Daily 7-Minute Workouts Shed 2kg Body Fat and ~3 cm Off Already Slim Waists in 6-Wk Study W/Out Dietary Changes!

It's absolutely possible to incorporate bars and everything else that happens to workout-compatible into your workouts.

I am not sure if you've heard about it: the American College of Sports Medicine has developed a "7-Minute Workout" as a convenient training method for the general population, a workout that's already incorporated in several fitness apps.

Previous studies of this body-weight based HIIT protocol have produced encouraging results (Klika 2013) and the workout can be adapted according to your clients' individual needs by modifying the exercise selection (including outdoor exercises such as the dips on the image to the right), the exercise order, the number of exercises (usually 9-12), the length (in s) of the individual exercise bouts, and the rest between exercise bouts which is usually set between 15-45s.

Read about exercise- and nutrition-related studies in the SuppVersity Short News

Alcohol, Microbes & International Chest Day

Temporary Gluttony Won' Make 'u Fat

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

HbA1c, Bone Health, BFR & More | Jan'17

TeaCrine®, ALA, Tribulus, Cordy-ceps, Sesamin...

The Latest Fiber & Microbiome Research

I will provide details on how the aforementioned variables can be modified according to client needs. Before we discuss these details, I do yet want to highlight what a basic 7-minute workout template can do for young (18-30 years) healthy men and women (mean body fat for both sexes 24.1%; BMI 24.4 kg/m²).

All participants had to follow the same workout prescription for 6 weeks. That's 6 weeks of 7 workouts à 7 minutes per week - 6x49 minutes of exercise per week, 294 minutes for the whole study (Mattar 2017); all workouts with the same following exercise sequence:

1. 

   Figure 1: Overview of the exercise sequence the subjects had to perform daily for 7 weeks.

   Jumping jack
2. Wall sit
3. Push-up
4. Abdominal crunch
5. Step-up onto chair
6. Squat
7. Triceps dip on chair
8. Plank
9. High knees run in place
10. Lunge
11. Push-up and rotation
12. Side plank

This workout is identical to the 12-station HICT program Klika et al. (2013) suggested back in the day. A workout of which they write that...

• all exercises can be done with body weight and are easily implementable in any setting (e.g., home, office, hotel room, etc.) and  
• the exercise order allows for a total body exercise to significantly increase the heart rate with
• the lower, upper, and core exercises maintaining the heart rate while developing strength.

As suggested by Klika et al., all exercises were performed for 30 seconds, with 10 seconds of transition time between bouts. Accordingly, the total time for the entire circuit workout was in fact approximately 7 minutes, when the circuit was repeated 2 to 3 times.

Figure 2: Changes in relative (%) and absolute (kg) body fat over the six-week study period (Mattar 2017).

Roughly 7 minutes that were, as the data from segmental body fat analysis (Tanita BC-418 | yes, not optimal, but better than a standard scale) and measuring tapes show (Figure 2), highly productive - and that without dieting, supplements, dietary changes and what not, the subjects lost an average 2kg of body fat (without inter-sex differences by the way) and must have gained .

What is a bit odd is that the waist circumference had reduced by 3.6 cm after 3 weeks? At the end of the study period, however, the reduction ended up being a 36% smaller - an albeit non-significant difference for which there is furthermore no good reasons to assume that it was related to dietary changes or exercise-non-adherence. After all, both body fat weight and percentage decreased (see Figure 2).

The workout that works... but needs tweaking in the long run

The authors ascribe the beneficial effects on body fat to a combination of increased lean mass and improved mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation. Two factors, of which we know that they add to the general metabolic benefits of losing body fat, in general, and belly fat, in particularly - even in already normal-weight subjects.

Resistance training bands are probably the best adjunct to the workout, but if you have something to attach a TRX system, too, another recently published study suggests: you can use that as well | read more.

What we must not forget, though, is that a simply body-weight workout will - in the long run - necessarily lose its efficacy, as its practitioners adapt to the initially unaccustomed loads. Luckily, there are options to trigger progress without simply adding volume to the workout and thus ruin the beauty of its (7-minutes) brevity:

• the exercise selection may be changed and more intense body weight and/or resistance band (optionally dumbbell) exercises may be incorporated into the template
• the exercise order could be modified in ways that facilitate higher heart rates even in more trained individuals by e.g. inserting a set of burpees after every X exercises
• the number of exercises and/or the duration of bouts could be increased/decreased to (a) gear the workout more to VO2- or strength gains
• the inter-bout rest periods which can be shortened to keep the heart rate and thus cardiovascular stimulus elevated as subjects adapt (this would also allow for increases the number of exercises or the duration of bouts without compromising the beauty of having to train for only 7 minutes)

To maximize fat loss and/or muscle gains or battle insulin resistance or high triglycerides additional dietary changes will be absolutely essential, though - with some keywords being: energy deficit (fat loss), sufficient protein (1.5-2g/kg for gains), carbohydrate control (not necessarily low carb | improve insulin sensitivity and triglycerides).

Study shows: Within certain limits, resistance training bands can fully replace the gym equipment | more.

Bottom line: Considering the fact that time and access to facility constraints are the #1 obstacles to regular exercise even for people who are generally willing to work out, the high-intensity circuit training that was previously described by Klika et al (2013) and adopted in normal-weight, healthy individuals by Mattar et al. (2017), recently, seems ideal.

For an investment of only 7 minutes per day, this workout delivers numerous health benefits and that in less time than more traditionally recommended programs which usually require extra-equipment or endless hours of 'cardio'.

In the long run, however, the program will need tweaking and a transition to (at least partly) weighted exercises. The ease, duration, and mobility of the workout do yet not have to be affected by these changes - with resistance training bands, of which I've only recently pointed out that they can almost fully replace a gym if used properly | Comment!

References:

• Klika, B., & Jordan, C. (2013). High-intensity circuit training using body weight: Maximum results with minimal investment. ACSM's Health & Fitness Journal, 17(3), 8-13.
• Knight, E., Stuckey, M. I., Prapavessis, H., & Petrella, R. J. (2015). Public health guidelines for physical activity: is there an app for that? A review of android and apple app stores. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(2).
• Mattar, L. E., Farran, N. H., & Bakhour, D. A. (2017). Effect of 7-minute workout on weight and body composition. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.

Three Surprising Revelations About the Energetic Costs of Weight Training | Effects of Intensity, Rest, Speed & More

The patterns that emerge in Figure 1-3 already suggest that Crossfit gyms are the places where the average user will "leave the most calories" on the floor. Even regular circuit training programs burn ~10kcal/min (Gettman 1981). Graduate research from 2013 suggests that exhausting Crossfit workouts can burn as much as 20kcal/min (Babiash 2013).

From previous SuppVerity articles, you will remember that the number of calories the classic cardio equipment will tell you you'd burned during your last session often is completely off. You have also learned about a year ago that even the best fitness trackers have a margin of error of ~10% - and that's for walking, jogging or running, where it's really easy to estimate the energy requirements. And, assuming that you've been around for quite some time, you may remember that there's credible evidence that we systematically underestimate the energy expenditure of push-ups, pull-ups, burpees and other bodyweight exercises.

If you know all that, you're a smart alec, but do you also know how many calories you've really left at the gym during your last resistance training workout? I can guarantee, it's not what your fitness tracker is telling you.

Learn more about alleged and true fat burner at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

DMAA (Jack3D) - The Good, the Bad & the Evil

How 'Harmless' are T2-Based Fat Burners, Really?

DMHA a Legitimate DMAA Successor

Fat Burners: Non-Stimulant, Non-Effective?

BizzyDiet Fat ↓, FitMissBurn no Add. Effect

Now, I would be lying if I told you that I knew the correct value, what I can and will tell you, however, is how you can get much closer to a realistic estimate by using the data from Rodrigo Ferro Magosso, et al.'s recent review "of the relationship between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and the main factors that affect EE during RT exercises" (Magosso 2017). As the Brazilian researchers point out, it is common for to determine the exercise-induced energy expenditure (EE) of resistance exercise (RE) using oxygen uptake (VO2) measurements. In that, scientists will usually sum up the aerobic component, the amount of energy that's spent on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), and the anaerobic component to arrive at an estimate of the total energy requirements of the workout. An estimate that may hold up to three surprises.

Surprise #1: Most of the energy you spend during your resistance training sessions feeds into the aerobic (="cardio"), not the anaerobic (=sprint & lift) energy cycle

The first thing that may seem counter-intuitive is that the existing scientific evidence clearly indicates that, despite the predominance of anaerobic metabolism during the actual lifts, the largest part of the energy you spend during and after your gym sessions is spent aerobically.

Figure 1: Rel. (%) contribution of the aerobic (intraset + EPOC) and anaerobic component of energy expenditure to total energy requirements of different resistance training protocols (figure is based on a tabular overview of the data from the studies by Scott and Campanholi in Magosso 2017); LP = leg press, BP = bench press, BC = biceps curls.

Let's take look at the sample data from four studies I plotted for you in Figure 1. It shows quite conclusively that even in the most anaerobic workout, the 50% 1RM 21 rep bench press trial in Scott 2009, most of the spent energy fed into the aerobic, not the anaerobic energy pathway (the average over all four studies is 72% to 28% for aerobic to anaerobic, respectively).

Surprise #2: In response to strength training you burn hardly more energy than you would if you took your dog for the literally walk in the park.

As a SuppVersity reader this shouldn't be that surprising, but for a handful of bros who've always wondered why they're getting fat despite spending 2h in the gym on a daily basis, this may come as a revelation: the highest hitherto recorded energy expenditure during a resistance training workout is 8.3kcal/min that's significantly less than what you'd burn during a decently paced jog.

Figure 2: Plot of the influence of rest intervals, sequential vs. super-set training and using a slow 4s vs. fast 2s rep tempo on the energy expenditure (kcal/min) of healthy subjects in selected studies (based on tabular overview in Magosso 2017).

As you can see in Figure 2 this was observed in Kelleher's 2010 study comparing a regular sequential multi-set to a super-set resistance training pattern - otherwise the workouts were identical with 4 sets to failure at 70%1RM and 1 min rest between sets and supersets of bench presses and bent over rows, biceps curls and lying triceps extensions and leg extensions and leg curls. This is in line with the observation that shorter rest times will increase the energy expenditure per time unit significantly - you got to keep in mind, though, that the reduced workout time with shorter inter-set rest will also reduce the total metabolic cost of the workout... after all, surprise #1 was that most of the energy is spent in-between the sets and after your workout. The simple assumption "The less I rest, the more I burn" is thus not accurate.

Surprise #3: A single rep burns hardly more extra calories than what your body requires to maintain its basal metabolic function

Likewise inaccurate is the assumption that you'd spend a lot of energy on the actual act of lifting a weight or, as it was the case for two out of three studies the results of which I've plotted for you in Figure 3, pushing it up on the bench.

Figure 3: Effect of exercise intensity expressed in % of 1RM on energy expenditure per repetition (kcal/rep) in studies w/ trained individuals by Scott et al. (2006, 2009 & 2011 | based on tabular overview in Magosso 2017).

As you can see, the energy expenditure per rep ranges from 0.42kcal/min to 1.99kcal/min and increases exponentially (you can see that in Scott 2009) with the amount of weight (relative to your one-rep max = 1RM) you lift.

If you haven't done so already, read my ages-old article about "The Fallacy of Working Out To 'Burn Calories', Ladies & Gents" | more

Bottom line: I bet some of you are disappointed - I mean, it would be awesome if lifting burned as many calories as you feel it should after an intense hour on the grind, right? The truth is, however, compared to "cardio", let alone HIIT training, the energy expenditure during and after resistance training workouts is rather mediocre.

The good news is: You're not hitting the gym to "burn calories", anyway. If you want to lose body fat, diet! If you still think of your workouts as a means to make up for those three slices of pizza or the five bottles of beer, it's no wonder you're not happy with what you see in the mirror. Diet to lose body fat, lift heavy to maintain or even improve your hard earned muscle mass. That's the way it's done - irrespective of how many calories you burn in the gym and/or the hours after your workout | Comment!

References:

• Babiash, Paige E. Determining the energy expenditure and relative intensity of two Crossfit workouts. Diss. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE, 2013.
• Campanholi Neto, Jose. "Demanda energética na sessão de exercício resistido com características de hipertrofia e resistência muscular localizada." (2015): 118-f.
• Gettman, Larry R., and Michael L. Pollock. "Circuit weight training: a critical review of its physiological benefits." The Physician and Sportsmedicine 9.1 (1981): 44-60.
• Kelleher, Andrew R., et al. "The metabolic costs of reciprocal supersets vs. traditional resistance exercise in young recreationally active adults." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.4 (2010): 1043-1051.
• Magosso, Rodrigo Ferro, José Campanholi Neto, and João Paulo. "A Review of Ergogenesis and Effect of Training Variables on Energy Expenditure in Resistance Training Exercises." (2017).
• Mazzetti, Scott, et al. "Effect of explosive versus slow contractions and exercise intensity on energy expenditure." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 39.8 (2007): 1291.
• Ratamess, Nicholas A., et al. "The effect of rest interval length on metabolic responses to the bench press exercise." European journal of applied physiology 100.1 (2007): 1-17.
• Scott, Christopher B. "Contribution of blood lactate to the energy expenditure of weight training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.2 (2006): 404-411.
• Scott, Christopher B., Alicia Croteau, and Tyler Ravlo. "Energy expenditure before, during, and after the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.2 (2009): 611-618.
• Scott, Christopher B., Michael P. Leary, and Andrew J. TenBraak. "Energy expenditure characteristics of weight lifting: 2 sets to fatigue." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 36.1 (2010): 115-120.
• Scott, Christopher B., et al. "Aerobic, anaerobic, and excess postexercise oxygen consumption energy expenditure of muscular endurance and strength: 1-set of bench press to muscular fatigue." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.4 (2011): 903-908.

Free-Weights = 10.4kcal, Machines = 8.9 kcal, Incorporating Cardio in a Weight Training Circuit = 13 kcal/min Burned

This article is not supposed to encourage the use of exercise as a means to eat more junk. After all a psychotherapeutic / psychiatric ward is the only place this form of exercise addiction is going to get you.

Ok, let me briefly make one thing unmistakably clear: you should never train to burn calories (even worse, to eat pizza and pie, because you "deserve it"). Good reasons to train are (a) to build muscle, (b) build strength, (c) improve your conditioning and (d) general health. It is likewise a good idea to (e) support your dieting efforts with strength and cardio training that is meant to increase the rate of fat/muscle loss.

Yet even if you don't train to burn calories, it can be very useful in all these contexts to have at least an estimate of how much energy you're spending during the workouts. What for? Well, to know roughly how much more you'd had to eat to stay in an energy and how much more would be too much so that fat gain would be the inevitable consequence.

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Cardio + Weights on One Day=

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

Speaking of energy balance(s), you should also be aware that your body will adapt to chronically reduced energy intakes. In other words: If you have been dieting for say 8 weeks, it is not unlikely that you are spending slightly, but statistically significantly less energy for the same workout (15 reps 70% of 15 RM, 2 s:1 s cadence; 45 s per exercise; only 15 s of "rest" = moving to the next exercise | running during the CE was performed at 70%  | the total duration of one lap of the circuit was 7 min and 45 s, for the total time the subjects actually worked out (not how long they were in the gym, it was 3x 7:45 = 23 min and 15 s | see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the standardized circuit resistance training protocols in Benito, et al. 2016.

This, as well as the individuality and the fact you are no identical clones of the 15 men and 14 women aged from 18 to 28 years, who participated in a recent study from the Technical University of Madrid (Benito. 2016), renders the absolute energy expenditures I've plotted for you in Figure 2 relatively meaningless (note: the subjects were pretty active, with of exercise 3-5h/week - better than your average study subjects).

Figure 2: Net energy expenditure (Kcal) in men (n = 15) and women (n = 14) during the entire circuit weight training protocol (Benito. 2016) - Percentages represent the individual contribution of aerobic energy expenditure (gray) and anaerobic energy expenditure (black) to total energy expenditure. CM: Circuit Machine training protocol; FW: Free Weight-training protocol; CE: Combined Exercise training protocol. a p<0.05 with CM, b p<0.05 with FW, ** p<0.001.

As you can see in Figure 2 the analysis of the data that was acquired during the three standardized circuit resistance programs (see Figure 1), show that...

• the combined resistance + endurance training regimen (CE, exercises see Figure 1, bottom), with 13kcal per minute (8.4 kcal/min in women), was by far the most energetically demanding (is also had the highest fat/glucose oxidation ratio, meaning more workout fuel came from fat - not necessarily body fat, though - in CE) and that 
• free weight (FW) training, with 10.4kcal/minute (6.4 kcal/min in women), was more demanding than machine-based circuit training (CM), with only 8.9 kcal/minute (5.4 kcal/min in women).

I guess this won't really get you excited... well, rightly so. After all, many of you may not be happy with health and weight loss as their primary goals and will thus pass on combined training, anyway. And still, there is something in this study that is actually quite intriguing - even for those who don't do cardio because they're afraid it will hurt their gains (which is bogus, if it's not done excessively) - and this "something" is the fact that the increased energy expenditure in the combined training group (CE) did not go hand in hand with increased ratings of perceived and objective markers of exertion. 

Figure 3: Physiological parameters (mean±SD) measured during Circuit Machine training protocol (CM), Free Weight training protocol (FW) and Combined Exercise training protocol (CE) - data expressed relative to arithmetic averages for VO2, RER, LA- and RPE; thus 9% reduced RPE in CE mean that CE is 9% less fatiguing than the avg. of all tested workouts.

On the contrary combining weights + cardio (CE), produced significantly (both statistically, as well as practically) lower lactate concentrations and significant reductions in the subjects' subjective rating of their individually perceived exertion (RPE, Figure 3). Or, as the authors' have it: "[A] combination of resistance exercises and running produces VO2 above 50% VO2max, the highest EE, and the lowest perception of effort" (Benito. 2016). This is interesting and in a way counter-intuitive as one may expect that the most energetically demanding workout would leave the subjects with the highest perceived and objective markers of exertion.

The study at hand reminds me of the results of two previously discussed studies on (top) how people underestimate the energy expenditure during body weight exercises such as push-ups and (bottom) the efficacy of body weight squat workouts.

How come combined training burns more energy, but is less fatiguing: How and why we fatigue is, unfortunately, an insufficiently understood process. Therefore, I will refrain from speculation (also I believe that the effects are central nervous system mediated) and highlight a few other take-home messages from the scientists' discussion of the results: (A) While the way the researchers link intra-workout energy expenditure and weight loss is to be criticized, they are right to point out that the study at hand confirms (once again) that "the idea of 'the higher the weight lifted, the higher the EE' is not applicable" (Benito. 2016). This does (B) not mean that lighter weights are always better, but as Benito, et al. rightly remark, the fact that a combination of resistance exercises and running produces VO2 above 50% VO2max, the highest EE, and the lowest perception of effort is certainly attractive for everyone who's trying to cut body fat and willing to do both "weights" and "cardio". (C) Switching back and forth between resistance training and running could also, "motivate those who do not like tradi-tional strength training or continuous cardiovascular training" (Benito. 2016) and can benefit from the often underesti-mated energy demands of combined training | Comment!

References:

• Benito, Pedro J., et al. "Cardiovascular Fitness and Energy Expenditure Response during a Combined Aerobic and Circuit Weight Training Protocol." PLOS ONE 11.11 (2016): e0164349.

In Untrained Subjects, Circuit Training Rocks! Study Shows Similar Strength & Better Aerobic Performance Gains W/ Circuit vs. Combined Resistance & Aerobic Training

If you are just starting out on your way to build a body like this, there's little doubt that circuit training is worth considering. If you are more advanced and have a priority on strength and muscle gains, things may be different.

This is not the first article about the benefits of circuit training here at the SuppVersity. It is however one of the most convincing ones, as far as the the choice between time-efficient circuit training regimen and a more time-consuming classic resistance training + aerobic training combo is concerned.

To test, which of the two regimen is "better, the subjects of the study, 34 sedentary young women (20.9 +/- 3.2 years; 167.6 +/- 6.4 cm; 65.0 +-/ 15.2 kg), were assigned to either (a) a combined resistance and aerobic exercise group (COMBINED; n = 17) or (b) a circuit-based whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit group (CIRCUIT; n = 17).

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

All subjects, regardless of which group (for a detailed description of the training protocols see Figure 1) they'd been assigned to trained 3 days per week for 5 weeks.

Figure 1: Tabular overviews of the two training protocols; the COMBINED training group did 30 minutes of resistance training followed by 15 minutes of aerobic exercise (Myers. 2015).

The study outcomes included pre- and post-training measures including VO2peak, anaerobic Wingate cycling, and muscular strength and endurance tests. Tests that revealed that...

• 

  Figure 2: Selected study results (Myers.2015).

  the aerobic performance, as measured by the VO2peak pre- vs. post-test, increased exclusively in the CIRCUIT group (11%),
• peak and relative average power increased to similar extents in both groups, i.e. by 5% (p = 0.027) and 3.2% (p = 0.006), respectively, in the CIRCUIT group and by 5.3% (p = 0.025) and 5.1% (p = 0.003) in the COMBINED training group, 
• a slightly greater inter-group difference was observed for the chest and hamstrings 1 repetition maximum (1RM) which improved by 20.6% (p = 0.011) and 8.3% (p = 0.022) in the CIRCUIT and by 35.6% (p , 0.001) and 10.2% (p = 0.004) in the COMBINED group, respectively,
• the most significant advantage of the COMBINED training group, was observed for the back (11.7%; p = 0.017) and quadriceps (9.6%; p = 0.006) 1RM, which did not improve in the CIRCUIT group, 

so that it may eventually still be a question of priorities. Or, practically speaking, a decision between a "cardio" and "strength" focus - only the negative effect of COMBINED training on VO2 max may come as a small surprise (small, since 15 minutes of medium intensity exercise are like no cardio).

Keep in mind that the subjects were untrained: I wouldn't say that it is impossible for a trained person to increase his / her VO2 max with circuit training, but if you want to do so, you will certainly have to incorporate a lot of high intensity body weight exercises and minimize rest extremely. Fur-thermore, the strength advan-tage of "real" resistance training regimen will increase, the more advanced you are. In other words: If you've been training for 2-3 years, now, don't scrap your regular routine for circuit training unless you want to use it as a means to mix things up or taper.

So what? In spite of the fact that the inter-group difference may have been smaller than many of you probably expected, common wisdom prevails: If you want maximal strength gains, there is no way you can skip classic resistance training regimen. What is the truly surprising results of the study at hand is thus not the lack of quads and back 1RM strength gains in the CIRCUIT group, but the absence of VO2 increases in the COMBINED group.

Simply adding in 15 minutes of "cardio" after your resistance training protocol is as effective as doing nothing. So, if you want the best of both worlds, you better HIIT the gym (i.e. do HIIT training) on two of your "off days". As I've pointed out in numerous previous articles, 10 intervals and a 20 minute workout may suffice to trigger significant increases in VO2max and, let's be honest, you can squeeze that into even the tightest schedule, can't you | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Myers TR, Schneider MG, Schmale MS, Hazell TJ. Whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit improves aerobic fitness and muscle strength in sedentary young females. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):1592-600.

Exercise Research Update March 2015: Citrate as pH Buffer not Effective, Circuit Beats HIIT Training for CV Health and Strength & More, Mental Fatigue & Anaerobic Performance

Welcome to today's SV Exercise Research Update ;-)

Time for a brief overview of the latest papers from the European Journal of Applied Physiology. Well, at least the ones that are of potential interest to gymrats, personal trainers and people working in the health and fitness industry.

I have to admit. The studies are no longer "ahead of print" and thus actually from 2014, but that does not mean that they cannot be interesting news to you and would no longer be worth discussing, right?

Read more short news at the SuppVersity

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 1/2

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 2/2

Weight Loss Supplements Exposed

Exercise Supplementation Quickie

Exercise Research Uptake Jan 12, 2015

Read the Latest Ex. Science Update

• Impact of acute sodium citrate ingestion on endurance running performance in a warm environment (Vaher. 2014)
  
  

  

  Figure 1: Compared to bicarbonate, the pH buffering effects of sodium citrate are mediocre at best (Vaher. 2014).

  Main results: Acute CIT ingestion induces alkalosis, water retention, plasma volume expansion and an increase in post-exercise blood lactate concentration, but does not improve 5,000-m running performance in a warm environment in non-heat-acclimated endurance-trained males.
  
  What do you have to know about the methods? Not much, the scientists had 116 non-heat-acclimated endurance-trained males (age 25.8 ± 4.4 years, VO2peak 56.9 ± 4.7 mL kg min) complete two 5,000-m self-paced treadmill runs with preceding CIT or placebo (wheat flour; PLC) ingestion in a double-blind, randomized, crossover manner in a climatic chamber (air temperature 32 °C, relative humidity 50 %). The active treatment consisted of 500 mg/kg body mass sodium citrate that were consumed as a bolus within 30 minutes before the testing sessions.
  
  What do we make of the results? Easy, sodium bicarbonate will always outperform citrate due to having immediate vs. kidney modulated pH buffering effects. Stay away from citrates, if you want performance benefits read my previous articles about sodium bicarbonate and use that instead.
• Short- and long-term reliability of heart rate variability indices during repetitive low-force work (Hallman. 2014)
  
  Main results: HRV can be used as a reliable and feasible marker of autonomic activity in occupational studies of repetitive low-force work.
  
  What do you have to know about the methods? Fourteen healthy female subjects performed a standardized pipetting task in the laboratory on three separate days within a short-time span (<2 weeks), and on one additional occasion 6 months later. A number of standard HRV indices were calculated in both time and frequency domains. For each HRV index, variance components were estimated between subjects, within subjects between occasions far apart in time, and within subjects between days within a 2-week period.
  
  What do we make of the results? In contrast to previous studies the study at hand etermined the variability between and within subjects of common HRV indices during a repetitive low-force occupational task, i.e., pipetting, and interpreted the results in terms of necessary sample sizes in studies comparing HRV between conditions or groups. That's different to the usual exercise tests and that it still worked broadens the applicability of HRV measures.
• An Ironman triathlon reduces neuromuscular performance due to impaired force transmission and reduced leg stiffness (Mueller. 2014)
  
  Main results: The scientists observed a significantly reduced counter-movement jump hight of which they were able to show that it was a result of the lower positive impulse. Thus, it should be obvious that Ironman races induce a neuromuscular deficit due to impairments in force transmission, resulting in a lower average positive force during CMJ, because of a slower rate of force development.
  
  What do you have to know about the methods? It is pretty obvious that the study involved measuring countermovement jump (CMJ), squat jump (SJ), and multiple one-legged hopping (m1LH) to assess fatigue-related alterations in mechanical variables in thirteen male non-professional triathletes in response to an Ironman race.

What do we make of the results? Not really much. I mean you didn't really expect to be at the peak of your physical performance right after an ironman race, right? So, if anything, the study results highlight the importance of neuromuscular vs. mere muscular fatique after endurance events.
• Peripheral heart action (PHA) training as a valid substitute to high intensity interval training to improve resting cardiovascular changes and autonomic adaptation (Piras. 2014)
  
  Main results: After 30 training sessions performed in 3 months, PHA resistance exercise promoted cardiovascular adaptations, with a decrease in the power spectral component of vascular sympathetic activity and an increase in the vagal modulation. Low-frequency oscillation estimated from systolic blood pressure variability seems to be a suitable index of the sympathetic modulation of vasomotor activity.
  
  

  

  Figure 2: Piras et al. observed both decreases in blood pressure and strength gains that were more pronounced in the PHA vs. HIIT group (Piras. 2014).

  What is peripheral heart action training? Each PHA session started with a 5-min warm-up and concluded with a cool-down. The conditioning phase of each session involved circuit weight training and consisted of six resistance exercise stations, as strictly ordered: pectoral machine, leg extension, lat machine, leg curl, shoulder press and calf machine. Subjects performed 15 repetitions of pectoral machine, and then moved to the next station (leg extension) with active pauses (e.g., subjects performed an exercise of the lower limbs as soon as they have finished one on the upper limbs, and vice versa), until the com pletion of the circuit training (calf machine).
  
  Such circuit training was performed four times, separated by 1-min of rest. Resistance was increased for the next exercise session if the subject could perform fifteen complete repetitions during the final set for each exercise. Subjects wore a heart rate monitor and maintained an intensity around 55–60 % of 1-RM, which corresponded approximately to 60–80 % of maximal heart rate calculated during the pre-test.
  
  What to make of the results? Next to the beneficial effects on cardiovascular fitness, the increased muscular strength in response to this particular form of resistance training has been linked to reduced all-cause mortality and the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, independent of cardiorespiratory fitness levels. So, basically you can kill two birds with a stone if you have clients perform peripheral heart action training.

Figure 3: Mean power output profile (a) and time course of cadence (b) for mental fatigue and control condition (Martin. 2014).

Last but not least, Martin et al. found that "mental fatigue does not affect maximal anaerobic exercise performance." An observation that appears odd considering the fact that my workouts such, whenever I feel mentally fatigued. In their study, however, the scientists from the University of Canberra found "[v]ear identical responses in performance and physiological parameters between mental fatigue and control conditions" which clearly indicates that peripheral mechanisms primarily regulate maximal anaerobic exercise.

Or, practically speaking: "Whereas mental fatigue can negatively impact submaximal endurance exercise, it appears that explosive power, voluntary maximal strength and anaerobic work capacity are unaffected" (Martin. 2014).

Well, when I come to think about it, the kind of mental fatigue that was induced by computer-based tasks before the workout in the study at hand does not thwart me either | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Hallman, David M., Divya Srinivasan, and Svend Erik Mathiassen. "Short-and long-term reliability of heart rate variability indices during repetitive low-force work." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-10.
• Martin, Kristy, et al. "Mental fatigue does not affect maximal anaerobic exercise performance." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-11.
• Mueller, Sandro Manuel, et al. "An Ironman triathlon reduces neuromuscular performance due to impaired force transmission and reduced leg stiffness." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-8.
• Piras, Alessandro, et al. "Peripheral heart action (PHA) training as a valid substitute to high intensity interval training to improve resting cardiovascular changes and autonomic adaptation." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-11.
• Vaher, Ivi, et al. "Impact of acute sodium citrate ingestion on endurance running performance in a warm environment." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-11.