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.

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.

Are you training for nothing, if you are "too old" (whatever that may be)? Find out in todays SuppVersity Article!

"The older we get, the weaker we are." Thats something most normal men accept as a given truth - according to the latest science, it does yet appear as if it was more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Researchers from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity and Neuromuscular research Center at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland have recently conducted a study to verify the common sense assumption that older men are having a much harder time to to maintain / increase their muscle strength than young ones.

To find out, whether this would also be true for those, who are willing to succumb to a high volume, medium load “hypertrophic” resistance training, the Häkkinen et al. recruited young (28 ± 5 yr, 179 ± 6 cm, 77 ± 12 kg, 21 ± 8 percent fat) and older (65 ± 4 yr, 177 ± 6 cm, 80 ± 10 kg, 23 ± 6 percent fat) men via an advertisement in a local newspaper.
The experimental groups consisted of 23 young and 26 older men (training groups) and the non training control groups consisted of 10 young and 11 older men. The goal was to achieve maximum strength, muscle mass and muscle activation of the lower limbs in both groups.

Table 1:  Resistance training program of the young and older experimental groups (performed with resistance machines)

To this ends, both groups performed 10 weeks of whole-body resistance training twice per week with the emphasis on lower limb exercises. The training program consisted of high volume, medium intensity exercise with short inter-set rest intervals, as it is typically performed by bodybuilders (i.e. 2-5 sets of 8-14 repetitions, 1-2 min rest).

Lower limb exercises, i.e. leg press, knee extension and knee flexion, were performed before upper body exercises. At least 48 h rest was required between training sessions. Maximum dynamic and isometric neuromuscular performance, as well as lean leg and muscle mass were examined before and after the training period. The changes in body composition were assessed 3-4 d and neuromuscular measurements were performed 7 d after the last training session.

Before participating in the study at hand, the "subjects were physically active but unaccustomed to resistance training for the previous 6 months." Training and testing took place throughout the day (9am-7pm), but young and older subjects were pair-matched to avoid any time-of-day effects on neuromuscular performance measurements. All subjects were given nutritional advice in an attempt to maximize muscle hypertrophy, however, no direct nutritional intervention was performed in the present study.
The resistance training program consisted of . Briefly, leg exercises (bilateral leg press, knee extension, and knee flexion) were performad before upper body and torso exercises; bench press, pulldown, shoulder press, seated row, triceps pushdown, biceps curl, abdominal crunches and back raises.

"The subjects performed medium intensity, high volume training consisting of 2–3 sets and 12–14 reps (60–70% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 1–4), then 2–3 sets and 10–12 reps (70–80% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 5–7), and 3–4 sets per exercise and 8–10 reps (75–85% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 8–10). One min rest was given between sets during weeks 1–4, and then 2 min rest was given between sets during the remaining weeks 5–10. One set was performed to failure during each training session." (Häkinnen. 2014)

As youve probably recognized by now this is a more or less classic linear periodization; a very conservative periodization technique with a lot of back up that it works (learn more about periodization).

Figure 1: Pre- and post values for 1RM and isometric leg strength (Häkkinen. 2014)

If you look at the results, youll see that this protocol led to significant increases in one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press performance in both training groups (young: 13 ± 7 %, P < 0.001; older: 14 ± 9 %, P < 0.001).

Interestingly, said performance improvements were accompanied by increased muscle activation, assessed by voluntary activation level (29 ± 51%, P < 0.05) and electromyography amplitude (35 ± 51 %, P < 0.01) in older men only. Unfortunately, only the young men showed significantly increased lower limb lean mass (2.4 ± 2.5 %, P < 0.01), which were furthermore significantly related to the strength increments (r = 0.524, P = 0.01, n = 23).
References:

• Häkinnen, et al. "Similar increases in strength after short-term resistance training due to different neuromuscular adaptations in young and older men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print.