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

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

No sweat, just some wires? Study shows: It does not take much effort to lose belly fat.

Liposuction is an invasive procedure that is not without risk. Against that background its no wonder that people are marketing alternative methods like high-frequency current therapy as allegedly safe go-to methods to rid yourself of unwanted body fat. The question is: Do these currents actually help you to lose body fat? That is: Can electrocuting your belly "electro-cut" significant amounts of body fat? Practitioners who use this technology will say "yes". From a scientific standpoint, though, the question is difficult to answer, because the use of high-frequency current therapy has been given little attention in the scientific community.

As Kim et al. point out in a recent paper in the J. Phys. Ther. Sci., some previous studies have failed to provide evidence for the effectiveness of high-frequency current therapy in women with obesity, whereas more recent studies have indicated that a high-frequency current therapy decreases female abdominal obesity (Kang. 2005; Han. 2010). Accordingly, their latest study aimed to determine whether high-frequency current therapy can be effectively used to reduce female abdominal obesity.
To this ends, the researchers recruited twenty-two female volunteers who were randomly allocated to either the experimental group (EG) (n = 12; age, 21.17 ± 0.72 years; weight, 63.17 ± 7.91 kg; height, 159.63 ± 4.56 cm) or the control group (CG) (n = 10; age, 21.10 ± 0.74 years; weight, 68.79 ± 11.73 kg; height, 161.69 ± 5.25 cm). Inclusion criteria were as follows:

• a body mass index (BMI) of ?23 kg/m2 and a waist-hip circumference ratio of  ? 0.8013
• no past or present neurological, musculoskeletal, or cardiopulmonary disorders that would have affected health condition;
• no smoking and drinking habits; and
• no psychological problems.

Futhermore, pregnant women were excluded as well. The subjects of both groups were asked to keep a regular dietary habit during the experimental process. A nutritionist drew up a diet plan of 2,000 to 2,500 kcal/day across 3 meals (8 a.m., 1 p.m., and 6 p.m.) for the 6-week intervention. In addition, subjects were asked to avoid extra activities and exercises beyond daily routine activities.

Figure 1. Changes in BMI, waist circumference, subcutaneous body fat and total body fat (%) after 18 sessions of high-frequency current therapy in Korean women (Kim. 2015).

Only the subjects in the EG group were subjected to high-frequency current therapy, with a frequency of 0.5 Mhz. The treatments were performed exclusively on the abdominal region while subjects were supine using specific equipment (CWM-9200; Chungwoo Medical, Seoul, South Korea) for 60 minutes, 3 times per week, for 6 weeks (a total of 18 sessions).

"High-frequency current therapy was performed in 2 phases: 2 sets of 15-minute applications of capacitive electric transfer (CET) and resistive electric transfer (RET) with the pulsed current option (current conduction time, 0.7 seconds; rest interval, 0.3 seconds) for the fist 3 weeks, followed by a 30-minute application of the CET and RET modes with continuous current conduction in the final 3 weeks. The intensity was individualized within a range of 6–7 mA to comfortably adjust the heating sensation during the intervention. An insulated electrode and a stainless steel electrode (8 cm in diameter) were used for the CET and RET modes, respectively. Conductive gel (Body Rubbing Cream; SA’COS, Incheon, South Korea) was used to facilitate skin moisture and current conduction, and high frequency current therapy was delivered by making circular motions of the electrode over the abdominal region at a moving speed of 5 cm/s, avoiding focused pressure on therapeutic areas" (Kim. 2015)

The comparison of the pre- vs. post-data showed here significant main effects of time with respect to waist circumference, abdominal obesity, subcutaneous fat mass, and body fat percentage, which differed significantly between the groups (see Figure 1), "suggesting the effects of high-frequency current therapy in decreasing obesity" (Kim. 2015).
References:

• Han, J. S., Y. O. Park, and C. K. Zhoh. "The effect of high frequency treatment and meridian massage on the abdominal fat pattern of obesity women." J Korean Soc Esthet Cosmeceutics 6.1 (2010): 1-8.
• Kang SO, Won YK. "The effect of high-frequency therapy on women’s obesity." Kor J Aesthet Cosmetol 3 (2005): 121–131.
• Kim, Jin-seop, and Duck-won Oh. "Effects of high-frequency current therapy on abdominal obesity in young women: a randomized controlled trial." Journal of Physical Therapy Science 27.1 (2015): 31-33.
• Song MY, Kim HJ, Lee MJ. "The review on the evidence: effects of nonsurgical localized fat treatments." J Korean Med Obes Res 6 (2006): 1–10.

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.