ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

One study wouldnt be enough to prove that pea is superior to whey as muscle builder, anyways.

In a recent study, French scientist investigated the effects of two types of protein supplementation on muscle thickness and strength in 161 moderate physically active (2–6 hours per week) male participants (mean age 22 years). More specifically, the scientists compared the effects of vegetable Pea protein (NUTRALYS®) vs. Whey protein and Placebo on biceps brachii muscle thickness and strength after a 12-week resistance training program. And as the headline already reveals: The pea protein had the upper hand, when it comes to biceps brachii size, but the way the gains were measured and superior strength gains in the whey group raise questions about whether the results of this study are practically relevant - meaning you have to switch from whey to pea.
These values are based on measurements of arm circumference of the right arm which were taken using a constant tension tape during maximal elbow extension at rest and during a maximal voluntary contraction (with maximal elbow flexion).

Figure 1: Overview of the study design.

"All subjects followed the same training routine, three times per week with a rest day between each session. Training was based on three exercises involving the elbow flexor and extensor muscles. The exercises soliciting the flexor muscles were arm curl and lateral pulldown. In the arm curl exercise, subjects sat with weights in their hands with a ~40° trunk/arm angle. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm. For the lateral pull-down, subjects sat with a bar in their hands above the head. They had to flex/extend the forearm over the arm with a vertical movement. The exercise soliciting the extensors was the bench press. Subjects were lying on their backs with a bar in their hands with a 90° trunk/arm angle, arms extended, and had to flex and extend their upper limbs vertically. Throughout the training program, the number of sets was progressively increased from 2 to 5 while the number of repetitions was reduced in parallel from 15 to 5 repetitions maximum (RM). In the final week, the subjects did three sets of 5 RM in order to preclude any fatigue for the D84 tests" (Babault. 2015).

Recovery between sets was identical for all workouts: 2–3 minutes. The load used for each exercise was regularly adapted during training depending on individuals’ maximum load (1-RM, one maximum repetition, evaluated every two weeks).

Figure 2: Muscle thickness in the 3 groups at baseline after 42 and 84 days. There was only a trend (£) for increased gains in the pea protein group (Babault. 2015).

Three measurements were made (at rest and contracted) along the length of the biceps, namely ¼, ½ and ¾ of the length of the upper arm (distance between the acromion process of the scapula and the lateral epicondyle of the humerus). Averaging was performed to obtain mean values for the circumference at rest and contracted.

Faulty measurements due to messed up timing?

That sounds great, but since the time of measurement is not mentioned, it may well be that all the values are fundamentally flawed. Why?

Well, as a SuppVersity reader you know that even in leg muscles, which are muss less prone to "the pump", "Cell Swelling Keeps Muscles "Pumped" For More Than 52h. Size Increases of Up to 16% After a Single Leg Workout!" (learn more).

Practically speaking, this means that the "size measurements" in the study at hand may be worthless if the scientists didnt wait for at least 72h-96h before they measured the sleeve sizes of their subjects.
The absence of information on the time-point at which the sleeve sizes were measured (suggestive of immediately post) and the fact that the strength gains do not reflect the alleged superiority of pea protein as muscle builders (see Figure 3) put a huge question mark behind the assumption that pea protein tends to produce greater muscle gains than whey.

Figure 3: It is strange that the "superior muscle builder" triggers the lowest gains in maximal isometric contractile force. Even the placebo group had greater strength gains - despite a lack of sign. differences at baseline (Babault. 2015).

Rather than "gains", the increases could in fact be a result of increased inflammation and the reduced "gains" in the whey group a result of its anti-inflammatory effects (Buckley. 2010; Sugawara. 2012; Kerasioti. 2013). The existing evidence of anti-inflammatory properties of pea protein (Ndiaye. 2012) does yet render this assumption questionable.
References:

• Babault, et al. "Pea proteins oral supplementation promotes muscle thickness gains during resistance training: a double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled clinical trial vs. Whey protein." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12:3 (2015).
• Buckley, Jonathan D., et al. "Supplementation with a whey protein hydrolysate enhances recovery of muscle force-generating capacity following eccentric exercise." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13.1 (2010): 178-181. 
• Lang, Vincent, et al. "Satiating effect of proteins in healthy subjects: a comparison of egg albumin, casein, gelatin, soy protein, pea protein, and wheat gluten." The American journal of clinical nutrition 67.6 (1998): 1197-1204.
• Ndiaye, Fatou, et al. "Anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating properties of an enzymatic protein hydrolysate from yellow field pea seeds." European journal of nutrition 51.1 (2012): 29-37.
• Kerasioti, Efthalia, et al. "Anti-inflammatory effects of a special carbohydrate–whey protein cake after exhaustive cycling in humans." Food and Chemical Toxicology 61 (2013): 42-46.
• Sirtori, Cesare R., et al. "Hypocholesterolaemic effects of lupin protein and pea protein/fibre combinations in moderately hypercholesterolaemic individuals." British journal of nutrition 107.08 (2012): 1176-1183.
• Smith, Christopher E., et al. "The effect of yellow pea protein and fibre on short-term food intake, subjective appetite and glycaemic response in healthy young men." British Journal of Nutrition 108.S1 (2012): S74-S80.
• Sugawara, Keiyu, et al. "Effect of anti-inflammatory supplementation with whey peptide and exercise therapy in patients with COPD." Respiratory medicine 106.11 (2012): 1526-1534.

When the satellite cells merge with the existing muscle cells to form new myonuclei this is more than muscle repair, its also the foundation for future muscle growth - beyond previous limits | more

If youve read the Intermittent Thoughts On Building Muscle (read it) you are beyond the simplistic view of muscle growth as a one-way process in the course of which muscle cells balloon up endlessly. Without the incorporation of "new" myonuclei (cell kernels) from the periphery your muscle would become dysfunctional sooner or later (learn more); and while myostatin will prevent that from happening the recruitment of new muscle cells from the satellite cell pool will provide the basis for future muscle growth.

I dont want to go into more detail, here. If you want to develop a better understanding of this process(es), I suggest you head back to the initially mentioned series about the physiological underpinnings of skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Next to the inclusion of new myonuclei and facilitation of future muscle growth, the satellite cell pool will also provide the raw material for the repair or I should say replacement of damaged muscle cells. For strength trainees like you and me, its thus of paramount importance to ensure that our satellite cells are happy and healthy. And you know what? Thats not even difficult!

According to a recent study from the Aarhus University all it takes to  help your muscle precursor cells happily proliferating (grow, divide and mature to "real" muscle cells) is the mix of carbohydrates and whey protein youre probably consuming after each workout, anyway: A shake containing 28 g whey protein hydrolysate high in leucine (4 %) an 28 g of carbohydrate (4 %) - a 56h carbohydrate supplement served as control.

Figure 1: Overview of the experimental procedure (Farup. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1 this supplement was not ingested once, but rather thrice a day - with the first serving being ingested immediately after the fasted subjects, 24 healthy young recreational active men,  initiated the exercise protocol, which lasted for approximately 30 min.

Its the whey that does the trick, but we dont know if we dont need CHOs as an adjunct

The provision of extra whey protein (but nor carbohydrates; white bars in Figure 2) lead to significant increases in satellite cell activity in both mixed muscle and type II fibers, but not type I fibers (not shown in Figure 2).

Figure 2: Number of satellite cells per muscle fiber (higher number = higher chance of incorporation; Farup. 2014)

Still, in view of the fact that regeneration is an energetically costly process, its not 100% certain that a certain amount of carbohydrates may be necessary to see the beneficial effects on satellite cell activity and the changes in maximal voluntary contraction force (not shown).
Reference:

• Farup, et al. "Whey protein supplementation accelerates satellite cell proliferation during recovery from eccentric exercise." Amino Acids (2014). Ahead of print.

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.

Its one thing to make strength and mass gains, its a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise we would hardly be able to get our hands on papers that are written by Iranian scientists and published in the Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise; and that, my dear (mostly) American friends, would be a real pity!

"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - thats the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the  University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to

"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes."  (Tadibi. 2013)

To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:

• group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and 
• group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old). 

The participants attended physical education classes for six weeks/three times a week, with duration of 45-60 min each session. Each training session involved three phases in both groups and lasted 50–60minutes:

• warm up, specific or related training and cool down. 

Warm up and cool down phases were similar in both groups included 7 min running with intensity sufficient to raise breath rate, 3 min stretching training.
The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:

• Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen

  bench press, 
• squat, 
• biceps curls, 
• triceps extensions, 
• shoulder press

What? No, I have no idea, if they forgot to list the back exercises, or if the subjects actually didnt do any. What I do know, though is that the

"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)

In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).

TRAINING ? DETRAINING ? RESULTS?

Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).

Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)

Well, you can see the results of this type of realistic 6-weeks on 2-weeks of regimen in Figure 1 - a result based on which you should be able to confirm the following conclusions:

• Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
• The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
• The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from  12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs.   11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).

As the researchers point out, this result may look different, if the study population was older or sick. In less-conditioned individuals (Hakkinen. 1994), which is - in my humble opinion - a very important hint for both, the young and old SuppVersity readers, as it confirms (once again), that the optimal training routine is a very individual thing and cannot be cookie cut based on a single study.
References:

• Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
• Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).