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.

Looking for muscle building protein fuel? No need for supplements, when a delicious steak is all it takes to propel the beneficial effects of resistance training on your body comp.

Yes, todays SuppVersity article is about beef protein, but its not about one chocolate flavored overpriced powdered slaugherhouse waste for carnivores, but rather about real beef: muscle meats from cattle, as the ones you put into a pan or onto the barbecue. A group of scientists from the University of Pavia in Italy wanted to know if a simple steak would affect the strength and body composition of young adults involved in a full-vody resistance-training program of eight weeks.

Based on previous studies Negro et al. knew that beef protein (90g from a 340g steak) can help trainees increase their muscle gains, when it is consumed 60 minutes before the exercise (Symsoni. 2011).
Similar, albeit dose-dependent increases in protein synthesis have also been observed by Robinson et al. (2013) who demonstrate that a 170 g serving of lean beef, which was consumed after the workout and provided 36 g of protein, resulted in greater rates of muscle protein synthesis in middle-aged persons than smaller servings of 113 g and 57 g of beef (24 g and 12 g of protein, respectively) when administrated after 3 sets of knee extensions exercise (using a predetermined load toelicit failure within 8–10 repetitions).

Figure 1: Mean myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis (MPS) in response to graded doses of dietary protein at rest and after resistance exercise (left); whole-body leucine oxidation with ingestion of various doses of beef (right; Robinson. 2013).

What neither of the two studies had to offer, though, is a longitudinal analysis of the hypertrophy response to a realistic strength training regimen.
In the study at hand, the forty healthy normal-weight volunteers without significant training experience who were recruited at the University of Pavia through advertisements posted on the main campus, were supplemented "soon after every exercise session" with a 135 g serving of lean beef (tinned meat), providing 20 g of protein and 1.7 g of  fat (water was available to favor the swallowing). With the exception of the tinned meat, the subjects who had an average baseline protein intake of 1.0g/day werent allowed to consume any supplements or ergogenic substances.

1.0g/kg protein +/- 20g of protein from canned beef after workouts = ???

Both, the supplement and the control group participated in the same standardized whole body resistance training program which had been  designed by a certified strength and conditioning specialist.

"All subjects trained three times per week(Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), for a total of nine weeks (one week of pre-conditioning (week 0) and eight weeks of training (week 1 to week 8)). The pre-conditioning week was designed to allow volunteers to become familiar with all the exercises included in the training protocol. During the eight weeks of training, FG [treatment group] and CG [control group] carried out their workout session late in the afternoon or early evening. After a warm-up all subjects performed, in a randomized order, three circuits (Legs Circuit: leg extension, leg press, leg curl; Chest Circuit: pectoral machine, bench press, triceps machine; Back Circuit: vertical row, lat machine, biceps curl)." (Negro. 2014)

Every exercise was performed for 8 repetitions at 75% of 1RM each. With each of the exercises in the circuits being performed four times and four minutes of rest between circuits, the subjects spent about 1.5 h in the gym. All training sessions were closely monitored to ensure effort, repetitions and intensity established.The body composition of the subjects was measured by BIA (Model BIA 101, AKERN-RJL, Florence, Italy) of which the scientists who obviously expected my criticism of their cheapness write that BIA shows "statistically significant linear relationships between LM and FM assessed by BIA and more robust techniques (such as DEXA) in both sexes" (Negro. 2014); yet while this is correct for the relative values the absolute values are often bogus.

Figure 2: Relative changes in body composition (left) and 1-RM strength (right) in response to training +/- beef supplement over the course of 8 weeks (Negro. 2014)

Still, in spite of the fact that the strength gains didnt differ significantly, the changes in body composition (Figure 2, left) speak in favor of the beef supplement.

FM declined from week 0 to week 8 both in FG [beef] and in CG [control], but only in FG this decline was significant (week 0: 15.0 ± 6.7 kg; week 8: 13.1 ± 7.6 kg; ?: ?1.9 ± 2.9 kg; p < 0.05); FFM increased in all subjects, but only FG showed a significant increase (week 0: 52.8 kg ± 9.4; week 8: 55.1 kg ± 10.9; ?: 2.3 ± 2.5 kg; p < 0.01). No significant differences in LM were found from week 0 to week 8 in either FG or CG, however there was an increase trend in FG and a decrease trend in CG (Table 2).

[...] Muscular strength, as assessed by the 1RM bench press, lat machine and leg press, respectively, increased significantly in both groups (Figure 1); this effect was independent of LM values and nutritional stimulus, but only related to the resistance-training program. " (Negro. 2014).

Needless to say that it would be interesting to have a whey control group, or a comparison between different forms of meat (grilled steak vs. minced tartar, for example). For the time being we do thus have to content ourselves with the (unsurprising) insight that it does not necessarily have to be whey if your goal is to augment the post-workout increase in protein synthesis.
References:

• Ginger, Irene D., Et Al. "Effect Of Aging And Cooking On The Distribution Of Certain Amino Acids And Nitrogen In Beef Musclea." Journal Of Food Science 19.1?6 (1954): 410-416. 
• Negro, Massimo, et al. "Protein Supplementation with Low Fat Meat after Resistance Training: Effects on Body Composition and Strength." Nutrients 6.8 (2014): 3040-3049.
• Pennings, Bart, et al. "Minced beef is more rapidly digested and absorbed than beef steak, resulting in greater postprandial protein retention in older men." The American journal of clinical nutrition 98.1 (2013): 121-128. 
• Rémond, Didier, et al. "Postprandial whole-body protein metabolism after a meat meal is influenced by chewing efficiency in elderly subjects." The American journal of clinical nutrition 85.5 (2007): 1286-1292.
• Robinson, Meghann J., et al. "Dose-dependent responses of myofibrillar protein synthesis with beef ingestion are enhanced with resistance exercise in middle-aged men." Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism 38.2 (2012): 120-125.
• Symonsi, T. B., et al. "The anabolic response to resistance exercise and a protein-rich meal is not diminished by age." The journal of nutrition, health & aging 15.5 (2011): 376-381.

"Cuffed up and ready to grow"? Yes, but STRONGER, but not necessarily bigger - thats at least what the latest research seems to suggest. Research thats bringing us back to the influence of exercise induced changes in growth hormone, cortisol and co, we all love so much ;-)

If youve read my article "Strength ? | Size ? - Thats the Result of 7 Weeks With Three Additional Sets of Blood Flow Restricted High Rep + Low Intensity Squats & Bench Presses in Well-Trained Athletes" (read more), you will be aware that the previously reported strength increases in response to the addition of 3 sets of blood flow restricted high rep, low intensity work are dearly bought.

The price youll have to pay for theses strength increases is a reduced increase in muscle size thats particularly pronounced for the pectoralis major (the large chest muscle), where doing those three extra-sets leads - irrespective of whether youre "all cuffed up" or not - to a reduction(!) in muscle size (as measured by chest circumference).

Obviously we cannot explain the catabolic effects,....

... by taking a look at the results of another recently published study on blood flow restriction. What the results Eonho Kim et al. present in their most recent paper in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine could tell us, though, is whether the positive effects on strength development are mediated by BFR-induced changes in the expression of "anabolic" hormones.
As the scientists from the University of Oklahoma point out, the purpose of their study was to determine whether there was an acute hormone response to exercise differed between low intensity blood flow restricted resistance exercise and traditional high-intensity resistance exercise in college-aged women.

Suggested: "Anabolic Workouts Revisited: Testosterone, GH, Prolac- tin & Co - Effects of Workout Type, Volume & Density" | more

As a seasoned SuppVersity veteran youll know that "acute" is not "chronic" and that these acute differences in "hormone response" are difficult to place. Based on the results of the only currently available study with useful data on the relation between the expression of "anabolic" and purportedly "catabolic" hormones on the one hand, and the increase in muscle size and strength in response to classic 12-week resistance training program (see Table 1), we should watch out for increases in cortisol, only (!).

The allegedly catabolic stress hormone, of which most people forget that it is eventually a glucocorticoid and allows you to train without having to have a glucose infusion at hand, is the only  hormone with significant (p = 0.03) positive correlations (r = 0.29) with the strength gains of the 56 young men who participated in the 2012 study by West & Phllips (West. 2012).

What about the cuffed up ladies in the study at hand, then?

If we assume that (a) the acute post-workout increase in cortisol is actually an indicator of chronic strength increases and (b) that this is the same for men and women, we should see higher glucocorticoid levels in the 13 healthy women (aged 18-25 yrs), who participated in the Kim study, when they trained with cuffs, then we do, when they train without cuffs.

Figure 1: Relative changes (pre vs. post) in lactate, growth hormone, hematocrit and cortisol in response to leg presses and leg extensions with (1x30, 2x15 @20% 1RM) and without (3x10 @80% 1RM) blood flow restriction (Kim. 2014)

Well, what should I say? The increases in cortisol, we predicted based on our analysis of the West study are there! The cortisol expression differed significantly between the two training conditions, in the course of which the 13 ladies performed ...

• Dont forget to read more about the "anti-size" effects of BFR" | more

  5 minutes of warm up on a cycle ergometer, plus
• high intensity leg presses and extensions
  for 3x 10 @ 80% 1RM, or
• BFR leg presses + extension
  for 1x30, 2x15 @ 20% 1RM with
• 1 minute rest between sets and exercises.

During the BFR condition the participants wore an elastic cuffs (50 mm width) on the proximal thighs. The initial cuff pressure was set between 40 and 60 mm Hg, then inflated to 120 mm Hg for 30 seconds then released. The cuff pressure was increased by 20 mm Hg incrementally until the target pressure of 200 Hg was reached as described by previously published studies (Abe et al., 2006; Yasuda et al., 2006). Since the cuff was deflated and removed after the completion of the two lower body exercises, the total time of vascular restriction was "only" about 10 minutes.
Reference: 

• Abe, Takashi, Charles F. Kearns, and Yoshiaki Sato. "Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training." Journal of Applied Physiology 100.5 (2006): 1460-1466. 
• Fragala, Maren S., et al. "Glucocorticoid receptor expression on human B cells in response to acute heavy resistance exercise." Neuroimmunomodulation 18.3 (2011): 156-164. 
• Kim, Eonho, et al. "Hormone Responses to an Acute Bout of Low Intensity Blood Flow Restricted Resistance Exercise in College-Aged Females." Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 12 (2013): 91-96.
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.
• Yasuda, T., et al. "Electromyographic responses of arm and chest muscle during bench press exercise with and without KAATSU." International Journal of KAATSU Training Research 2.1 (2006): 15-18.