ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

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.
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.

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.
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.

Brain builders and muscle builders are similarly effective DNA protectors in the elderly.

As a SuppVersity reader you wont be surprised to hear that Bernhard Franzke and his colleagues from the University of Vienna were able to confirm that resistance training can improve the resistance of human DNA to H2O2 damage in institutionalised elderly. What may be news to you, though, is that very similar effects can be achieved by cognitive training in form of coordinative or cognitive tasks that were performed only two times per week by the 105 institutionalised elderly women and men (aged 65–98 years) the scientists recruited from five different senior residences in the area of Vienna (Franzke. 2014).
In the recent Austrian study, the subjects had been randomized to three groups. The previously described cognitive training group, which also served as a "control", as well as two resistance training groups.

"The RT groups (RT and RTS) performed two sessions of RT per week, supervised by a sport scientist, conducted on two non-consecutive days. Training attendance was recorded every session. The only equipment used was exercise bands and a chair. [...] The main part consisted of 10 exercises for the main muscle groups (legs, back, abdomen, chest, shoulder and arms). One training session started with 10 min of warm-up, continued with 30–40 min of strength training and ended with a 10-min cool-down. To keep the training stimulus high enough, the exercise program was adjusted to the participants’ individual needs, by either adapting the resistance of the elastic band (shorter or stronger band) or by modifying the exercise, by means of performing a more diffiult version. In the initial phase (4 weeks) one set of 15 repetitions was performed in order to learn the correct form of each exercise. From the fifth week on, the intensity and volume were progressively increased from two sets of light exercises to two sets of heavy resistance. If the participants could easily perform two sets of 15 repetitions they were told either to take more resistance or to perform a more difficult version of the exercise" (Franzke. 2014).

In contrast to the RT group, which did "nothing", but the previously described resistance training regimen, the subjects in the RTS group consumed a multi-ingredient supplement every morning, as well as directly after each training session. Said supplement consisted of 20.7g protein [56 energy (En) %, 19.7g whey protein, 3 g leucine, >10 g essential amino acids], 9.3 g carbohydrates (25 En%, 0.8 BE); 3.0 g fat (18 En%), 1.2 g roughage (2 En%), 800 IU (20 ?g) of vitamin D, 250 mg calcium, vitamins C, E, B6 and B12, folic acid and magnesium (one portion FortiFit, Nutricia with a total energy content per drink of only 150 kcal).

Figure 1: Changes in parameters of DNA damage and antioxidant enzyme expression (Franzke. 2014).

In spite of the fact that the intake of the nutritional supplement was controlled at breakfast as well as after the training sessions, it did not provide significant additional benefits on top of the regular resistance training protocol.

We should keep in mind, though, that (a) non-significant benefits were visible for the formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (FPG) and the expression of superoxide dismutase and that (b) the actual benefits of protein supplements would have become visible only if the scientists had accessed the changes in body composition, as well.
References:

• Franzke, B. et al. "The impact of six months strength training, nutritional supplementation or cognitive training on DNA damage in institutionalised elderly." Mutagenesis (2015):147–153.

Taking vitamin D pills on their own may be less effective than taking them with a meal containing 30% of the calories from fat - at least for older men & women and high doses of vitamin D3

This is science. Only 6 months ago, I wrote in an article about the effects of fat on the absorption and bioavailability of fat soluble vitamins that vitamin D would be the fat soluble vitamin with the lowest dependence on the co-administration of fat. Rather than the amount, it appeared as if the change in plasma 25OHD (nanograms per milliliter) during vitamin D supplementation was rather associated with the types of fat, i.e. MUFA = increased absorption vs. PUFA = decreased absorption (Niramitmahapanya. 2011).

Now, half a year later, it appears as if another, previously overlooked variables would force me to reformulate previous recommendations: Age and dosage!
In contrast to previous studies, Bess Dawson- Hughes and colleagues investigated the influence of fat on the absorption of vitamin D3 in older, not young men and women. In that, inclusion criteria for the study were

• no use of not more than 400 IU vitamin D or 1,000 mg calcium per day,
• serum 25(OH)D level in the range 20 to 29.5 ng/mL (49.9 to 73.6 nmol/L),and
• a body mass index in the range 20 to 29.5 (normal weight)

Subjects with kidney problems, hypercalcemia, general issues with malabsorption, Crohn’s disease, disorders of bone metabolism, kidney stones, cancer and those who were using proton pump in hibitors, lipid-lowering medications, fish oil, or flaxseed oil, hormones, osteoporosis medications, or high-dose thiazide diuretic therapy were equally excluded as those subjects who attended tanning salons, regularly.
This was yet not the only difference. Next to the subjects age, the amount of vitamin D3 in the capsules the subjects received differed, as well. While previous studies that reported little to no effect of fat on the absorption of vitamin D3 used small(er) amounts of vitamin D, like 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000 IU per serving, Dawson-Hughes et al. used a single serving of 50,000 IU(!) and thus more than 10x higher dosages than previous studies.

Figure 1: Composition of the test breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals, expressed as % of total energy the 50 healthy older adults consumed in the study at hand (Dawson-Hughes. 2014)

Alongside said vitamin D3 super-dose all 50 subjects ingested one out of three randomly selected meals that were either fat free or contained 30% of the total calories in form of dietary fat - albeit at two different PUFA:MUFA ratios (see Figure 1)

"[The m]eals were provided by the metabolic kitchen and consisted of real food. For example, breakfast consisted of egg whites flavored with small amounts of onion and tomato, fruit, toast, and cranberry juice. The groups were balanced for energy by adjusting the amount of sugar in the cranberry juice (diet or regular juice or a mixture of the two). Protein and fiber were balanced across all groups. MUFA:PUFA was manipulated by adding varying amounts of MUFA (olive oil) and PUFA (corn oil) to achieve a ratio of 1:4 in the low and 4:1 in the high MUFA:PUFA diets. The boxed lunch and the dinner provided to the study subjects on the test day had fat/protein/carbohydrate content similar to that of the test breakfast meals.

Importantly, the subjects were required to (a) eat all of the food provided and (b) refrain from pigging out on anything that was not on the menu for the study day.

Figure 2: Serum vitamin D3 levels in subjects after consuming fat-free or -containing meals (Dawson-Hughes. 2014)

What the scientists found, when they analyzed the vitamin D response of the subjects depending on (a) the fat content and (b) the type of the fat, Dawson-Hughes et al. found:

• In analyses of vitamin D absorption at baseline and the three follow-up time points, there was a significant interaction of fat-free vs fat-containing meal group with time (P < 0.001). As shown in [figure 2], there was no significant difference in plasma vitamin D-3 levels at baseline, but the fat-containing meal group had significantly higher plasma vitamin D-3 concentrations than the fat-free meal group at each time point thereafter.
  
  At 12 hours, the fat-containing vs fat-free meal mean difference in plasma D-3 concentration was 26.9 ng/mL (95% CI 9.6 to 44.1 ng/mL) (69.9 nmol/L). Differences at the other time points were for 10 hours, 30.5 ng/mL (95% CI 14.4 to 46.7 ng/mL) (79.3 nmol/L) and for 14 hours, 21.3 ng/mL (95% CI 4.6 to 37.9 ng/mL) (55.4 nmol/L).

• Vitamin D-3 levels at 12 hours after the dose were 116.0 3 ng/mL (301.5 nmol/L) in the low MUFA:PUFA group and 104.2 ng/mL (270.8 nmol/L) in the high MUFA: PUFA group.
  
  Potential covariates, body mass index, total body fat mass, and screening plasma 25(OH)D level were not associated with vitamin D absorption and neither modified the effect of fat on vitamin D absorption.

As the researchers point out, "[t]here were no serious adverse events during the study" and "[c]ompliance with the vitamin D supplement was 100%" (Dawson-Hughes. 2014). So, non of these obvious, but undesirable confounding factors could explain the observed differences between (a) the non-fat vs. fat-meals and (b) the influence of the PUFA:MUFA ratio.
References:

• Dawson-Hughes, Bess, et al. "Dietary Fat Increases Vitamin D-3 Absorption." Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2014).
• Niramitmahapanya, Sathit, Susan S. Harris, and Bess Dawson-Hughes. "Type of dietary fat is associated with the 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 increment in response to vitamin D supplementation." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 96.10 (2011): 3170-3174. 
• Wortsman, Jacobo, et al. "Decreased bioavailability of vitamin D in obesity." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.3 (2000): 690-693.

FSR ? more muscle = no news for ya!

For the average SuppVersity reader the sentence "Acute Post-Exercise Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Is Not Correlated with Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy in Young Men" is not just the title of a recent paper in the open access journal PLOS|ONE, its also the experimental verification of a claim Ive made in almost all my articles about the acute effects of certain training modalities and/or supplements on myofibrillar protein synthesis and the corresponding increases in muscle size some people appear to expect from a 2h-long 10% increase in fractional protein synthesis (learn more).

And yes, practically speaking these findings imply that we have to question the real world significance of all the neat studies on the "superior muscle building effects" of whey protein, BCAAs and even more so leucine, in which the authors base their recommendations on acute increases in post-exercise protein synthesis.
In the corresponding experiment that was funded by the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Cameron J. Mitchell et al. determined whether the acute myofibrillar protein synthesis measured acutely in training-naive subjects after their first bout of resistance exercise with protein consumption would correlate with the actual increase in muscle size after 16 weeks of resistance training.

Suggested read: "Protein Intake & Muscle Catabolism: Fasting Gnaws on Your Muscle Tissue and Abundance Causes Wastefulness " | more

Before the actual experiment began, the subjects, healthy young recreationally active normal-weight men (177 cm; body mass index = 26.4 kg/m²; men age 22 years) without previous strength training experience, underwent a magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) scans of their right thigh to determine muscle volume, a dual, energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan to assess whole body fat and bone-free mass (lean mass) and standardized strength tests to determine their maximal isotonic strength (often labeled the 1RM) for all training exercises.

After all baseline measurements (including baseline muscle protein synthesis) were recorded, the subjects completed 16 weeks of RT while ingesting a protein rich beverage (30g of the same whey protein of which Burd et al. showed in 2012 that it elicits a higher increase in MPS than casein) immediately after their exercise session and with breakfast on non-training days.

"Briefly, participants trained four times weekly with two upper and two lower body workouts. Lower body exercises are described above in the acute exercise session. Upper body exercises consisted of chest press, shoulder press, seated row, lat pulldown, bicep curl and tricep extension. The program was progressive in linear manner moving from 3 sets of 12 repetitions to 4 sets of 6  repetitions. At the end of the training period, MRI, DXA scans and strength testing were repeated." (Mitchell. 2014)

If you look at the above description of the workout (and supplementation regimen) you will probably agree that this is pretty much what the majority of resistance physique oriented gym-goers do.

Figure 1: Myofibrillar fractional protein synthesis rate (left) measured acutely after a single workout and changes in muscle volume (%) over the whole 16-week study period as a function of the 1-6h post-workout FSR (Mitchell. 2014).

People who hope that the often reported increases in fractional protein synthesis would pay off and yield increased net muscle gains and thus exactly what Mitchell et al. did not observe in their study, which could not establish the corresponding correlation between the actute increase in post-workout fractional protein synthesis (Figure 1, left) and the chronic change in muscle volume (Figure 1, right).

Figure 2: Changes in muscle volume (%) expressed relative to acute increases in 4E-BP (Mitchell. 2014).

If anything, it was the expression of the Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1 aka 4E-BP1 one of the motors of protein synthesis, but not the increase in myofibrillar fractional protein synthesis that looked as if it could have any predictive value with respect to the increase in muscle volume, the young men experienced in the course of the 16-week training period.

After thinking about the implications of these findings for a minute, I do yet have to admit that the assumption that this would refute the previously invoked recommendations completely, is probably premature.
Reference:

• Burd, Nicholas A., et al. "Greater stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis with ingestion of whey protein isolate v. micellar casein at rest and after resistance exercise in elderly men." British Journal of Nutrition 108.06 (2012): 958-962.

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.