ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

In general, you have to count and limit your weekly HIIT sessions. Doing as much as humanly possible, could yet make sense, when youre preparing for Olympia 2016 and realize 5 weeks before the event that you have been lingering for too long ;-)

I think as a SuppVersity reader you know by now that "more wont yield more" - no matter if we are talking about supplements or exercise. Now, while weve had countless examples of the "more aint more" principle thats also at the heart of the "Three Simple Rules of Supplementation" (read article) for supplements (e.g. zinc, chromium, etc.) and the simple notion that eating less wont always result in greater weight loss, evidence for the pro-anabolic / adaptive effects of exercise in general, and non-steady state cardio, in particular is scarce. Against that background its all the more important for us to cherish the publication of a paper from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and the St Olav University Hospital in Trondheim Norway, Roy told me about by messaging me via the SuppVersity Facebook Page.

"More HIIT doesnt help more, either"

I guess the above would be the elevator pitch for the mythical "turbo lift" in Star Trek. For someone like yourself who has learned never to swallow "expert" wisdom just like that, the statement "more HIIT doesnt hep more, either" obviously wont be satisfying.

Figure 2: Illustration of the training in the low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) group.

If you look at the illustration above, you will already know somewhat more about the "more" in the previous sentence. As you can see, the parameter that has been modified is not the volume, its the frequency!  - and thus one of the parameters of which many gymrats think that it could hardly be high enough (AM + PM training, 7 days a week - does that ring a bell?). What this people ignore is the simple truth that ...

... adapatation takes time and training more often does not accelerate this process!

In the end, I am actually quite surprised to see that the net VO2 "gain" the scientists measured in the subsequent detraining phase (see Figure 2) was identical. Or, more explicitly, that packing 24 training sessions into three weeks did not blunt the mitochondrial adaptation processes that are responsible for the increase in VO2max, altogether.

Figure 2: VO2max and heart rate values of the 16 healthy subjects before / after high vs. low frequency HIIT (Hatle. 2014)

If we are brutally honest, though, there is obviously an advantage for the 24 sessions in 8 weeks version of this training protocol (see Figure 3, as well). The VO2max scores were after all identical only in the "catch-up" up period in week 11 and due to the rapid decline after week 12 the benefits faded equally rapid in both groups when the 19 healthy, normalweight, but non-athletic subjects returned to their usual laziness (detraining = not training at all).
References:

• Hatle H, Støbakk PK, Mølmen HE, Brønstad E, Tjønna AE, et al. "Effect of 24 Sessions of High-Intensity Aerobic Interval Training Carried out at Either High or Moderate Frequency, a Randomized Trial." PLoS ONE 9(2). (2014): e88375. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088375

The squat may be a power exercise, but trust me, it will also help you to "look good naked"!

I guess it would be hilarious to call the simple insight that cutting the time you rest in-between sets during your squats can turn a regular into a killer workout would be news, right? Well, what about some figures to define "killer" as in one minute rest between sets vs. "regular" as in three minutes rest between sets squats, then? Thats news, right; and we have to thank Nicholas A. Ratamess and his colleagues from the College of New Jersey for these insights.

I mean, huffing and puffing is one thing, but your subjectively perceived level of exhaustion and the very concrete, objectively measured data on the difference in energy expenditure and the contribution of aerobic (fat) and anaerobic (glucose) energy sources during a workout, as they are presented in the paper at hand, are two different animals.
Apropos animal, you dont necessarily have to be a similar "animal" as the 22-year old subjects of the study at hand with their ~8-year training experience to perform the tightly controlled experimental workout, the researchers describe as follows:

"After BL [baseline] measures, each subject performed a warm-up consisting of 3 minutes of stationary cycling and 2–3 lightto-moderate sets (40–60% of 1RM) of the bench press and squat. Respiratory masks were temporarily removed from each subject during the warm-up to allow subjects to consume water one last time before initiating the protocols.

Find out how to optimally train your legs - The SuppVersity EMG Series - Gluteus, Quads & Co | read more

The protocols consisted of performing 5 sets of the bench press and 5 sets of the back squat for up to 10 repetitions using 75% of their predetermined 1RM. The BP group performed the bench press first, whereas the S group performed the back squat first. For all exercises, resistance remained constant while total numbers of repetitions were recorded. Heart rate and oxygen consumption data were collected during the entire protocol. In addition, a linear position transducer (Tendo Sports Machines, Trencin, Slovak Republic) was attached to the bar to measure power and velocity during each completed repetition."

On each of the three occasions the subjects reported to the lap, a different rest interval was used. With 1-, 2-, and 3-minutes of rest in-between sets, the and a standard 2-minute RI was used in between exercises, the study represents more or less what I see trainees do at the gym on a daily basis, as well... ok, the lazy "I just want to be strong"-10-minutes-of-rest-between-sets-fat-ass was not accordingly represented in the study at hand, but lets be honest, how many of the average trainees do actually fall into this category? I mean, if you ask people why they are going to the gym, they will either lie or tell you that they are there to "look better naked".

"Looking good naked" is a valid training goal, folks - so admit to it!

For most people sculpting their body may be only one of the reasons, but in the end, it usually comes down to this and "health" or "fitness", when youre getting honest answers from gym users.

Figure 2: The amount of energy the trainees expended on bench presses and squats was significantly higher with the 1-min rest periods (17% and 36%, for squats; 8% and 18% for bench presses; data based on Ratamess. 2014)

Against that background, the insight that short rest periods lead to significant increases in energy expenditure is highly relevant (Note: The energy expenditure was calculated by multiplying the total VO2 for the session x 5.05kcal/L). Losing fat is after all number one on the "looking good naked" priority list of most trainees and in spite of the fact that you wont lose any fat without dieting, the 36% higher energy expenditure of the 1min vs. 3min rest time workout could make the difference between ordinary and outstanding fat loss results... in spite of the increase in the respiratory exchange ratio, an indicator of an increased anaerobic contribution to the energy expenditure, by the way!

Short rest times + 6 Simple Rules of Reasonable Weight Loss = Succes!

Unfortunately, the myth that "burning fat" during exercise was in any way relevant to your weight / fat loss success is as die hard as it is stupid and flawed.

Especially for the leaner folks out there, "burning fat" is absolutely irrelevant. In fact, the whole HIIT research appears to suggest that short intense, highly glycolytic exercise regimen are more suitable to shed body fat for athletic individuals than arduous multiple-hour workouts in the non-existing (!) "fat burning zone".

The reason I still recommend LISS as a preferable type of cardio training for the advanced trainee with three to four resistance training sessions per week is that all the "high intensity stuff" (dont neglect your strength workouts!) is going to overtax the sympathetic nervous system. The classic light-intensity steady state (LISS) work, on the other hand, offers a welcome parasympathetic stimulus to balance all the intense explosive training youre doing at the gym.
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.
• de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.
• Ratamess, Nicolas A., et al. "Acute Oxygen Uptake and Resistance Exercise Performance Using Different Rest Interval Lengths: The Influence of Maximal Aerobic Capacity and Exercise Sequence." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.7 (2014):1875–1888.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M. "A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.4 (2006): 978-984. 
• 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.

Bad news for lone wolfs.

Dont we all know this? There are those days when you hit the gym, go through your workout routinely, go home and tell yourself: "Well, Ive done the best I could, I will try to increase the weight next week!" ... I see, you know what I am talking about ;-)

Just like the subjects in a recent study from the University of California Los Angeles, I suppose. All of them were member of the Exquinox Fitness Club, 30–44 years of age, and had a history of exercising 5–7 days per month at the club over the previous 3 month - archetypical average ambitious Gymrats, so to say.
After randomly selecting 40 men who met the above criteria, Thomas W. Storer and colleagues randomly assigned the subjects to either

• a nonlinear periodized training program (TRAINED, N=17), or to 
• a self-directed training (SELF, N= 17)

The total training volume and frequency, i.e. three training sessions per week, was identical for both groups. The same goes for the food intake which was not recorded in either of the groups (unquestionably a drawback).
"The templates for the supervised training regimen were developed by senior EFC staff and guidance

from outside experts including exercise physiologists, physical therapists, certified PTrs, and athletic trainers.[...] The training regimen consisted of a 3-cycle, nonlinear program in which acute program variables including exercise selection, volume, and intensity were varied over both the 4-week mesocycles and within the weekly microcycles."

The volume or intensities of each training session were categorized as high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) and applied on a given day during the course of each week of training. Thats in stark contrast to the SELF group, the members of which had to log their workouts, but were otherwise totally free to train whatever they thought fit for the compulsory training goal "maximize lean mass!"

Figure 1: Changes in weight, lean body and fat mass, as well as body fat % (left) and corresponding rel. (%) changes in chest press, leg press, leg peak and average power (Storer. 2014)

If you take a look at the data in Figure 1 its plain to see that "what you see fit", is not exactly the way of training that worked for the average Joes in the study at hand.
Whats interesting, though, is the fact that all of them made progress - at first that sounds great, but without the comparison to the TRAINED group the guys would never have realized that they could have reduced their body fat % twice as much in the same 12 weeks, if they had had a trainer to plan their routines and kick their asses.

Figure 2: The lean body mass (LBM) gains in the self-directed training group did not gain any muscle on average. One guy even lost ~4kg of lean mass in 12 weeks - in spite of being told to train for maximal hypertrophy (Storer. 2014)

If you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 you will also see that for some, the self-selected training regimen - although designed to deliver maximal muscle growth - led to significant decreases in lean muscle mass - in one of the subjects almost 4kg of lean muscle mass in 12 weeks in the course of which he was told to "maximize muscle growth".

Although I can only speculate about the reason for his misery, I suspect he was overtraining. Doing more instead of less, when the gains he was expecting as a reward didnt come.
References:

• Storer, Thomas W.; Dolezal, Brett A.; Berenc, Matthew N.; Timmins, John E.; Cooper, Christopher B. "Effect of Supervised, Periodized Exercise Training vs. Self-Directed Training on Lean Body Mass and Other Fitness Variables in Health Club Members." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Ahead of Print.