Showing posts with label longer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label longer. Show all posts

Thursday, April 14, 2016

0 3g kg Bicarbonate Will Make Trained Cyclists Last 4 5 Min Longer 9 During Std High Intensity Cycling Tests

Dont forget that cyclists are not the only group of athletes who can benefit from bicarbonate supplementation. Strength trainees who spend hours in the gym and train at high intensities will also benefit!
I know that most of you are into resistance not endurance training. So, before I even get into the discussion of the experimental procedures and the results of the latest study from the Institute of Sports and Preventive Medicine at the Saarland University in Saarbrücken, Germany, I would like to point you to an older SuppVersity article which indicates that bicarbonate supplementation is able to Up Your Squat (+27%) & Bench Press (+6%) Within 60 Min" (read more).

Now that youve hopefully put away your prejudices against "that endurance supplement", lets get to the previously mentioned study by Florian Egger, Tim Meyer, Ulf Such, and Anne Hecksteden (thanks to Conrad P. Earnest for bringing this to my attention).
You can learn more about bicarbonate and pH-buffers at the SuppVersity

The Hazards of Acidosis

Build Bigger Legs W/ Bicarbonate

HIIT it Hard W/ NaCHO3

HIIT + Bicarb = Perfect Match

Bicarb Buffers Creatine

Beta Alanine Fails to HIIT Back
To investigate the effects of BICA supplementation on performance during prolonged, high-intensity cycling to exhaustion in well-trained athletes, the scientists from the Saarland University recruited 6 male and 5 female "well-trained" cyclists (mean ± SD: age 24±8 y, BMI 21.3±1.7, VO2peak 67.3±9.8 ml/kg/min - the VO2peak value tells you that they were fit ;-).

In a double-blind, randomized cross-over design, the subjects underwent two stepwise incremental exercise tests and two constant load tests (with two phases) on an electrically braked cycle ergometer (Excalibur Sport, Lode, Groningen, The Netherlands).
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the general design.Time interval between tests is specified in days (d). Data are presented as means ± standard deviation respectively, with minimum (min) and maximum (max) values (Egger. 2014).
As the overview of the study design in Figure 1 tells you, each test type was completed twice. Once after the ingestion of 0.3 g/kg sodium bicarbonate (yes, thats roughly 24g for someone who weighs 80g and should not be consumed too fast, because otherwise it may trigger diarrhea) or a placebo supplement in form of 4 g sodium chloride that was chosen to make sure that any benefits that were observed were due to the natrium, not the bicarbonate content of sodium bicarbonate.
There is relatively little sodium in NaHCO3: Sodium bicarbonate, baking soda or NaHCO3, as a chemist would say is a molecule that contains natrium (or sodium as the Americans say) and bicarbonate. It has a total molar mass of 84.007 g/mol. This means that ~73% of the sodium bicarbonate powder you ingest are actually bicarbonate and only ~27% are sodium. The whopping dose of 20-30g of bicarbonate that is usually used in studies will thus deliver "only" 5.4g-8.1g of sodium. Thats still plenty, but as you know for a trained athlete whos sweating like a pig during his workouts and may be losing up to 30g of sodium in his sweat, its not a problem and can in fact be a performance enhancing blessing (see previous article on the dangers of low sodium diets in athletes).
Both the plain salt and the sodium bicarbonate were solved in 0.7 l water. The outcome measures were simple: Only if the subjects were able to pedal significantly longer until they were exhausted in the standardized constant load test, sodium bicarbonate could be considered to have practically relevant performance enhancing effects (maximum performance in the stepwise incremental exercise test, i.e. maximal workload and VO2peak were used as secondary outcomes).

Figure 2: Blood lactate (BLa) concentrations after ingestion (post drink) and during constant load tests (mean ± SD) for the BICA and placebo trials (Egger. 2014)
The other parameters the scientists measured, i.e. the blood lactate [BLa], pH, and bicarbonate concentration, were merely used determine the mechanisms for the potential improvements in exercise performance.

Speaking of auxiliary measures, if you take a look at Figure 2 you will see that the blood pH dropped significantly right after the ingestion of the bicarbonate supplement and remained "low" throughout the trial and afterwards. An observation that does not come unexpected. Previous trials have after all shown that its the ability of bicarbonate to blunt the high-intensity exercise related perturbations in both blood and muscle acid-base that keeps the maximal work rate up and leads to performance increases compared to placebo supplements.
Bicarbonate Serial Loading! Dont forget that you can reduce the side effects by repeatedly using smaller quantities of sodium bicarbonate aka "serial loading" (read more). Personally, I would expect that this procotol turns the acute performance enhancer into a permanent ergogenic you can use on both on and off days. Unfortunately, a corresponding study that would prove my hypothesis has not yet been conducted.
These performance decrements are caused by the accumulation of hydrogen ions (H+) in the myoplasm and their detrimental effects on myofilament interaction, glycolytic flux and sarcoplasmatic reticulum function. As Egger et al. point out
"[t]he ability of the body to prevent or delay these force limiting processes is determined by the capacity of its intrinsic buffering systems, which counteract the accumulation of H+ both inside and outside the cell," (Egger. 2014)
which explains why the benefits of both beta alanine (which increases the intra-cellular buffering capacity) and bicarbonate are most pronounced in athletes competing in high intensity sports.
Figure 3: Time to exhaustion and maximal workload (total) and maximal workload at the individual anaerobic threshold (IAT) during the bicarbonate and placebo trials (Egger. 2014).
Apropos ergogenic effects: I already gave it away in the headline. The consumption of the bicarbonate supplement lead to immediate increases in the time to exhaustion with 49.5 ±11.5 min being the maximum in the bicarbonate and 45.0±9.5 min being the maximum in the placebo condition.

The maximal workload in the stepwise incremental tests (BICA: 341±66 W; placebo: 339±67 W) and workload at IAT (BICA: 234±5.5 W; placebo 233±5.7 W), on the other hand, did not differ significantly.
Bottom line: In the end, the study at hand confirms what we already knew. Sodium bicarbonate is one of the few supplements with instant ergogenic effects. In that, these benefits are particularly pronounced, when it comes to high volume + high intensity exercises (in this case high volume means cycling for a comparatively long time).

Dont forget that serial loading, i.e. taking smaller amounts of NaHCO3 spread repeatedly, can reduce the side effects without compromising the benefits of sodium bicarbonate supplementation | learn more
Both of these qualities distinguish sodium bicarbonate from beta alanine which acts as an intra-cellular buffer, only, has to be taken for at least two, better four weeks and provides significant performance benefits of 2.85% on average only on exercises that last for 60-240s (Hobson. 2012).

Thus, in spite of the fact that you can obviously use both (see "Beta Alanine and Baking Soda (NaHCO3), a Synergistic Duo for 4-min All-Out Sprints Even in Highly Trained Athletes?" | read more), I personally think that sodium bicarbonate is the more powerful acid buffer for athletes... but as you know, I am willing to accept if you have a different opinion - as long as it is substantiated | Make yourselves heard on Facebook!
References:
  • Egger F, Meyer T, Such U, Hecksteden A. "Effects of Sodium Bicarbonate on High-Intensity Endurance Performance in Cyclists: A Double-Blind, Randomized Cross-Over Trial". PLoS ONE 9.12 (2014): e114729.
  • Hobson, Ruth M., et al. "Effects of ?-alanine supplementation on exercise performance: a meta-analysis." Amino acids 43.1 (2012): 25-37.


Read more »

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Longer Rest Periods Compromise Adaptational Response in Resistance Training Older Men in 12 Week Study

Best-agers listen up: If you want to make progress, socialize after your workouts and stick to rest periods in the 60-90s range.
Best-agers, listen up! If you are the kind of person who likes to chat for four minutes between his / her sets you are not just wasting time. You are also making your workouts less effective. While there is little evidence that there are major differences between rest times of 60s and 90s, a recent study from the Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy at the Clinical Exercise Research Center of the University of Southern California is not the first study to suggest that resting longer than maximally 120s is going to compromise the changes in body composition, muscular performance, and functional performance that occur in response to resistance training.

I have to admit, with a mean age of 70.3 years, the 22 male volunteers of said study dont qualify as the "classic" gymrat. On the other hand, you will probably have heard the argument that aging muscle cannot sustain the same extent of high intensity hammering thats highly productive in younger folks against.
Learn more about building muscle at www.suppversity.com

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

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!
Against that background, its actually all the more surprising that the 11 men in the 60s rest period groups of this recent 4 weeks resistance training study saw significantly greater increase in lean muscle mass, bench press & leg press 1RM max, performance on the pull-down and several parameters of functional performance (not shown in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Changes in body composition and strength after 8 and 12 weeks; expressed relative to the values that were measured after the 4-week pre-training phase that was identical for both groups (Villanueva. 2014)
Except from the rest times, the periodized strength training regimen was 100% identical for both groups. This means that all 22 study subjects performed the same progressive total body resistance training program which was preluded by a 4-week familiarization protocol that was 100% identical for both groups:
  • Training frequency: 3 days/week for the 4-week training cycle
  • Sets / reps: 2 to 4 sets with 15 to 8 repetitions (set number increased, rep number decreased over time)
  • Exercise number: Four to six exercises per workout
Only after the subjects had completed the first four weeks of training they were paired based on the similarity of their flat bench machine chest press 1-RM and randomly placed into one of the two groups: The SS = short (60s) and the SL = long (240s) rest group. As the scientists say they chose
"this strength outcome measure, because previous work from our lab has indicated there is relatively less variability among study participants with chest press 1-RM val ues, versus leg press 1-RM values, and, therefore, it would allow us to more easily randomize and create two treatment groups that are similar in (upper body maximum) strength.
In the following 8-week actual study period the subjects were subjected to a progressive total-body resistance training program emphasizing development of upper and lower body strength.
  • Training frequency: 3 days/week for 8 weeks by both groups (SS and SL)
  • Sets / reps: sets ranged from 2 to 3, repetitions from 6 to 4
  • Exercise number: 4–6 exercises
During this active study period, the only difference in program design between the two strength RT groups in was the rest interval length utilized between sets: 60 s (SS group) versus 4 min (SL group).
"Throughout the entire resistance training program, all sets were performed maximally for the assigned number of repetitions and with proper lifting technique, and loads were adjusted in accordance with recovery and performance, across the repeated sets progression.
At least in untrained subjects shorter rest periods (60s vs. 150s) may have more beneficial effects on body composition, i.e. they elicit greater lean mass gains and higher losses of body fat (Buresh. 2009)
What about studies in younger subjects? The results are not consistent, but generally speaking there appears to be slight advantage in terms of strength gains with rest periods in the 90s-150s range as they were observed by Robert Buresh et al. (2009) in healthy, recently untrained males. In previously strength-trained men the benefits appear to vanish, when the total exercise volume is not controlled for, though (Willardson. 2008). Moreover, the previously cited study by Buresh et al.  (2009) indicates that shorter rest periods will elicit more favorable changes in body composition (see Figure on the left). We must be careful, though - short is not generally better.  A review by de Salles et al. (2009) indicates that rest periods below 60s can impair the strength gains and while respective data is lacking, it is likely that this will also have negative effects on the amount of lean mass you will gain on otherwise identical training regimen.
Furthermore, it is important to note that study participants were never expected to perform sets to absolute muscular failure; given an appropriate loading progression, with alterations in set/repetition schemes throughout and across microcycles (i.e., a series of 3 training sessions), the repetition maximum assignments allowed for successful completion of the assigned number of repetitions at the load(s) prescribed, across multiple sets, and with minimal need for assistance/spotting" (Villanueva. 2014.)
Now this certainly sounds as if the protocol was realistic. But there is one major difference that puts a question mark behind the results of the study: usually regimen with long and short rest times differ significantly in the number of sets and the number of reps. Thus it is possible that future studies using different protocols for both groups would yield different results.
Figure 2: More helps more... at least in elderly study subjects increasing the intake of whey protein after a workout from 20g to 40g will yield significant benefits (Yang. 2012).
Bottom line: The study at hand certainly supports previous evidence that older men and women dont necessarily have to train with the "handbreak firmly fixed". The relatively large increase in strength and functional performance, however, stand in stark contrast to the pathetic increase in lean mass. And the standardized set and rep ranges make it impossible for the 240s rest group to benefit from the ability to train at higher volumes.

Another thing that is wirth mentioning is that the subjects consumed >1.0 gram protein/kilogram body weight/day - without the addition of fast absorbing high BCAA protein sources, however, elderly men (and women) are always having a hard time to build practically relevant amounts of lean muscle.

Against that background, I would love to see this study being repeated with 30-40g of whey protein being consumed in the vicinity of the workout; and in case you want to do your own N=1 experiment using this or any other workout protocol described in the study at hand, I would suggest you make sure to add some extra-protein, as well. Previous studies do after all indicate that "more" as in 40g vs. just 15-20g helps more in men and women in their 60s or older | Comment on Facebook!
References:
  • Buresh, Robert, Kris Berg, and Jeffrey French. "The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 62-71.
  • de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.
  • Villanueva, Matthew G., Christianne Joy Lane, and E. Todd Schroeder. "Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-14.
  • 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.
  • Yang, Yifan, et al. "Resistance exercise enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis with graded intakes of whey protein in older men." British Journal of Nutrition 108.10 (2012): 1780-1788.


Read more »