resistance training increases skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and net intramuscular triglyceride breakdown in type I and II fibres of sedentary males." Experimental Physiology (2014).
• Silva, Neto LS, et al. "Association between sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity, muscle strength and quality of life variables in elderly women." Revista brasileira de fisioterapia (Sao Carlos (Sao Paulo, Brazil)) 16.5 (2011): 360-367.

A personal trainer who knows what hes doing is that he will push you exactly so far as it is necessary to make maximal progress. Interestingly, even the best trainers will fail doing the same for themselves.

The more is better mentality thats so characteristic of our lives in the Western world of affluence is imho the most important obstacle trainees all around the world meet on their way to increased muscle strength, size and performance. Against that background its a pity that the results of a recent study from the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at the Queen’s University relate to sprint training, only. So, after having a look at Jason G. E. Zelt, I will briefly take a look at similar evidence from the more popular field of "working out to look good naked" and to be as strong as Superman.

But lets not waste any more time and sprint straight to the point! Zelt et al. published the results of the initially mentioned study in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Applied Physiology (Zelt. 2014).
As Zelt et al. point out, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to confirm that reductions in SIT work-interval duration do not result in reduced adaptations in aerobic and anaerobic capacity, and (2) to examine the effects of reduced work interval duration on submaximal determinants of exercise performance, namely lactate threshold and critical power.

In accordance with previous studies where aerobic capacity and aerobic performance were measured (Burgomaster. 2008; Hazell. 2010), the scientists hypothesized that reducing SIT work interval duration would have no effect on training-induced increases in lactate threshold and critical power.

Figure 1: Effects of high (SIT30) and lower volume (SIT15) training on power output and lactate threshold (Zelt. 2014)

And indeed, it hadnt. While there was a significant main effectof training on VO2peak such that VO2peak was elevated post-training, no significant difference was observed in the improvements observed between groups (ET ~13 %, SIT 30–4 %, SIT 15–8 %; not shown in Figure 1).

"A significant main effect of training was observed such that lactate threshold and critical power were higher during post-testing across all groups (p  <  0.05). There was a main effect of training (p  <  0.05) on Wingate peak power with no differences observed between groups at post training."

As the researchers point out, these results clearly indicate that "reducing SIT work-interval duration from 30 to 15 s had no impact on training-induced increases in aerobic or anaerobic power, or on increases in lactate threshold (absolute) and critical power."
The initially hinted at question that remains is yet: "Is this true for the more popular training goal of getting strong, ripped and buffed, as well?" The answer to this question is certainly not easy to answer, as it may easily depend on your training status, your exact goals and maybe even the body parts youre training. You dont get it? Well, I guess its best Ill provide you with a few examples:

• Look at his legs, Ronnie Coleman must have done something right... and guess what, the study at hand suggests that part of it could have been his insane training volume.

  the legs of advanced trainees may need a little more hammering -- Maybe you remember this being the take-home message from a previous article, i.e. "Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume! Greater & Steadier Strength Gains with 8 Sets of Squats. Plus: Over 6 Weeks, 1 Set and 4 Sets Equally (In-)Effective." | read more
• the classic single vs. three set debate is still not settled -- While Starky et al.s 1996 study is one of the studies that appears to tip the scale in favor of studies suggests that there is no significant different in the strength and muscle gains in response to increasing the number of sets on a given exercise from one to three sets. Unfortunately, Starky et al. as well as most of their successors picked untrained noobs to test their hypothesis. And we all know: Noobs grow from simply looking at a barbell, right?
  
  So what do other studies say? Studies that used subjects like you and me? People who have been training regularly for ten or more years? People like the fifty-one experienced (>3 years), trained junior lifters who were randomly assigned to low, medium and high volume resistance training in a 2005 study by Juan J. Gonzalez-Badillo et al.
  

  Figure 2: Number of repetitions per week and average intensity (AI) during the 10-week training period in the low-volume (LVG), moderate-volume (MVG), and high-volume (HVG) training groups (left); EEffect size for the snatch, clean & jerk, and squat performances. LVG low volume group; MVG medium volume group; HVG high volume group (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2005)

  As you can see in Figure 2 (right), there is a highly significant advantage of the medium vs. both the low and high volume group who trained at significantly lower, respectively higher volumes (see Figure 2, left) than the guys in the medium volume group for squats and clean & jerks. The snatch, on the other hand, probably because it is the most demanding exercise, technically speaking, benefited from a "little" more volume (~ 100 reps per week).
• the lower the volume, the higher the frequency -- Furthermore, the overview in Table 1, which was originally published as part of a review of the determinants of strength training success by Tan (1999) shows that another volume-related parameter, i.e. the training frequency, figures, as well; with high(er) frequencies producing greater increases in strength gains.

  Table 1: Summary of studies looking into optimal training frequency (Tan. 1999)

  Up to five training sessions for the upper and up to four for the lower body are possible, but whether theyre in fact as productive as the studies Tan cites would suggest appears questionable and will certainly depend on the volume of the individual sessions.
  
  The fact that it seems as if the upper body would respond more favorably to increases in training frequency than the lower body would albeit stand in line with the previously cited beneficial effects of high(er) volume training on the legs.
  
  

  Figure 3: Generally speaking a 2007 review of the literature by Mathias Wernbom et al. supports the notion that legs (in this case the quadriceps) dont just gain the most strength, but also the most size with ~3 training sessions per week; with the one outlier (12x/week) being a low intensity Kaatsu study by Abe et al. (2005)

  Why? Well, the study by Robins et al. conducted in 2012 (learn more) used a high volume on training days, but a necessarily low training frequency (two session per week, A + B). As Tan points out, ...
  

  "[...a]nother point to note from Table 1 is that previously trained athletes are closer to their strength potential and may require higher frequencies compared with untrained athletes" (Tan. 1999)."

  A statement that takes us back to the simple, but significant assessment that we cannot expect to find a training volume thats perfect for everyone: Individualization is key!

As far as the design of specific routines is concerned the previously cited review by Wernborn et al. offers a neat overview of suggested training principles, most of you will be familiar with.

Table 2: Recommendations for dynamic external resistance training for hypertrophy (Wernborn. 2007)

If you take a look at the middle column, you will hopefully realize that the suggested progression from 1-2 sets to 3-6 sets is specified on a "per muscle group" basis. The three biceps exercise with three sets of 8-12 reps, each, are thus off the charts, already; and youd be better off doing three sets of barbell curls and nosebreakers to end up at your maximum of six sets per body part (in this case the "arms") to return to the gym two days later and hammer your arms with three sets of hammer curls and cable press-downs.
References:

• Abe, Takashi, Charles F. Kearns, and Yoshiaki Sato. "Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training." Journal of Applied Physiology 100.5 (2006): 1460-1466.
• Robbins, Daniel W., Paul WM Marshall, and Megan McEwen. "The effect of training volume on lower-body strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.1 (2012): 34-39.
• Tan, Benedict. "Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.3 (1999): 289-304.
• Wernbom, Mathias, Jesper Augustsson, and Roland Thomeé. "The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans." Sports Medicine 37.3 (2007): 225-264.
• Zelt, Jason GE, et al. "Reducing the volume of sprint interval training does not diminish maximal and submaximal performance gains in healthy men." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-10.

NEMS devices are usually marketed as "ab trainers" - do you own one?

Convenience above everything! Although I personally believe that this mantra is to blame for most of the modern health issues, scientists from the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Institute for Convergence Study of Bio-Medical Wellness at the Yonsei University in Korea have now been able to demonstrate that you can counter part of the negative side effects of our post-modern convenience culture quite conveniently.

Plug an NMES device into your convenient outlet, attach it to your biceps, sit down conveniently in front of your television screen and have the device train your muscles.
You dont believe that this works? Well, basically this is what the seven healthy male subjects who were recruited for the study did at the laboratory. The participants were trained two times per week (three subjects: Mondays and Thursdays; and four subjects: Tuesdays and Fridays) for 12 weeks. Each exercise session was performed for 30 min with no rest interval.

You could do this in front of your TV at home (image from Son. 2014)

"During the training, the subject was required to maintain a shoulder joint angle of 90° in the sagittal plane. The electrical stimulation (pulse width: 200?s; and frequency: 20 Hz (Dreibati et al., 2010)) was delivered through a pair of 5 × 5 cm gelcoated electrodes attached to the region of the biceps brachii muscle belly. The magnitude of the stimulation was determined as the subjects maximum comfortable current level, but no more than 80 mA, with complete elbowflexion from the fully extended state; the mean value was 57.00 (SD 4.28) mA." (Son. 2014)

I am not sure if this hurts, but based on my experience with a friends NMES ab trainer, I suppose it did... not convenient, ok, but still better than actually moving for most of the the members of the convenience generation, Id guess - And I mean, you cant argue with results, right?

Figure 1: Maximal force and muscle thickness before and after the NMES training (Son. 2014)

I must admit I was quite impressed with the 8% increase in muscle size and the 23% increase in performance. Ok, the study doesnt tell us anything about the training experience of the subjects, but even if they were noobs thats more than Id expected to see from two weekly sessions of NMES.
Reference:

• Jongsang Son, Dongyeop Lee, Youngho Kim, Effects of involuntary eccentric contraction training by neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the enhancement of muscle strength, Clinical Biomechanics, Available online 10 June 2014.

If you are planning to upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to 12.10, please first perform a full-system backup. At least back up all your data. The upgrade might not work.

Today, 11-27-2012, after attempting to update my main PC from Ubuntu 12.04 to 12.10, I could not make Ubuntu 12.10 work correctly. Despite using the recommended "proprietary, tested" Nvidia display driver, I could not stabilize my display:

• The Unity launcher would not unhide smoothly.
• YouTube videos played in stop motion.

Fortunately, before attempting the upgrade, I performed a full-system backup through Clonezilla. I was therefore able to restore my main PC to Ubuntu 12.04.

This failure to upgrade surprised me because I had successfully installed Ubuntu 12.10 (through a live disc) onto my standby PC. I needed only fix the frozen-Dash problem and disable the unwanted Amazon ads. For more information, please see: Fixing and customizing Ubuntu 12.10, Repairing frozen Dash in Ubuntu 12.10, and Disabling Amazon shopping results in Ubuntu 12.10.

Personally, I do not plan to upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 until the next long-term-support release is available. Although this is unfortunate, I am still an Ubuntu fan. In my opinion, its 12.04 release is superior to all other Linux distributions.

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.