ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

HIIT-like 400m sprinting is exhausting, but unlike running to exhaustion and medium intensity steady state cardio its not going to mess up your nervous system.

Not one but two recent studies confirm what many of us have experienced first hand: Endurance training - specifically during a cut - is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, its a neat way to augment the energy deficit, when youre dieting and maintain in a eucaloric state, when youre not. On the other hand, however, even moderate endurance training can alter the sympathetic and parasympathetic balance and thus create an imbalance that is characteristic of any form of overtraining.

Speaking of overtraining: As a SuppVersity reader you should actually be aware of the fact that scientists distinguish two different types of overtraining: Sympathetic and parasympathetic overtraining
Due to the fact that the symptoms (see Figure 1) closely resemble those Morbus Basedow (engl. Graves Diseases) and Addisons Disease, respectively, sympathetic and parasympathetic overtraining are also called Basedowoid and Addisinoid overtraining.

Figure 1: Overview of the symptoms of the two major forms of overtraining.

You can see that the symptoms partly overlap. Thats yet not the only problem you have if you want to diagnose the type of overtraining. In many resistance trainees, for example, you find either mixed forms or see a transition from classic sympathetic to parasympathetic overtraining over time (assuming the athlete doesnt do anything to normalize his / her sympathetic nervous system function).
For the average study participant in a recent experiment that was conducted by scientists from the , The 42nd Hospital of PLA, the Xinqiao Hospital and the Chongqing Normal University in China, the duration and intensity of their cardio workouts (running) determined, whether the prescribed workout routines that consisted of ...

• There is such a thing as overtraining, folks | read more

  4 times a week running at 100% of their maximal heart rate until they were exhausted (utmost intensity group)
   
• 30 minutes of running four times per week (moderate intensity group)


• 3 - 5x 1200 m runs per day with a  5-min break every 400 m four times per week (high intensity group)

made them overtrain or not, and whether their para- or sympathetic nervous system was overreacting.

Table 1: Characteristics of study groups at pre and post | Data are means XS± . Pre, pretraining; post, at the end of 8-week training; mid, at the end of 4-week training. Utmost, utmost intensity endurance training; moderate, moderate intensity endurance training; high, high intensity endurance training (Tian. 2014)

The subjects, 72 nonsmoking male students whose characteristics are summarized in Table 1, followed the routine they had been randomized to for 8 weeks. As you can see, there were no statistical significant changes in body composition over the course of the 8-week study. Although, it sould seem that the body fat percentage (I assume BFR is body fat) declined a tad bit more in the high intensity group.
Where the subjects differed, however, was in their response to the specific aerobic exercise programs theyve been assigned to (I will directly quote the results from Tian et al (2014) and briefly comment on each of them):

• Heart rate variability (HRV): No significant changes in HRV parameters were found in all groups at pre and mid. But at post, the moderate intensity group showed more significant increases in RMSSD, PNN50, HF, LF and SDNN (P < 0.05 or 0.01) and much greater reduction in LF/HF than the other two groups (P was 0.033, 0.037 respectively). HFn of the moderate intensity group was significantly higher than that of the utmost intensity group (P = 0.012), while the opposite pattern occurred in LFn and LF/HF of the two groups (P was 0.025, 0.015 respectively).
  
  As you would expect the changes in HRV in the moderate and utmost intensity group reflect increases in parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system activity, respectively.
• Circadian Changes in Cold Pressor Test (CPT): From pre to post marked differences were not found in SBP and DBP of all groups and their increases. At post HR was much less increased in utmost intensity group during CPT than the other two groups (average P < 0.05).
  
  Next to a high basal heart rate an inhibited increase in heart rate is another characteristic of later stages of sympathetic overtraining.
• Plasma catecholamine (NE & EPI): Norepinephrine (NE) concentration was considerably lower in utmost intensity group than the other two groups (P was 0.001, 0.00 respectively). At post marked inter-group differences were still not found in plasma PEI concentration.
  
  A reduced catecholamine release is a classic characteristic of long(-er) term sympathetic overtraining - a phenomenon, some people may call "adrenal fatique" that occurs after an initial phase of catecholamine overproduction in sympathetic overtraining.

Overall, the results of the study at hand confirm previous research that found associations between classic "moderate intensity" endurance training and parasympathetic dominance (Yamamoto. 2001; Pichot. 2002; Myslivecek. 2002).

For the utmost intensity group, on the other hand, the scientists diagnosed an "over-excited SN [sympathetic nervous system]" (Tian. 2014), which is in contrast to the medium intensity and high intensity group, where the head-up tilt test did not indicate an "impairing effect on autonomic regulation" (Tian. 2014).
References:

• Myslivecek, P.R., Brown, C.A. and Wolfe, L.A. (2002) Effects of Physical Conditioning on Cardiac Autonomic Function in Healthy Middle-Aged Women. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 27, 1-18. 
• Oosthuyse, T., & Avidon, I. (2014). Changes in substrate utilisation and protein catabolism during multiday cycling in well-trained cyclists. Journal of Sports Sciences, (ahead-of-print), 1-11.
• Pichot, V., Busso, T., Roche, F., Garet, M., Costes, F., Duverney, D., Lacour, J.R. and Barthélémy, J.C. (2002) Autonomic Adaptations to Intensive and Overload Training Periods: A Laboratory Study. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 34, 1660-1066. 
• Tian, Kaixin, et al. "Effect of Endurance Training on the Autonomic Nervous System Function of Young Male." International Journal of Clinical Medicine 5.19 (2014): 1189.
• Yamamoto, K., Miyachi, M., Saitoh, T., Yoshioka, A. and Onodera, S. (2001) Effects of Endurance Training on Resting and Post-Exercise Cardiac Autonomic Control. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 1496-1502. 

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.

Its one thing to make strength and mass gains, its a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise we would hardly be able to get our hands on papers that are written by Iranian scientists and published in the Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise; and that, my dear (mostly) American friends, would be a real pity!

"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - thats the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the  University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to

"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes."  (Tadibi. 2013)

To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:

• group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and 
• group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old). 

The participants attended physical education classes for six weeks/three times a week, with duration of 45-60 min each session. Each training session involved three phases in both groups and lasted 50–60minutes:

• warm up, specific or related training and cool down. 

Warm up and cool down phases were similar in both groups included 7 min running with intensity sufficient to raise breath rate, 3 min stretching training.
The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:

• Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen

  bench press, 
• squat, 
• biceps curls, 
• triceps extensions, 
• shoulder press

What? No, I have no idea, if they forgot to list the back exercises, or if the subjects actually didnt do any. What I do know, though is that the

"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)

In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).

TRAINING ? DETRAINING ? RESULTS?

Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).

Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)

Well, you can see the results of this type of realistic 6-weeks on 2-weeks of regimen in Figure 1 - a result based on which you should be able to confirm the following conclusions:

• Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
• The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
• The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from  12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs.   11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).

As the researchers point out, this result may look different, if the study population was older or sick. In less-conditioned individuals (Hakkinen. 1994), which is - in my humble opinion - a very important hint for both, the young and old SuppVersity readers, as it confirms (once again), that the optimal training routine is a very individual thing and cannot be cookie cut based on a single study.
References:

• Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
• Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).

Please, do me a favor and read the info in the red box. Hypoxia ? Kaatsu

Assuming that youve read the headline of this article first, you should already have realized what makes this study special: A realistic training regimen thats relevant for to the "average gym context". "10 reps to failure" - and that is actually pretty close to what the average trainee does on one of his / her "arm days" at the gym.

Against that background I can live with the minor downside that the subjects were 13 healthy men (mean age, 23 years; height 169 cm; body mass 60 kg) who were assigned to train either under normoxic or hypoxic training conditions were a little "too average" (=untrained) for my liking.
As the well-read SuppVersity student youve become ever since youve been reading these articles, you will obviously know that using noobs as your subjects is something exercise scientists like to do, because they know that this helps them to avoid null-results, as they tend to occur in in studies with trained subjects, simply the study duration was too short and / or the training intensity too pathetic to measure significant changes in any of the outcome variables.
As the data in Figure 1 goes to show you, neither (a) nor (b) nor both was the case in the study at hand. The Elbow extensions the subjects performed at a workload of a 10 RM with the non dominant arm to exhaustion three times with 1-minute intervals 3 days each week for 8 weeks, did after all elicit significant strength and size gains in both groups - regardless of whether they were performed while the subjects were inspiring normoxic air (FiO2=20. 9%; at sea level) or hypoxic gas (FiO2=12 .7%; corresponding to 4000 m above sea level):

Figure 1: Thickness of triceps brachii (a and b) in both arms before and after training in the normoxic (N) and hypoxic (H) groups; ** denotes significant difference (Kurobe. 2014)

The overall changes in size and strength are yet luckily not the only significant effect, the researchers from the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Japan observed in their study.

The inter-group differences, i.e. the significantly greater increase in muscle thickness the hypoxia group, was significant, as well. And while the latter cannot be said of the increase in strength, I am pretty sure that the additional size gains alone would be reason enough for some of you to take a bottle with reduced oxygen air (Fi=2=12.7%; meaning only 12.7% of the air in the container would be oxygen to the gym).
References:

• Kurobe et al. "Effects of resistance training under hypoxic conditions on muscle hypertrophy and strength." Clin Physiol Funct Imaging(2014) doi: 10.1111/cpf.12147

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.