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.

What now? Wait 3 minutes or off to the bench for an alternate set of bench presses or pulls ?

Traditional strength training with 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) utilizes 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity, but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration, but may affect workout performance.

The above is how Anthony B. Ciccone, Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn, Andrew J. Galpin kick off their latest paper in the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Publish Ahead of Print).
The purpose of the corresponding study was to compare the effects of traditional to those of alternating whole body strength training on squat performance. To this ends, Ciccone et al. recruites 20 youn men, who had to perform two workouts:

• The traditional set workout (TS) consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minutes rest between sets. 
• The alternating set workout (AS) also consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 & 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minutes rest between squat sets. 

For both workouts, sets 1-3 were performed for four repetitions, while set four was performed to concentric failure. The total number of completed repetitions, the peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power, (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set.

Figure 1: Maximal # of reps on last set and average power in the classic vs. alternating condition (Ciccone. 2014)

Interestingly, there was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. Only, the volume-equated AP was ca. 5% greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). A more pronounced difference which was yet still within the margin of one standard deviation (in this case 2.2. reps) was observed for the fourth squat set to failure, where the TS condition resulted in 15% more reps to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Reason enough for Ciccone et al. to suggest that:

1. Individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than three AS sets per exercise.
2. Those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper body multi-joint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Certainly a sound advice, but in the end, we all live in a world where time is a precious gem and some people give a fuck about average power and the number of reps until they fail.
References:

• Ahtianen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• Ciccone AB, et al. "Effects of Traditional Versus Alternating Whole-body Strength Training on Squat Performance." J Strength Cond Res. (2014) Jun 17. Ahead of print.
• de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.

Weights works for ladies, too! Really!

I am not sure if you remember it, but youve read about what I would like to refer to as the "proximity hypothesis" before, here at the SuppVersity.

The basic idea behind is eventually similar to the notion of "localized fat loss", yet on the micro- not the macro-scale. In other words, instead of "do sit-ups to burn abdominal fat" the no-bro-science-variety of the "proximity hypothesis" says: "Train your legs to empty the huge intra-muscular fat stores and have them refilled from the abdominal fat."

Probably you will already have realized that this is "proximity" as in "right next to the skeletal muscle mitochondria" and not "proximity" as "a fat depot next to the muscle your train".

SuppVersity Suggested Read: " Spot Reduce Abdominal Fat With Green Tea, Green Clay & Magnesium Sulfate Soaked "Plaster Body Wrap"... Really!?" | read more

As S.O. Shepherd and his colleagues from the Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Birmingham and the University of Stirling point out, it has long been speculated that part of the improvements in insulin sensitivity following endurance training

"[...] are mechanistically linked to increases in muscle oxidative capacity, intramuscular triglyceride (IMTG) utilization during endurance exercise and increases in the content of the lipid droplet-associated perilipin-2 (PLIN2) and PLIN5." (Shepherd. 2014)

These lipid droplet-associated proteins (or short PLINs) coat the lipid droplets in fat and other cells and protect them from lipases of which you, as a SuppVersity reader know that they are enzymes our body uses to break down and "free" stored body fat - a process scientists usually refer to as "lipolysis".

An increase in perilipin in the musculature will thus necessarily increase the storage of lipid droplets in the muscle; and since it does not affect fat storage in the adipose organ and in view of the fact that the fat must come from somewhere (nutrition, endogenous fatty acid production from glucose, or stored body fat) this is not a bad thing.

More fat in the muscle? Thats bad, right?

Its thus not shocking to have a "high" amount of fat in the muscle, as long as it is deposited there as a fat reserves for the mitochondria and serves as an alternative, additional or auxiliary, astonishingly readily available energy source for the muscle. A "range extender" with profound beneficial effects on muscular endurance.

Figure 1: Changes in heart rate VO2max, carbohydrate + fat oxidation, and respiratory exchange ratio (left); blood glucose + insulin levels after an oral glucose tolerance test before and after RT intervention (Shepherd. 2014)

Any marathon runner, ironman or -woman and even pharmaceutically enhanced Tour de France drivers would thus be happy if they experienced a similar increase in intramuscular triglyceride stores (IMGT) as the thirteen sedentary males (20±1 years, 24.8±0.8 kg/m²) in the study at hand.

The guys had perfoemed a 6-weeks whole-body resistance training program (3 sessione per week) in the course of which Shepherd et al. observed not just the previously mentioned increases in IMTG, and PLIN2 and PLIN5 protein content, but also highly significant increases in intramuscular fat breakdown during "light" cardio training (65% VO2max; +43% in slow-twitch type I and +37% in fast-twitch type II fibers).
References:

• Geirsdottir, Olof Gudny, et al. "Physical function predicts improvement in quality of life in elderly Icelanders after 12 weeks of resistance exercise." The journal of nutrition, health & aging 16.1 (2012): 62-66.
• OConnell, Matthew DL, et al. "Do the effects of testosterone on muscle strength, physical function, body composition, and quality of life persist six months after treatment in intermediate-frail and frail elderly men?." Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 96.2 (2010): 454-458.
• Rizzoli, René, et al. "Quality of life in sarcopenia and frailty." Calcified tissue international 93.2 (2013): 101-120. 
• Shepherd, Sam O., et al. "Resistance training increases skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and net intramuscular triglyceride breakdown in type I and II fibres of sedentary males." Experimental Physiology (2014).
• Silva, Neto LS, et al. "Association between sarcopenia, sarcopenic obesity, muscle strength and quality of life variables in elderly women." Revista brasileira de fisioterapia (Sao Carlos (Sao Paulo, Brazil)) 16.5 (2011): 360-367.

The deadlift probably wont benefit from blocked periodization either... at least if you do it only once a week anyway.

I hope you all remember my recent article about the beneficial effects of block periodization on the training outcome of trained cyclists (if you dont Id suggest you read up on it: "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes") and the hypothesis that the mechanism behind the beneficial effects Rønnestad et al. report in the corresponding paper are not actually a consequence of this specific periodization scheme. Rather than that, the benefits the researchers have observed may well have been a mere consequences of the "change", of "breaking out of the rut" and the provision of a new challenge thats absolutely essential to induce what everyone, from housewife to Olympian athlete is training for: adaptation.

Lets discard the mechanism for a moment, though and lets rather focus on the hard facts - hard facts that are complemented by the results of a soon-to-be-published paper by researchers from the University of Bologna and the University of Central Florida.

Whats so interesting about this paper is ...

....that it looks at the effects of block periodization in trained strength athletes and could thus help us answer a question that may have been preying on your mind, ever since I published the previously cited article about the beneficial effects of block periodization in endurance athletes: "Do Different Rules Apply for Strength vs. Endurance Athletes?" Or, put simply: Would a weight lifter benefit to a similar extend from block periodizing his training regimen as a cyclist - irrespective of what the underlying mechanisms may be?

Figure 1: The subjects trained 4x per week - identical training plans in both groups (Bartolomei. 2014)

The answer is "yes and no" - Yes, if we are talking about the upper body, no - and thats interesting because cycling obviously involves the same muscle groups - when we are looking at the lower body performance gains in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Changes in max. strength (1RM in kg), mean power (in % of baseline) and jump height (in cm) in the 24 study particpants in response to traditional linear or block periodization (Bartolomei. 2014)

As you can see, the gains in lower body power was identical - irrespective of the type of periodization (see overview in Figure 1). For the upper body, on the other hand, the subjects who did not simply ramp up the intensity continuously from 5 sets of 8-10 reps at 65-75% of  1RM  with  less  than  2  minutes  of  recovery  between  sets to 5 sets of 3 - 4 reps at 85 -95% of 1RM with 3 minutes of recovery from week 1 to week 12 (TP group), the ...

"[p]articipants  in  BP  were  more  likely  (79.8%)  to increase the area under the force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power at the bench  press compared to TP group, and a possible improvement (~ 60%) in maximal strength and power in the bench press." (Bartolomei. 2014)

Whether thats muscle-specific reaction to the three 5-week mesocycles, instead of one 15-week mesocycle is yet highly questionable - or do you think the legs respond less to the periodization program thats depicted in Figure 3, than chest, back, arms & co?

Figure 3: Illustration of the interplay between intensity and volume of the n=14 24-year-old male, resistance trained (>3 years, >3 sessions per week) subjects in the block periodization group (Bartolomei. 2014)

Personally, I would rather come back to the "novelty approach". It goes without saying that we can assume that the abrupt changes on a blocked periodization regimen favor "growth promoting overloads". In the case of the musculature of the lower body, the simple fact that it was trained just once a week may yet have provided a similarly "novel" or at least less accustomed stimulus on every leg-day.
References

• Bartolomei, Sandro, et al. "A Comparison of Traditional And Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). [ahead of print]
• Rønnestad, B. R., J. Hansen, and S. Ellefsen. "Block periodization of high?intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists." Scand J Med Sci Sports 24 (2014): 34–42.

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.

This image of heavy sled pulls was taken during one of the strongmen training sessions in the study at hand - for the full protocol see Table 1 (Winwood. 2014)

Brad Schoenfelds recent study on the differential effects of 3x10 vs. 7x3 rep x set resistance training regimen (reread corresponding SuppVersity Article) took much of the wind óut of the sails of the proponents of classic hypertrophy training (3-4 sets of 8-12 reps) as the one and only training method for anyone thriving for maximal muscle gains.

An even more recent study by Paul Winwood et al. thats about to be published in the upcoming issue of the #1 journal for everything strength training, i.e. the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, does not just support the findings of Schoenfeld et al. it claims "that short term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function and performance." (Winwood. 2014)
Next to the fact that the two protocols in the study at hand were neither volume-matched nor based on the same exercises, there is yet another highly significant difference between the study at hand and the aforementioned powerlifting vs. classic resistance training study by Schoenfeld et al. the conclusion of the Winwood study is only "statistically correct". From a practical point of view, on the other hand, the body composition part of it is total bullshit.

If you take a look at the actual "body composition" data, even a blind man sees that the strongman protocol that consisted seven weeks /two obligatory training sessions per week) of the resistance training protocols outlined in Table 1 and two facultative, non-supervised and recorded sessions of prehabilition exercises, as well as two cardiovascular training sessions per week.

Table 1: Outline of the training protocols; * indicates that the exercise is performed explosively (Winwood. 2014)

The first thing you should realize after taking a look at the "traditional" protocol is that its traditional, but not the protocol you would traditionally use if your main goal was to build muscle. The number of repetitions is too low there is no individual training for the arms - both of which are characteristics most hypertrophy regimens share.
This alone wouldnt be that bad, if the conclusion that both training regimen had identical effects on the body composition of the subjects wasnt simply flawed.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition and strength (Winwood. 2014)

Ok, the differences may not be statistically significant, but if one regimen, i.e. the "traditional" training improves, while the strongman training compromises the body composition of young men, I would be very hesitant to state that "strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition" (Winwood. 2014).

If the trend the researchers must obviously have overlooked (or ignored) continues, the guys in the "traditional group" will soon look like ripped mens fitness cover models, while the guys in the strongmen group will develop a pot belly. Not exactly what anyone could want. Even if you dont care about being jacked, looking at the effects on body fat, the "traditional" strength training protocol would also classify as the healthier training regimen.
Reference:

• Winwood, PW, et al. "Strongman  versus  traditional  resistance  training  effects  on  muscular  function  and  performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000629