ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

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).

It doesnt matter if you want to turn fat into fit, fit into fitter or strong into stronger. Todays SuppVersity science potpourri has something to offer for every physical culturist who is looking for ways to improve his health, performance and physique and for trainers and coaches who work with this challenging clientele.

In view of the fact that the last news-potpourri on appetite related scientific studies was a major success, I thought it may be worth writing another of these long-neglected short-news items. This time about exercise and supplementation, though.

You may already have seen the link to Stuart Philipps latest "Review of Higher Dietary Protein Diets in Weight Loss" with a "A Focus on Athletes" on Facebook. For those of you who have been following the SuppVersity News theres probably little new information in the document, though. When I read the paragraph about optimal protein intakes for maximal muscle retention, I still thought that it may be worth to remind you of the results of the Pasiokos study which clearly suggest that eating more protein is not always going to increase the net protein retention when you are dieting.
A fact that brings me back to Philipps review in which he points out that dieters commonly overlook that any increase in protein intake will go at the expense of either fat or carbohydrate. A "side effect" that could be particularly problematic for athletes, for whom Philipps recommends (just like I do) "to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced" (Phillips. 2014). In particular, athletes should "focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance" (Phillips. 2014).

After this brief introductory interlude, I would like to get to the actual topic at hand, a brief overview of a couple of interesting, but not exactly "full-article worthy" papers from the realms of exercise, nutrition and supplementation:

• Low volume, high intensity the exercise key to perfect health? A recent paper in the latest edition of Sports Medicine reviewed the health benefits of two different low volume exercise regimen: The classic sprint interval training (black spikes in Figure 1) and a HIIT protocol (grey bars in Figure 1).
  
  The researchers from the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, highlight that the currently available evidence is largely based on short-term interventions. And while long(er)-term interventions would be needed to " to advance our basic understanding of how manipulating the exercise stimulus translates into physiological remodeling" (Gibala. 2014), it can already be said that...

  Figure 1: Comparison of the power output (% of VO2peak) during sprint interval training (SIT, black peaks), high intensity interval training (HIIT, grey bars) and moderate intenstity continuous training (MICT, striped box)

  "[f]rom an applied perspective, there is value in trying to establish the minimum ‘dose’ of HIIT or SIT needed to stimulate meaningful improvements in clinical markers that are associated with disease risk.
  
  This is particularly germane given that ‘lack of time’ remains the most commonly cited barrier to regular exercise participation, and considering evidence that suggests that low-volume interval training is perceived to be more enjoyable than MICT." (Gibala. 2014)

  As Gibala et al. point out, there is also evidence that nutritional interventions can influence both acute and chronic adaptations to interval training - with one of my personal favorites, i.e. sodium bicarbonate being the #1 candidate to among the "interval-specific" ergogenics that are currently available on the market (learn why).

  Figure 2: Everything works, as long as you pick the right type of exercise for your type.

  Moreover, as suggested by van Loon and Tipton (van Loon. 2013), the significantly greater adaptation efficiency compared to "regular" steady state cardio training has clinical relevance, especially for individuals with severe exercise intolerance.
• Low dose caffeine (200mg) not effective for everyone - A recent study from the University of Guelph found that low doses of caffeine (<3 mg/kg body mass, ~200 mg) can be ergogenic in some exercise and sport situations, but for most athletes they will not alter the peripheral wholebody responses to exercise, or improve vigilance, alertness, and mood and cognitive processes during and after exercise.
  
  

  Figure 3: Effects of ingesting no caffeine (0) or 3, 6 or 9 mg/kg body mass of caffeine (dose) on running time to exhaustion at ~85 % of VO2max (Graham. 1995).

  In view of the fact that low dose caffeine regimen are also "associated with few, if any, side effects" (Spriet. 2014), and generally depend on an athletes individual response to caffeine, Lawrence L. Spriet still suggests that athletes should "determine whether the ingestion of ~200 mg of caffeine before and/or during training and competition is ergogenic on an individual basis" (Spriet. 2014); and, assuming that it is, make use of the lowest effective dose, of which the data in Figure 3 clearly indicates that it is not necessarily the one with the lowest performance benefits.
• Science-Based Recommendations for Training to Maximize Concurrent Training - Right from the desk of Keith Baar comes a set of recommendations to maximize the benefits of concomitant training, i.e. combined / sequential endurance and strength training that consists of a set of four tips:
  
  • Do HIIT in the AM: Any high-intensity endurance training sessions should be performed early in the day. Then, a period of recovery of at least 3 h should be given, so that AMPK and SIRT1 activity can return to baseline levels, before resistance exercise is performed. This suggestion is based on the fact that AMPK activity increases rapidly and then returns to baseline levels within the first 3 h after high-intensity exercise (Wojtaszewski. 2000), whereas mTORC1 activity can be maintained for at least 18 h after resistance exercise (Baar. 1999; MacKenzie. 2009).

  • Build 3.2kg of lean mass overnight w/ 40g of casein pre-bed | learn more.

    Drink your whey protein shake right after your strength workout: Resistance exercise should be supported by readily digestible, leucine-rich protein as soon as possible after training to maximize leucine uptake, mTOR recruitment to the lysosome, and protein synthesis.
    
    In view of the fact that Baar recommends to do your RT sessions later in the day, it is also advisable to consume another protein shake right before bed to maximize the synthetic response overnight (learn more).
  • Fully refuel between the morning high-intensity endurance training session and the afternoon strength session: Its not going to reduce the exercise induced increase in AMPK and SIRT1 activation, but will allow you to perform at maximal intensity during your resistance training session later in the day.
    
    As Baar points, out athletes who have to diet during certain phases of their training cycle should make sure to "reserve a portion of the offseason (and short periods in season) exclusively for increasing muscle size and strength and then use higher dietary protein intakes to maintain that muscle mass as the aerobic load increases through the season" (Baar. 2014).
  • If you do low-intensity cardio, do your resistance training right after cardio: To improve the endurance response to lower-intensity endurance training sessions and provide a strong strength stimulus, Baar recommends performing strength training immediately after low-intensity, non-depleting, endurance sessions.
    
    Performing a strength session immediately after a low-intensity endurance session results in a greater stimulus for endurance adaptation than the low-intensity endurance session alone (Wang. 2011) and the low-intensity session will not affect signaling pathways regulating strength gains (Coffey. 2009; Lundberg. 2012; Apró. 2013).
  At first, these rrecommendations may sound somewhat random. If you take a closer look at the long paper, you will yet have to concede that the simple recommendations are based on our current understanding of the molecular response to exercise. In that, they should allow for the maximal adaptive response to both endurance and strength exercise.
  

References:

• Apró, William, et al. "Resistance exercise induced mTORC1 signaling is not impaired by subsequent endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 305.1 (2013): E22-E32.
• Baar, Keith, and Karyn Esser. "Phosphorylation of p70S6kcorrelates with increased skeletal muscle mass following resistance exercise." American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 276.1 (1999): C120-C127. 
• Coffey, Vernon G., et al. "Consecutive bouts of diverse contractile activity alter acute responses in human skeletal muscle." Journal of applied physiology 106.4 (2009): 1187-1197.
• Graham, T. E., and L. L. Spriet. "Metabolic, catecholamine, and exercise performance responses to various doses of caffeine." Journal of Applied Physiology 78.3 (1995): 867-874. 
• Lundberg, Tommy R., et al. "Aerobic exercise alters skeletal muscle molecular responses to resistance exercise." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 44.9 (2012): 1680-1688.
• Pasiakos, Stefan M., et al. "Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial." The FASEB Journal 27.9 (2013): 3837-3847.
• van Loon, Luc JC, and Kevin D. Tipton. "Concluding Remarks: Nutritional Strategies to Support the Adaptive Response to Prolonged Exercise Training." (2013): 135-141. 
• Wall, et al. "Dietary Protein Considerations to Support Active Aging." Sports Med (2014) 44 (Suppl 2):S185–S194.
• Wang, Li, et al. "Resistance exercise enhances the molecular signaling of mitochondrial biogenesis induced by endurance exercise in human skeletal muscle." Journal of applied physiology 111.5 (2011): 1335-1344.
• Wojtaszewski, Jørgen FP, et al. "Isoform-specific and exercise intensity-dependent activation of 5?-AMP-activated protein kinase in human skeletal muscle." The Journal of physiology 528.1 (2000): 221-226.

The study at hand used plain ascorbic acid, no quack supplements with "advanced vitamin C".

While people tend to believe that vitamin C is good for anything, the evidence that it actually does anything good is relatively scarce. Against that background I am happy to tell you that a group of Greek researchers from the School of Physical Education and Sport Science, the European University Cyprus and theAristotle University of Thessaloniki have now finally confirmed what many of you probably thought was a long-established fact: "[L]ow vitamin C concentration is linked with decreased physical performance and increased oxidative stress and that vitamin C supplementation decreases oxidative stress and might increase exercise performance only in those with low initial concentration of vitamin C." (Paschalis. 2014)
When they came up with the study design, Paschalis et al. simply assumed that the mythical ergogenic effect of vitamin C actually existed. To test this hypothesis, they screened 100 males for vitamin C baseline values in blood, picked the 10 individuals with the lowest and the 10 with the highest vitamin C values from their baseline sample and assigned them to two groups.

Figure 1: Overview of the study design (Paschalis. 2014)

Using a placebo-controlled crossover design, the 20 selected subjects performed aerobic exercise to exhaustion (oxidant stimulus) before and after vitamin C supplementation for 30 days.

An overview of the study design is shown in Fig. 1. All measurements were performed between 08:00 and 11:00 h after overnight fasting. Initially, to examine whether rest ing blood vitamin C concentration affects aerobic perfor mance, VO2max was assessed (using incremental cycling test to volitional exhaustion) and was compared in both the low and the high vitamin C groups (Monark, Vansbro, Swe den). More specifially, the protocol started with a 50 W load at 50 rpm and increased by 10 W every 2 min until volitional fatigue. The test was terminated when three of the following four criteria VO2max were met: (1) volitional fatigue, (2) a lower than 2 mL/kg/min increase in VO2 despite an increase in workload, (3) a respiratory exchange ratio greater than or equal to 1.10, and (4) heart rate within 10 bpm of the predicted maximal heart rate (220–age). Res piratory gas variables were measured using a metabolic cart (Quark b2, Cosmed, Italy), which was calibrated before each test using standard gases of known concentration. The VO 2max assessment was used as a reference value to cal culate the workload at the relative intensity of each subject and ensured that all subjects would cycle at similar relative intensity during the following aerobic exercise sessions.

After the baseline testing had been done, the subjects within both the low and the high vitamin C groups received either placebo (3x333mg of lactose) or vitamin C supplementation (3x333mg of vitamin C), in a double-blind randomized crossover fashion (see Figure 1).

Figure 2: Changes in VO2max (left) and redox status (right) in subjects according to initial vitamin C status before and after vitamin C supplementation for 30 days (Paschalis. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 2 there were measurable differences in the response to the acute exhaustive exercise protocol (an oxidant stimulus), the subjects in both groups performed before and after vitamin C or placebo supplementation for 30 days. The data in Figure 2 does yet also show that the subjects who had been randomly assigned to the vitamin C supplement group had lower baseline VO2max levels. A fact that raises the question whether this is the result of a lower vitamin C intake or whether the vitamin C intake correlates with an unhealthier lifestyle that left the subjects unfit and with low vitamin C levels.
Unfortunately, this question is hard to answer based on the available research on vitamin C. While we have conflicting results with respect to its ability to impair the adaptational response to exercise (Close. 2014), there is very little evidence that it will actually have beneficial effects on any meaningful performance parameters. In fact, a study by Huck et al. that was published in the scientific journal Nutrition in 2013 is probably what comes closest to the results of the study at hand.

Figure 3: Effects of 500mg vitamin C per day on selected parameters in a 4 week chronic exercise + diet supplementation in obese men and women (Huck. 2013)

In said study Huck et al. observed that the provision of 500mg of vitamin C as an adjunct to exercise and diet in obese individuals lead to significant reductions in heart rate and the ratings of perceived exertion during exercise. The data in in Figure 3 does yet also tell you that there were no beneficial effects on VO2max, which best reflects the adaptational response to exercise.

This results of stands in contrast to the study at hand, but in line with previous results of studies in athletes, where only more or less irrelevant reductions of the acute inflammatory response to exercise were observed (Nieman. 2000; Peters. 2001; Tauler. 2002). A response of which you as a SuppVersity reader know that it is an essential part of the signalling cascade that triggers the adaptational response to. If we eventually get back to the Paschalis study, it would thus appear that athletes who are usually consuming more than enough vitamin C in their diets and are not at particular risk of developing low serum vitamin C levels would see similar results as the "high vitamin C" subjects in the Paschalis study, i.e. none - even worse, in view of the potential negative effects on the training induced adaptations that could not become visible in the study at hand, because there was no exercise protocol involved, it could even harm their progress.
References:

• Close, G. L., and M. J. Jackson. "Antioxidants and exercise: a tale of the complexities of relating signalling processes to physiological function?." The Journal of physiology 592.8 (2014): 1721-1722.
• Huck, Corey J., et al. "Vitamin C status and perception of effort during exercise in obese adults adhering to a calorie-reduced diet." Nutrition 29.1 (2013): 42-45.
• Nieman, David C., et al. "Influence of vitamin C supplementation on cytokine changes following an ultramarathon." Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research 20.11 (2000): 1029-1035.
• Paschilis, V. et al. "Low vitamin C values are linked with decreased physical performance and increased oxidative stress: reversal by vitamin C supplementation." Eur J Nutr (2014). Ahead of print.
• Paulsen, Gøran, et al. "Vitamin C and E supplementation hampers cellular adaptation to endurance training in humans: a double?blind, randomised, controlled trial." The Journal of physiology 592.8 (2014): 1887-1901.
• Peters, E. M., et al. "Vitamin C supplementation attenuates the increases in circulating cortisol, adrenaline and anti-inflammatory polypeptides following ultramarathon running." International journal of sports medicine 22.7 (2001): 537-543.
• Picklo, Matthew. "Supplementation with vitamin E and vitamin C inversely alters mitochondrial copy number and mitochondrial protein in obese, exercising rats (1030.5)." The FASEB Journal 28.1 Supplement (2014): 1030-5. 
• Powers, Scott K., et al. "Dietary antioxidants and exercise." Journal of sports sciences 22.1 (2004): 81-94.
• Powers, Scott K., And Kurt J. Sollanek. "Endurance Exercise And Antioxidant Supplementation: Sense Or Nonsense?-Part." Sports Science 27.137 (2014): 1-4.
• Tauler, P., et al. "Diet supplementation with vitamin E, vitamin C and ?-carotene cocktail enhances basal neutrophil antioxidant enzymes in athletes." Pflügers Archiv 443.5-6 (2002): 791-797.

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.