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.

Training "On Cycle", Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Menstrual Cycle

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to being at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know the (very different) things I've heard from (ex-)girlfriends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.

Learn more about the (often ;-) small but significant difference at the SuppVersity

1g PRO per 2g CHO + Circuit T. for Women?

Is the Optimal Exercise Order Sex-Specific?

1-3mg Melatonin Shed Fat W/Out Diet & Exercise

Not Bulky! Lifting Will Make Toned & Strong.

How to Really Train Like a Woman

Sex-Differences in Fat Oxidation - Reviewed

According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.

What about women on oral contraception? The scientists recruited 32 young women on oral contraceptives and 27 women who didn't use oral contraceptives and a re-analysis of the data in Figure 1 didn't show significant inter-group differences between the two groups. In other words, the data in Figure 1 and thus the main findings are relevant for "all" resistance training young women, irrespective of whether they're taking contraceptives, or not. The only difference is that you go by the contraceptive (CC), instead of the estrous cycle and place the high frequency training period in the first, not the last two weeks of the CC cycle.

"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

for 4-months and switching to a periodized 2-week high- vs. 2-week low-frequency training, where they would perform the same 48 workouts in either

• high-frequency first cycles, i.e. 5 workouts per week in the first two weeks, 1 workout per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle, or
• high-frequency last cycles, i.e. 1 workout per week in the first two weeks, 4 workouts per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle,

would have beneficial effects on their progress only if they increase the frequency during the early phase of the cycle. 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

Ok, if you compare the periodization group to the control group which kept the regular "three workouts per week"-frequency (see Figure 2, green bars) was maintained, the "advantages" of periodizing "correctly" are not as pronounced as they are in comparison to doing it the "wrong" way. Even though, only the hamstrings appear to benefit to a large extent from periodization, though, benefits exist.

What's even more important, though, is the simple, but really important revelation (or for the few of you who have read about this before e.g. in Reis et al. (1995) "confirmation") that a woman's menstrual and similarly her contraceptive cycle must be aligned to her training schedule. Obviously, the implications will have to be further explored in future studies. Studies, of which I hope, that they will be using smarter periodization schemes which acknowledge that training only once a week is simply not enough... ;-)

SuppVersity Classic: Train Like a Woman: Common Misconceptions About Training & Eating for A Cover-Model Physique - An Interview With Sports Nutritionist & Strength Coach Orit Tsaitli | learn more

Bottom line: Before I try to put things into perspective, I should mention that the participants of the study who were recruited at local gyms, were not jut healthy, non-smokers and had regular menses, they were also experienced trainees. All of them had been doing leg presses and leg-curls for several months - in fact, on average for 3.5 years. Against that background, even non-statistical significant inter-group differences as they were observed between the periodization (5 per week, 1 per week) and the control group (3 per week) may be practically relevant, because they may help experienced trainees to break through plateaus.

With that being said, I personally think of this study as one study in a series of studies that will hopefully elucidate how women can adapt their training regimen to the repetitive changes in the hormonal milieu of their bodies.

If we are honest with ourselves, the fact that Wikström-Frisén's results come as a surprise to most of us is only further evidence of how wantonly exercise scientists and trainers, alike, have hitherto neglected the peculiarities of the female physiology and endocrinology | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).

Overreaching A Promising, But Tricky Training Strategy - Here's How it Rewards Pains & Effort With 5% Higher Peak Power Gains After 12 Workout vs. Training W/ Adequ. Rest

No rest(-day) allowed - at least during the short (!) overreaching phase you will be training through the pain & fatigue if you are determined to succeed.

You've read about the difference between the catabolic, anti-adaptive effects of overtraining and overreaching before, but do you actually know what it takes to overreach not train? In a recent study from the Ritsumeikan University you may find some clues that may help us answer these questions, but before we do so, let's take a brief look at the study design and outcomes, the authors give away in the title already: "Planned Overreaching and Subsequent Short-term Detraining Enhance Cycle Sprint Performance" (Hasegawa. 2015) - A study designed to investigate the effects of a training program consisting of planned overreaching and subsequent short-term detraining on sprint performance.

You can learn more about overtraining and checking your training status at the SuppVersity

Heart Rate Variablity (HRV)

ABEL Sports Test + More

Overtraining & Undereating

Calculate your Energy Intake!

Overtraining W/ Only 25min/day?

Reinvent Your Training!

Over the course of the three-week (*) study, 24 physically active men (age, height, and body weight (BW) were 21.7 ±1.4 years, 175.2±4.3cm, and 75.0± 14.6kg, respectively) participated in an 18-day sprint-training program. None of the subjects was participating in a regular training program (*) at the start of the study, when they were randomly allocated to one out of two training groups:

• the overreaching-detraining (OR-DT), in which the subjects performed maximal cycle sprint training on 12 consecutive days, followed by 6 days of detraining (=no exhausting physical activity at all | like 12xA - 6xR) and 
• the control (CON) group, in which a complete day of rest was provided after every 2 successive training days (like A-A-R-A-A-R- [...])

For both groups, the training sessions consisted of 2–4 sets of 30 s of maximal pedaling on an electromagnetic cycle ergometer (Powermax V3, Konami Sports & Life Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Each set was followed by a 7-min rest period. The resistance for the first set was set 7.5% of BW, and it was reduced to 5.0 % of BW for the subsequent sets. During each training session, the subjects were verbally encouraged and instructed to give their maximal effort.

Figure 1: Overview of the study design - Training schedules and number of sets (Hasegawa. 2015).

You can see a summary of the protocol in Figure 1 and may (maybe rightly) complain that the OR-DT group got more rest before the post-test on day 18 than the CON group.

What do we already know about overreaching? Unfortunately, we don't know how to make sure it's not turning from overreaching to overtraining, but that's one of the many questions scientists will still have to answer (Mackinnon. 2000). What we do know, though, is supplements like creatine or 0.4g/kg body weight EAAs and likely whey can help conserve the performance during and thus improve the outcome after overreaching periods (Ratamess, 2003; Volek. 2004). We also know that overreaching attenuates the testosterone response to workouts in untrained, but not trained individuals and A.M. cortisol, but no the cortisol response to workouts in both trained and untrained subjects (Fry. 1994). Both, the amount of creatine kinase and glutamate in the blood which can be used as indicators of muscle damage increase during periods of overreaching (Halson. 2003). Lastly, the changes in the immune markers indicate that athletes may be particularly prone to infections during phases of extra-(=too)intense training (Gleeson. 2002).

That's truly unfair, but it's the reality of competitive sports (*). After all, you have the choice of training like the control group before the event to make sure that you're full of sap or, alternatively, to follow the OR-DT program and start on game day maximally refreshed and with an adaptational bonus in the peak-power domain that may make all the difference when you're sprinting towards and over the finish line (see Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Relative peak power and mean power during the pre- and post-test days as well as on the differently timed training days in the OR-DT and CON group (Hasegawa. 2015).

Now, I guess the less-regular SuppVersity readers will be surprised to hear that all that happened in spite of the lack of significant differences in the testosterone levels, markers of muscle damage, lactate and glucose in the blood of the subjects in the two arms of the study. 

The supercompensation of phospho-creatine stores may also explain the power gains in the overreaching + detraining group (Haegawa. 2015), but still, do not underrate the ergogenic benefits of the stress hormone cortisol - it's on the WADA list for very good reasons, esp. wrt endurance sports!

What's powering these peak performance gains? Ok, one thing is discussed below in detail: The 6-days of rest allowed for sign. higher cortisol outputs during the test and that's actutely a good thing. There's yet more: The intra-muscular phosphocreatine concentrations, the same stuff you wanna boost, when you consume creatine, which were not different before the study, developed very differently over the course of the study. While the intramuscular PCr concentrations increased significantly after 12 days of daily training in the OR-DT group (P<0.05, 69 % increase relative to value before training, described as "Post 1" in the Figure on the left, the CON group subjects saw no change in PCr, at all. With it's ability to fire short term high performance bouts, the PCr advantage may also be at the heard of the relative preak power benefits of OR-DT group.

For regular SuppVersity readers this should be as unsurprising, though as the fact that the OR-DT's ability to maximize their cortisol response at the post test is probably (one of the) reasons that they kicked their competitions a$$ when it comes to peak performance... unbelievable? 

Figure 3: Cortisol levels in the Hasegawa study (2015) in the pre- and post-test (left); maximal endurance (T in min) in Katia Collomp's 2008 investigation into the effects of acute glucocorticoid administration on cycling endurance (right).

Well, take a look at the endurance performance of the cyclists in Katia Collomp's 2008 study (Figure 3, right) - what did almost double the endurance of her subjects? Yes, it was synthetic cortisol - prednisolone at a dosage of 60mg to be precise. And just as it is important to point out that these benefits are restricted to acute short term increases, it is noteworthy, that, in the Hasegawa study, the cortisol response during the over-reaching phase was as, if not more blunted as it was in the CON group.

SV Classic: "Optimal Rest Between Workouts? Despite Inter-Personal and Exercise-Specific Differences 72h May be a Valid Rule of Thumb - Especially for Compound Movements" | more

(*) What do these asterisks mean and what's the bottom line? Two good questions which are, as I would like to point out closely related. How? Well, let's take the training duration of only 18 days, for starters. The easiest way to turn overreaching into overtraining and thus all beneficial short-term into long-term negative effects is by overreaching for too long. And two weeks are in fact  quite a good time-frame to train like a maniac and complete rest for ~50% of the time thereafter doesn't look like a bad way to program it either. If you go longer, the increased activity of glycolytic and other catabolic enzymes, as it was observed by Parra et al. (2000) after 14 day of everyday, no rest incremental sprint training protocols, may ruin your results and fitness.

Unfortunately, there's also asterisk (*) number two you will find right after the information that we are not dealing with professional athletes. That's a problem, because it is unlikely that the ordeals a seasoned athlete can sustain and still gain are the same as those of a rookie. This does not mean that everyone needs more or longer hammering, though. In fact, many athletes are chronically overtrained. For them (Matos. 2011), the 6-day rest may be a good idea; to try to increase their performance by strategic overreaching,on the other hand, would be madness and obviously counter-productive.

Overtraining is real and it's blocking future and reversing past gains | more

This leads us to asterisk (*) number three and two conclusions: (A) There is no question that the protocol used in the study would have beneficial for the participants had there been a cycling competition on the post-training day. (B) The implications for professional athletes depend on their previous training style. For those on a sane protocol, similar benefits can be expected, although intensity and duration of the overreaching phase may have to be upgraded (I am thinking of doing two-a-days, for example). For the underestimatedly large fraction of (wanna-be) athletes who are chronically overtraining, anyways, any form of strategic overreaching would be counterproductive | Comment on FB!

References:

• Collomp, Katia, et al. "Short-term glucocorticoid intake combined with intense training on performance and hormonal responses." British journal of sports medicine 42.12 (2008): 983-988.
• Fry, Andrew C., et al. "Endocrine responses to overreaching before and after 1 year of weightlifting." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 19.4 (1994): 400-410.
• Gleeson, Michael. "Biochemical and immunological markers of over-training." Journal of sports science & medicine 1.2 (2002): 31.
• Halson, SHONA L., et al. "Immunological responses to overreaching in cyclists." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 35.5 (2003): 854-861.
• Hasegawa, Y., et al. "Planned Overreaching and Subsequent Short-term Detraining Enhance Cycle Sprint Performance." International journal of sports medicine (2015).
• Mackinnon, L. T., and S. L. Hooper. "Overtraining and overreaching: Causes, effects and prevention." (2000): 487-498.
• Matos, Nuno F., Richard J. Winsley, and Craig A. Williams. "Prevalence of nonfunctional overreaching/overtraining in young English athletes." Med Sci Sports Exerc 43.7 (2011): 1287-94.
• Parra, J., et al. "The distribution of rest periods affects performance and adaptations of energy metabolism induced by high‐intensity training in human muscle." Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 169.2 (2000): 157-165.
• Ratamess, Nicholas A., et al. "The effects of amino acid supplementation on muscular performance during resistance training overreaching." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 17.2 (2003): 250-258.
• Volek, Jeff S., et al. "The effects of creatine supplementation on muscular performance and body composition responses to short-term resistance training overreaching." European journal of applied physiology 91.5-6 (2004): 628-637.

Five Good Reasons Why At Least 50% of Your 2015 'Cardio' Training Should Be High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)

Remember: HIIT does not have to happen on the treadmill.

If you haven't already done so, I suppose you are currently revising last year's training regimen: Reviewing what worked and what didn't work; and thinking about (new) goals and the best ways to achieve them.

If you haven't yet decided on what type of cardio training you want to do, today's SuppVersity article may help you make the right endurance / cardiovascular exercise choices for 2015. In that, the headline already revealed: At least 50% of your 2015 "Cardio" training should be high intensity interval training (HIIT) - and here is why.

You can learn more about HIIT at the SuppVersity

Add 2lsb of Lean Mass in 3 Weeks

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

HIIT Ain't For Everyone

1. HIIT is more time efficient - Unless you have lost your hob and are looking to kill the newly won time in 2015, you are probably similarly short on time as most of us. Against that background, the mere time efficiency of HIIT workouts are an argument even the most feverish advocates of  low-intensity hour-long cardio cannot deny (Gaesser. 2011; Gillen. 2013).
   

   

   Figure 1: In contrast to often-heard claims, HIIT is not just a "glucose burner" it's also a fat burner. It does (a) increase the oxidation of fatty acids after the workout and (b) increases your muscles' and other cells' general ability to oxidize fat as fuel (see figure from Talanian. 2007).

   "As few as 6 sessions of HIIT over a 2-week period for a total of about 15 minutes of very intense exercise (equating to approximately 600 kJ or 143 cal) have been shown to increase skeletal muscle oxidative capacity and alter metabolic control during aerobic-based exercise (Gibala. 2008). And 7 HIIT sesssions performed over 2 weeks significantly heightened whole body and skeletal muscle capacity for fatty acid oxidation during exercise in moderately active women (Talanian. 2007). For those who have limited time to work out, this makes HIIT an intriguing option" (Schoenfeld. 2009).

   And even if your goal is not to get fitter, but rather to burn more energy, HIIT can do what steady state cardio will never achieve, i.e. burn 14.5 kcal/min (see "Tabata Workouts: Do They Work & How Energy-Demanding Are They? 14.5 Kcal/Min Sounds Nice, But You Must Earn It!" | learn more). In the end, short workouts will thus increase your 24h energy expenditure to the same extend endless steady-state workouts would do (Skelly. 2014).
   

   "HIIT may help insufficiently active individuals overcome a major barrier to maintaining a physically active lifestyle, that of a perceived lack of time. An added bonus is that from a time:benefit perspective, HIIT may prove to be a good example where less can be more" (Gaesser. 2011).

   And it does not even take a Tabata workout to time-efficiently improve your health. As a SuppVersity reader you will be aware that "4x4 Minutes of HIIT Per Week That's All It Takes For Already Well-Conditioned Individuals to Stimulate Mitochondrial Growth ➯ 15% Increase in VO2Max, Peak & Mean Power" | learn more.
2. HIIT has more favorable effects on your glucose metabolism and heart health - You probably have heard that 1h on the treadmill was the ideal exercise for the obese type II diabetic, right? Well, this may in fact be true, but the reason that's ideal for an obese type II diabetic is that even walking on a treadmill is a high intensity exercise for someone who weighs 300-450lbs.
   

   

   Figure 2: A 2008 study in healthy, normal-weight young women proves: HIIT "cardio" training leads to significantly more pronounced improvements in all three central variables of glucose metabolism than a comparable steady-state "cardio" workout (Trapp. 2008).

   That being said, for all of you with at least a decent amount of fitness, HIIT training with its ability to burn tons of glycogen within just a few minutes should be the preferred mode of exercise. A mode of exercise which has far more potent effects on the expression of the anti-diabetic, anti-obesity and anti-metabolic syndrome proteins AMPK and SIRT-1 than any other form of exercise (Gurd. 2010) and has thus not surprisingly been shown to have superior effects on central markers of glucose metabolism in a 2008 study by Trapp et al. - and that in healthy, lean, young women (see Figure 2).
   
   A similar superiority has been observed by Weston et al. (2013) in patients with lifestyle-induced cardiometabolic disease. Their systematic review and meta-analysis in the British Journal of Sports Medicine indicates that "HIIT significantly increases CRF [cardio-respiratory fitness] by almost double that of MICT in patients with lifestyle-induced chronic diseases." (Weston. 2013).
3. HIIT exercise will help curb your cravings - While steady-state "cardio" has repeatedly been associated with increases in appetite, hunger and most importantly food intake, there is good evidence that "Intensity [is] the Key to Minimize Exercise Induced Cravings?" (learn more)
   

   

   Figure 3: Effects of exercise duration and intensity on energy intake; exemplary study results
   from Erdmann et al. (2007, left) and Larson-Meyer et al. (2012, right).

   I don't want to repeat myself on this one. Instead I will just refer you to a recent SuppVersity article on that matter and the plethora of evidence that confirms the negligible or beneficial effects of high intensity interval training on appetite, hunger and how much food you eat and thus ruin any exercise-induced reduction in your daily energy balance (Alkahtani. 2014; Martins. 2014).
   
   

   

   Figure 4: VAS scores for hunger (A), desire to eat (B), fullness (C), and thirst (D) during REST (black line) and EX (gray line) (n = 15). Hatched rectangles represent the treadmill run/rest; striped rectangles represent the fMRI scan (Crabtree. 2014).

   Before I go on to the #4 on the benefits list, I would yet like to highlight the following result from a recent study from the University college of London:
   

   "Exercise increases neural responses in reward-related regions of the brain in response to images of low-calorie foods and suppresses activation during the viewing of high-calorie foods" (Crabtree. 2014)

   Can't believe what you just read? Look at the figure on the right which depicts the VAS scores for hunger, desire to eat, fullness, and thirst, during REST (black line) and EX (gray line) in N=15 lean healthy men who completed two 60-min trials—exercise and a resting control trial (REST).
   
   Thus, the study clearly confirms the validity of the suggestion to stay scrap your steady-state cardio workouts and replace them with HIIT, in order to finally be able to stick to your diet plans and see the fat loss you are looking for.
4. HIIT ramps up the metabolism instead of ruining it - As long as you don't overdo it by training too often or extending your HIIT sessions to 1h, HIIT will produce a profound "after burn" that's 3x higher than in the case of classic steady-state "cardio" workouts.
   

   

   Figure 5: EPOC and corresponding additional energy expenditure in the high intensity 3x Wingate group (SPIE) and the 30min continuous exercise group (HIE) during the 30 min right after the workout (Townsend. 2013)

   As a standalone, this previously reported benefit is hardly worth the paper it is printed on. In conjunction with the previously mentioned benefits, however, it is an important benefit of HIIT that must not be underestimated.
5. HIIT is perfectly scalable - Unlike steady-state cardio, where you would have to endlessly increase your workout times, HIIT workouts are easily scalable. You can either...
   

   • 

     HRV = heart rate recovery analyses are a great tool to monitor your training & recovery | learn more

     do an additional interval (volume increase),
      
   • increase the resistance on your training device or run / cycle on a more difficult track (intensity increase),
   • increase the speed at which you run, pedal or row (intensity increase), or
      
   • reduce the time of active rest between the intervals (intensity increase)
   and thus have many more options to tweak the workouts to your individuals needs. For beginners this is not that important. An obese type II diabetic has plenty of room to increase the pace and / or duration of his / her steady-state "cardio" workouts. A trained athletes, on the other hand, will soon hit a wall, when he / she begins to cycle at 90% intensity for 2h everyday.

Bottom line: As you can see, there are plenty of good arguments in favor of HIIT training. Arguments that do yet not warrant replacing "classic" steady-state endurance training altogether. In fact, comparisons of high intensity interval and classic endurance training in trained athletes show that both are equally effective (Owens. 2013). If you are a triathlete or other endurance athlete, your interpretation of the science presented in the study at hand must still be different. For you (as an endurance athlete), replacing 50% your sport-specific training, which is steady-state training, with HIIT isn't advisable. Adding one or the other HIIT session from time to time, on the other hand, is.

HIIT "cardio", steady-state "cardio" and the sympathetic and parasymphatic nervous system | more

For the average gymrat, important arguments to keep the classic cardio exercises in their routine can be (a) personal preference (even the best workout is only beneficial if you actually do it) and (b) the recovery of the sympathetic nervous system. While low intensity steady state cardio - if it's done in reasonable amounts - may actually improve the recovery of the sympathetic nervous system the day after a strength training session. A HIIT workout will further tax it. If you belong to those who hit the weights 5x per week, it may thus be wiser to stick to steady state instead of HIIT exercise as your preferred weight training regimen to give your sympathetic nervous system time to recover during a low intensity steady-state workout | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Alkahtani, Shaea A., et al. "Acute interval exercise intensity does not affect appetite and nutrient preferences in overweight and obese males." Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition 23.2 (2014): 232.
• Crabtree, Daniel R., et al. "The effects of high-intensity exercise on neural responses to images of food." The American journal of clinical nutrition 99.2 (2014): 258-267.
• Erdmann, Johannes, et al. "Plasma ghrelin levels during exercise—effects of intensity and duration." Regulatory peptides 143.1 (2007): 127-135.
• Gaesser, Glenn A., and Siddhartha S. Angadi. "High-intensity interval training for health and fitness: can less be more?." Journal of Applied Physiology 111.6 (2011): 1540-1541.
• Gibala, Martin J., and Sean L. McGee. "Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain?." Exercise and sport sciences reviews 36.2 (2008): 58-63.
• Gillen, Jenna B., and Martin J. Gibala. "Is high-intensity interval training a time-efficient exercise strategy to improve health and fitness?." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 39.3 (2013): 409-412.
• Gurd, Brendon J., et al. "High-intensity interval training increases SIRT1 activity in human skeletal muscle." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 35.3 (2010): 350-357. 
• Larson-Meyer, D. Enette, et al. "Influence of running and walking on hormonal regulators of appetite in women." Journal of obesity 2012 (2012).
• Martins, Catia, et al. "Effect of Moderate-and High-Intensity Acute Exercise on Appetite in Obese Individuals." Medicine and science in sports and exercise (2014). 
• Owens, Krystyna. "The effectiveness of high intensity interval training in improving VO< sub> 2</sub> max for performance gains as compared to standard endurance training in athletes." (2013).
• Schoenfeld, Brad, and Jay Dawes. "High-intensity interval training: Applications for general fitness training." Strength & Conditioning Journal 31.6 (2009): 44-46. 
• Skelly, Lauren E., et al. "High-intensity interval exercise induces 24-h energy expenditure similar to traditional endurance exercise despite reduced time commitment." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 39.999 (2014): 1-4.
• Talanian, Jason L., et al. "Two weeks of high-intensity aerobic interval training increases the capacity for fat oxidation during exercise in women." Journal of applied physiology 102.4 (2007): 1439-1447. 
• Townsend JR, Stout JR, Morton AB, Jajtner AR, Gonzalez AM, Wells AJ, Mangine GT, McCormack, WP Emerson NS, Robinson EH, Hoffman JR, Fragala MS Cosio-Lima L. Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) Following Multiple Effort Sprint And Moderate Aerobic Exercise. Kinesiology. 2013; 45(1):16-21
• Trapp, E. G., et al. "The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women." International journal of obesity 32.4 (2008): 684-691. 
• Weston, Kassia S., Ulrik Wisløff, and Jeff S. Coombes. "High-intensity interval training in patients with lifestyle-induced cardiometabolic disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis." British journal of sports medicine (2013): bjsports-2013.

Modifying Set Numbers: 1, 3, or 5 Sets - How Many Shall We do per Exercise in 2015? First Study to Investigate Potential Benefits of 5 Sets in the Long (6 Months) Run

I have to admit. I am surprised that the total lean mass didn't but the sleeve size of the subjects did benefit from increasing the number of sets from 1 to 3 and from 3 to 5 sets. For legs this would have been something I would have expected. For arms, which are trained with almost every other exercise? No, not really.

With their latest study, scientists from the University of Rio Grande do Sul, the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and the Federal Universities of Rio de Janeiro and Maranhão tried to fill the gap that exists with respect to studies comparing the effects of multiple sets, greater than 3-sets, on strength and muscle hypertrophy over long training periods. Accordingly, the aim of the study was to compare the effects of 1, 3 and 5-sets on the changes in the muscle strength and endurance, muscle hypertrophy, vertical jump performance and body composition over the course of a six months standardized training regimen.

The hypotheses of the study was that multiple sets would result in greater changes in training outcomes than single sets and that there would be a dose response for training outcomes.

Are you looking for other muscle builders than volume increases?

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

In view of the fact that the subjects were 48 men from the Brazilian Navy School of Lieutenants (mean ± SD age = 24.4 ± 0.9 yrs; body mass = 79.3 ± 9.1 kg; height = 174.5 ± 5.5 cm) who were familiar with all sorts of body weight "strength training" drills, but had not trained on any of the Life Fitness machines that were used in the study, it's not unlikely, though, that even one set of bench presses, leg presses, lat pulldowns, leg extensions, leg curls, biceps curls, ab crunches and triceps extensions, which were performed thrice a week, would suffice to produce significant results (also compared to the regular military training the men in the control group performed).

Figure 1: Overview of the 6-week resistance training protocol used in the study at hand.

All exercises were performed with a weight of 8-12RM (meaning the subjects failed after 8-12 reps) and a rest interval of 90 to 120 seconds between sets and exercises. The training resistance was increased by 5-10% for the next session when subjects were able to perform more than 12 repetitions in all sets of an exercise.

Remember? A 2012 study by Robins et al. suggested that experienced strength trainees need 8, not 4 or 1 set for legs | more

What's different to previous studies? As previously mentioned this is the first study to compare three set-ranges (1, 3, 5 sets) over a long study period. Accordingly, it's not necessarily surprising that the results of the study at hand stand in conflict to studies by Bottaro et al. (2011) ot Hanssen et al. (2013),  which found no significant difference between one and three-set training protocols. On the other hand, the results are partly in line with those of a 2007 study by Rønnestad, et al. who found benefits of three sets, albeit only for the legs. Overall, the total training volume (number of exercise) and study length of the previous studies was yet lower than that of the study at hand. This suggests that it may be the 2x higher volume difference between 4x1 vs 4x3 as in Ronnestad et al. (2007) and 8x1 vs. 8x3 vs. 8x5 in the study at hand that may have made all the difference.

The scientists made sure that all subjects participated in at least 95% of the training sessions (missed no more than four sessions). All training sessions were monitored by an experienced investigator and the subjects were not allowed to perform aerobic or flexibility exercises during the six month training period. What the scientists found was:

• 

  Figure 2: Changes in body composition (top) and bench press & lat pulldown 5RM (Radelli. 2014).

  All training groups recorded significant strength gains for bench press (BP), front lat pull down (LPD), shoulder press (SP) and leg press (LP) (p≤0.05) exercises, but the 5RM (maximal weight the subjects could lift 5 times) increased significantly more for both bench presses and lat pulldowns in the 5- SETS compared to the other training groups (p ≤ 0.05). 
• In the 20RM (maximal weight with 20 reps) bench press tests both the 3- and 5-SETS groups saw significantly greater strength increases than the 1- SET group, with the 5-SETS protocol also producing significantly greater increases in strength, than the 3-SETS group (p≤0.05). 
• In the 20RM leg press tests only the 5-SETS protocol yielded significantly greater strength gains than the 1-SET protocol. 
• For the 3- and 5-SETS groups the scientists also observed significant increases in elbow flexor muscle (biceps) thickness (MT) with the 5-SETS increase being significantly greater than the other two training groups (p≤0.05). 

In spite of these differences, all training groups decreased percent body fat, increased fat free mass and vertical jump ability (p≤0.05), with no differences between groups. In spite of that, "the results demonstrate a dose response for the number of sets per exercise and a superiority of multiple sets compared to a single set per exercise for strength gains, muscle endurance and upper arm muscle hypertrophy" (Radelli. 2014).

Example Split-Routine for 2015: If you still need inspi- ration here is an example of how you could train using the 5 sets per exercise principle in a 2-day + cardio split in 2015:

(Mo) Push day: Squat, bench press, military press, nose breaker, calf raises

(We) HIIT day 10x45sec sprinting or cycling at maximal velocity, 2 min walking / slow cycling

(Fr) Pull day: Pull up, DB row, biceps curl, stiff legged deadlift, abs.

Same procedure as in the study at hand, 90-120s rests between sets, 8-12RM (to failure).

Bottom line: If we go solely by the results of the study at hand, it would appear prudent to add a set or two to your training regimen. In view of the fact that most of you will probably be training according to a body-part split, I doubt that you will be doing significantly less than 5 sets for any of your muscle groups, anyway. In view of the absence of beneficial effects on the body composition and considering the fact that the arms, of all muscle groups, were the only ones that grew significantly, it's still questionable how beneficial a volume increase in 2015 would be.

As a SuppVersity reader you will also be aware that previous studies showed that a higher volume training is beneficial for the legs ("8 sets of squats outperform 1 and 4 sets" | read more). This result was yet observed in highly trained individuals and stands in contrast to the recent revelation that you can "Cut the Volume, Still Make the Gains!" (read more). I would thus suggest you keep that in mind, when you plan your 2015 workout routine. 5 sets per body part!? Fine! 10 sets for legs? Fine! But four exercises à 5 reps for chest? Madness! Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bottaro, M., et al. "Resistance training for strength and muscle thickness: effect of number of sets and muscle group trained." Science & Sports 26.5 (2011): 259-264.
• Hanssen, K. E., et al. "The effect of strength training volume on satellite cells, myogenic regulatory factors, and growth factors." Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 23.6 (2013): 728-739.
• Radaelli, Regis; Fleck, Steven J.; Leite, Thalita; Leite, Richard Diego; Pinto, Ronei S.; Fernandes, Liliam; Simão, Roberto. "Dose Response of 1, 3 and 5 Sets of Resistance Exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance and Hypertrophy." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: December 24, 2014. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000758
• Rønnestad, Bent R., et al. "Dissimilar effects of one-and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.1 (2007): 157-163.