ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

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.

Higher reps, dont prevent muscle gain, ladies (img. fighterdiet.com)

As a SuppVersity reader you know that the number of studies with reliable and above all relevant information about the differential effects of high vs. low rep training is scarce. Compared to the number of studies which deals with question like "Is it better I perform 10x3 or rather only 7x3 reps x sets of bench presses?", their number is still pretty high, though.

With their latest paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Brad Schoenfeld et al. actually break ground: A study with trainees with on average 4.2 ± 2.4 years of training experience (range of 1.5 to 10 years) that deals with the aforementioned question whether 3x10 or 7x3 would be the optimal set x rep range for strength and size gains has yet - at least as far as I recall - not been conducted.
To compare the two loading strategies, the 20 male study participants were randomly assigned to one of the two types of resistance training routines they had to follow for 8 weeks to the figurative "T" in the study (Schoenfeld. 2014):

• a strength-type resistance training routine (ST)
• a hypertrophy-type resistance training routine (HT)

To ensure adequate protein intake, the participants were provided with a free protein supplement on training days. The product (Iso100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Isolate, Dymatize Nutrition) contained 24g protein and ony 1g carbohydrate and had to be consumed within one hour post-exercise.

Table 2: Overview of the exercise selection and sequence (Schoenfeld. 2014)

The hypertrophy workout was a split routine where multiple exercises were performed for a specific muscle group in a session, with only 1 muscle group trained per session (see Table 1).
A moderate number of repetitions (target of 10 repetitions per set within a range of 8-12 repetitions) were performed with rest periods of 90 seconds afforded between sets and exercises. The load was adjusted for each exercise as  needed on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved momentary muscular exhaustion within the target repetition range.

Figure 1: Pre- vs. post changes (%) in biceps thickness, bench press and squat performance (Schoenfeld. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1, the total exercise volume which was kept identical to make the two training regimen comparable, the increase in biceps size is another variable that did not differ in-between the groups.

The latter cannot be said of the 1-RM and bench press and most significantly the 1-RM squat performance which (obviously?) benefits from a lower rep range - at least at a fixed volume.
References:

• Chestnut, James L., and David Docherty. "The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.4 (1999): 353-359.
• Schoenfeld, B. et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print

Its not just about more protein its about significantly more protein and - possibly - also about whey!

Just to make sure: Yes, I know the study I am about to discuss in todays SuppVersity article is a rodent study - a rodent study by researchers from the University College Cork and the University College Dublin (Mc Allan. 2014).  And yes, I know that you aint no fury little mouse or rat...

... but I do also know that the beneficial metabolic effects of high protein intakes appear to be even more, not less pronounced in human beings and will thus not mention 500x that the assumption that wed see similar benefits in men and women would obviously require experimental confirmation... alright?

Now that we are clear, dear non-dams and non-bucks...

... you are probably already drooling at the sought of reading yet another "high protein is good for you" study. Dont worry I am not going keep you on the tenderhooks longer than absolutely necessary. What is necessary, though is a very brief summary of the study design, which was designed to elucidate the effects macronutrient quality and composition on energy balance and the gut microbia - probably two of the hottest topics in todays discussions on the health and fitness bulletin boards of this world.
As the Irish researcher point out, their goal was to investigate how changes to protein quality (casein versus whey protein isolate; WPI) and the protein to carbohydrate (P/C) ratio within a high fat diet (HFD) impacts on the aforementioned parameters. The questions the experiment was supposed to answer were thus:

• Protein Quality ? Would adding whey protein on top of an obesogenic high fat rodent diet yield to a different weight and microbiota response than casein protein?
• Protein Quantity ? Would diets with 20%, 30% or 40% of the total energy intake from protein have different effects on body weight and microbiota in the rodents?

In view of the fact that casein is the standard protein in many of the high fat diets that are used in experiments like this, the study would thus also be able to give us an idea of whether or not the use of the slow-releasing IGF-1 boosting dairy protein contributes to the obesogenic effects.

As it turned out, the analysis of issues related to question #2, i.e. "Would diets with 20%, 30% or 40% of the total energy intake from protein have different effects on body weight and microbiota in the rodents?" did produce the more intriguing results, though.

Figure 1: Weight gain, fat and lean mass, as well as energy intake and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) after 21-weeks on diets with different amounts of whey protein in them (McAllan. 2014),

If you take a look at the data in Figure 1, its easy to see that (a) in comparison to casein (data from casein experiment not shown, because it was not discussed in detail | maybe there will be a follow up paper!?), WPI at a similar energy content normalised energy intake, increased lean mass and caused a trend towards a reduction in fat mass (P= 0.08). You may find that surprising, but its actually been known for quite some time now that whey buffers many of the ill-health effects of high fat diets in rodents.

Figure 2: Adipose tissue mRNA expression of selected genes (McAllan. 2014)

Although the addition of whey protein did not alter the oxygen consumption or locomotor activity, it was able to ...

• reduce the plasma leptin and liver triacylglycerold levels, and...
• attenuate the reduction in adipose FASN mRNA 

in HFD-fed mice (compared to what the researchers observed in rodents on the casein chow). Moreover, a high throughput sequence-based analysis of faecal microbial populations revealed that the

"[...]microbiota in the HFD-20% WPI group clustering closely with HFD controls, although WPI specifically increased Lactobacillaceae/Lactobacillus and decreased Clostridiaceae / Clostridiumin HFD-fed mice." (McAllan. 2014)

To understand the potential implications of these changes we will have to take a closer look at the recent evidence linking Clostridiaceae and Lactobacillaceae to the diabesity epidemic:

• Lactobacillus reuteri has anti-breast-cancer effects as well  (Lakritz. 2014).

  certain types of clostridiaceae are characteristic for obesity prone animals; their transplanation to normal mice will make them similarly vurnerable to the obesogenic effects of HFDs (Duca. 2014); similar differences, i.e. higher levels of clostridiaceae in obese individuals, have been observed in human studies, as well (Ferrer. 2013)
• lactobacilli, above all those of the reuteri type, have recently been used in several studies for their anti-obesogenic (Million. 2013a, b), anti-autoimmune (Forsberg. 2013), anti-caries (Stensson. 2013), anti-helicobacter plyori (Francavilla. 2013), pro-vitamin-D (Jones. 2013), and a whole host of other beneficial effects; for other types of lacutobacilli researchers have observed that they exert similar anti-obesity effects that may be mediated by the intestinal productino of the anti-obesity isomer of CLA, i.e. trans?10, cis?12?conjugated linoleic acid (Lee. 2007)

If we look at the previously listed metabolic effects, these changes in the make-up of the gut microbiome obviously correspond with the remarkable health improvements that occured in the whey-fed rodents.

High protein, low carb - What does it do?

Table 1: Plasma amino acid levels (mmol/L); blue bars to the right indicate sign. inter-group difference (McAllan. 2014)

Contrary to what youd expect based on appetite increasing effects researchers ascribe to high protein diets (Weigle. 2005), the increase in protein-to-carbohydrate ratio (P/C) did not lead to measurable reductions in energy intake, but ....

"[...]the highest ratio [40% of the total energy intake from protein] reduced HFD-induced weight gain, fat mass and plasma triacylglycerol, non-esterified fatty acids, glucose and leptin levels, while it increased lean mass and oxygen consumption." (McAllan. 2014)

As the scientists point out, similar effects were observed on adipose mRNA expression, where the highest ratio of protein to carbohydrates reduced HFD-associated expression of UCP-2 (a protein that has the fat stores eat themselves up), the inflammatory marker TNF-alpha and CD68 a gylcoprotein that messes with LDL cholesterol.

On the other hand, the (really) high protein diet increased the diet-associated expression of the b3-adrenergic recepto (b3-AR), lipoprotein lipase, a water soluble enzyme that hydrolyzes triglycerides in lipoproteins, such as those found in chylomicrons and very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), as well as the expression of insulin receptors and the glucose transporters GLUT4 - all of which should be old acquaintances of loyal SuppVersity readers.

References: 

• Duca, Frank A., et al. "Replication of obesity and associated signaling pathways through transfer of microbiota from obese prone rat." Diabetes (2014): DB_131526.
• Forsberg, Anna, et al. "Pre?and post?natal Lactobacillus reuteri supplementation decreases allergen responsiveness in infancy." Clinical & Experimental Allergy 43.4 (2013): 434-442.
• Jones, Mitchell L., Christopher J. Martoni, and Satya Prakash. "Oral Supplementation With Probiotic L. reuteri NCIMB 30242 Increases Mean Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 98.7 (2013): 2944-2951.
• Lakritz, Jessica R., et al. "Beneficial bacteria stimulate host immune cells to counteract dietary and genetic predisposition to mammary cancer in mice." International Journal of Cancer (2014).
• Lee, K., et al. "Antiobesity effect of trans?10, cis?12?conjugated linoleic acid?producing Lactobacillus plantarum PL62 on diet?induced obese mice." Journal of applied microbiology 103.4 (2007): 1140-1146.
• McAllan, Liam, et al. "Protein Quality and the Protein to Carbohydrate Ratio within a High Fat Diet Influences Energy Balance and the Gut Microbiota In C57BL/6J Mice." PLOS ONE 9.2 (2014): e88904.
• Million, M., et al. "Correlation between body mass index and gut concentrations of Lactobacillus reuteri, Bifidobacterium animalis, Methanobrevibacter smithii and Escherichia coli." International Journal of Obesity (2013a).
• Million, Matthieu, and Didier Raoult. "The role of the manipulation of the gut microbiota in obesity." Current infectious disease reports 15.1 (2013b): 25-30.
• Stensson, Malin, et al. "Oral Administration of Lactobacillus reuteri during the First Year of Life Reduces Caries Prevalence in the Primary Dentition at 9 Years of Age." Caries research 48.2 (2013): 111-117.
• Weigle, David S., et al. "A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations." The American journal of clinical nutrition 82.1 (2005): 41-48.