6x1 Min HIIT Before Lifting Shed Extra Fat, Don't Impair 'ur Gainz | Daily AM/PM Training = ZERO Gainz | Alcohol W/Out Acute Effect on Workout Recovery of Trained Women

While alcohol doesn't impair the regeneration and doing HIIT before weights leaves women's gains unchanged while potentially boosting their fat loss, training twice a day, every day appears to be a good idea only for those who are afraid that they could become "too muscular".

Not every study is worth being discussed at length in an article of its own. This is why I've come up with the "Short News" or "Research Updates" - articles like the one at hand in which I address 3-5 studies very briefly. Mostly to give you an idea of the results and make sure that you can say "Yo, I've read about that study, bro" at the gym, when someone tells you: "You know, man, there's that new study showing that alcohol does not exacerbate the inflammatory response to exercise, bro!"

Ok, that was a joke. I hope your real reason to read the following elaborations is to make sure that the way you train is in line with what works according to the latest research - doing HIIT before lifting to shed extra fat without impairing your gains, for example.

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

Alcohol, Microbes & International Chest Day

Aug '15 Ex.Res. Upd.: Nitrate, Glycogen, and ...

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

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

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

The Latest Fiber & Microbiome Research

• Women who HIIT it hard don't risk their weight training gains and may lose extra body fat -- While we do have corresponding evidence from studies in male subjects, it was, until now, not clear, whether doing HIIT and resistance training concurrently would have the same effects in premenopausal women like the sixteen 26–40 year-old ladies who were randomly assigned into two groups that performed either resistance (RT), alone, or concomitant (CT) training in a recent study in the European Journal of Applied Physiology (Gentil 2017). Here's how the authors describe their experimental approach to the question:

  "Both groups performed the same RT program; however, CT performed additional high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on a bicycle ergometer before RT. The study lasted 8 weeks and the participants were tested for ten repetition maximum (10RM) load in elbow flexion (barbell biceps curl) and knee extension exercises pre- and post-intervention. RT was performed with 10–12 repetitions to self-determined repetition maximum in the first four weeks and then progressed to 8–10. During CT, HIIT was performed before RT with six 1-min bouts at 7–8 of perceived subjective exertion (RPE) and then progressed to eight bouts at 9–10 RPE" (Gentil 2017).

  The researchers' analysis of the data revealed significant increases in upper and lower body strength for both the RT and CT groups.

  

  Figure 1: Rel. changes in markers of body fat (waist and sum of three skinfold measurements) on the left and individual strength gains of the knee extensors on the right (Gentil 2017).

  More specifically, the ladies' biceps barbell curl 10RM load increased from 12.9 ± 3.2 kg to 14 ± 1.5 kg in CT (p < 0.05) and from 13 ± 1.8 kg to 15.9 ± 2.5 kg in RT (p < 0.05), with no significant between-groups differences. Knee extension 10RM increase from 31.9 ± 11.6 kg to 37.5 ± 8.5 kg for CT (p < 0.05) and from 30.6 ± 8.6 kg to 41.2 ± 7.4 kg for RT (p < 0.05).
  
  Accordingly, the authors are right to conclude that - within the limits of their study - performing HIIT on a cycle ergometer before resistance training does not seem to impair muscle strength increases in the knee extensors or elbow flexors of pre-menopausal women. This information should be considered when prescribing exercise sessions, since both activities may be combined without negative effects in muscle strength.
• Two-a-days would probably completely impair your gains -- While it is only a rodent study, Junya Takegaki's recent paper (2017) clearly indicates that resting only 8h between workouts blunts the hypertrophy response to exercise.
  
  In the study, male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned into three groups: resistance-trained with 18 bouts at an interval of 72h (72H), 24h (24H), and 8h (8H). The resistance exercise consisted of 50 repetitions of maximal isometric contraction of the gastrocnemius muscle. The right gastrocnemius muscle was used as trained muscle, and the left was used as internal control. The muscle contraction was induced by transcutaneous electrical stimulation under anesthesia. Muscle samples were collected 48h after the final exercise session and kept frozen until analysis.

Keep in mind that you can train successfully twice a day with ample rest btw. training days

Nine Short Workouts (AM+PM) p. Week Yield Extra Strength, Size and Performance Gains Compared to Volume Matched 3-Day Split, All Differences are Non-Significant, Though | If not Done Everyday AM+PM Works

Two-A-Day Training - That's Bogus, Right? No - Increased Fat Oxidation in Endurance, 2.4x Higher Max. Volume, 2.6x Higher Time to Exhaustion in Resistance Training Study | Two-a-Day & HIIT

• Said analysis showed that the rodents' gastrocnemius wet weight was increased in 72H and 24H, but not in 8H. Similarly, the mitochondrial content was increased in 72H and 24H, but not in 8H.
  
  Against that background, it is interesting to note that the same protein ubiquitination was observed in all groups, and the ubiquitination was increased with shortening of training interval. In other words: human studies will also have to measure real gains, not protein expressions to assess the effect of different training frequency.
• Postworkout alcohol consumption ain't a problem for women -- You will remember that, in men, alcohol can actually increase the testosterone response to exercise (I discussed that in a 2013 article). What it does in women was, until now, not clear. Accordingly, scientists from the University of North Texas and the Louisiana State University conducted a study to investigate the effect of acute alcohol consumption on muscular performance recovery, assessed by maximal torque production, and on inflammatory capacity, assessed by lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated cytokine production, following muscle-damaging resistance exercise in women.

  "Thirteen recreationally resistance-trained women completed two identical exercise bouts (300 maximal single-leg eccentric leg extensions) followed by alcohol (1.09 g ethanol kg−1 fat-free body mass) or placebo ingestion. Blood was collected before (PRE), and 5 (5 h-POST), 24 (24 h-POST), and 48 (48 h-POST) hours after exercise and analyzed for LPS-stimulated cytokine production (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8 and IL-10). Maximal torque production (concentric, eccentric, isometric) was measured for each leg at PRE, 24 h-POST, and 48 h-POST" (Levitt 2017).

  The scientists found that exercise per se increased the LPS-stimulated production of TNF-α (%change from PRE: 5 h-POST 109%; 24 h-POST 49%; 48 h-POST 40%) and decreased LPS-stimulated production of IL-8 (5 h-POST −40%; 24 h-POST −50%; 48 h-POST: −43%) and IL-10 (5 h-POST: −37%; 24 h-POST −32%; 48 h-POST −31%). Consuming alcohol after exercise, however, did not affect this response.
  

  

  Figure 3: LPS-stimulated concentrations of IL-10 (a), IL-8 (b), TNF-α (c), and IL-6 (d) normalized to the pre-exercise (PRE) concentrations at 5 h after exercise (5 h-POST), 24 h after exercise (24 h-POST), and 48 h after exercise (48 h-POST). Asterisk time point means significantly (p < 0.05) different from PRE, dollar symbol time point mean significantly different from 5 h-POST, hash symbol time point mean significantly different from 24 h-POST. Mean ± SE (Levitt 2017).

  Regardless of drink condition, concentric, eccentric, and isometric torque produced by the exercised leg were lower at 24 h-POST (concentric 106 ± 6 Nm, eccentric 144 ± 9 Nm, isometric 128 ± 8 Nm; M ± SE) compared to PRE (concentric 127 ± 7 Nm, eccentric 175 ± 11 Nm, isometric 148 ± 8 Nm). Eccentric torque production was partially recovered and isometric torque production was fully recovered by 48 h-POST.
  
  Only a fool would assume that this implies that you can drink every day and still make the same gains and get the same health benefits from exercise as an alcohol-abstainer. What the study at hand does prove, however, is that the occasional cocktail ain't going to ruin what you've been working so hard for in the gym.

Review the January '17 Research Update | more

Bottom line: That's it for today, come back for another installment of the short news when there's more newsworthy resistance training or nutrition research that's interesting, yet not important enough to devote an independent SuppVersity article on its analysis | Comment!

Ah... and in case you haven't done that already, I highly suggest you subscribe to the news updates on facebook.com/SuppVersity and/or twitter.com/SuppVersity, respectively, to stay up-to-date.

Reference:

• Gentil, P., de Lira, C.A.B., Filho, S.G.C. et al. "High intensity interval training does not impair strength gains in response to resistance training in premenopausal women." Eur J Appl Physiol (2017) 117: 1257. doi:10.1007/s00421-017-3614-0
• Levitt, D.E., Luk, HY., Duplanty, A.A. et al. "Effect of alcohol after muscle-damaging resistance exercise on muscular performance recovery and inflammatory capacity in women." Eur J Appl Physiol (2017) 117: 1195. doi:10.1007/s00421-017-3606-0
• Takegaki, Junya, et al. "Resistance training with short interval does not induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rats." The FASEB Journal 31.1 Supplement (2017): 1021-15.

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.

Intermittent Fasting + Resistance Training: 1st 8-Wk Human Study to Provide Modest Evidence of Benefits During Cuts

You have heard me argue based on theoretical considerations before that "intermittent fasting" is probably best used during cuts, not during "bulks" - the results of the study at hand, even though they may not show stat. sign. inter-group differences, support this suggestion.

You will be surprised, but the latest article Tinsley et al. (2016) published in the European Journal of Sport Science is indeed the very first study to investigate the effects of time-restricted feeding (TRF) "on nutrient intake, body composition, and strength" when they are combined with a standardized resistance training regimen.

That's too good to be true? Well, wait until you've learned more about the methodology and results, but it is indeed cool that someone finally studied the effects of what the majority of people think of if you talk about "intermittent fasting" (that's in contrast to scientists who often think of alternative day fasting when they hear "intermittent fasting, the benefits of which I have discussed only recently, read more).

Do you have to worry about fasting when your're dieting!?

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

Does Meal Timing Matter?

Habits Determine Effects of Fasting

Fasting Works for Obese, Too!?

Does the Break- Fast-Myth Break?

Breakfast? (Un?) Biased Review

The subjects were recreationally active, but probably less active than the average SuppVersity reader (because they hadn't been following a consistent RT programme over the previous three months). The study was a randomized controlled 8-week trial that did or didn't involve time-restricted feeding (TRF, 4h eating, 20h fasting window) and identical resistance training (RT) programs:

"The RT programme for both groups consisted of three nonconsecutive days per week of training performed at the gym of the participant’s choice. Participants alternated between upper and lower body workouts. The upper body workout consisted of barbell bench press, seated row machine, dumbbell shoulder press, lat pulldown machine, dumbbell biceps curls, and triceps extension machine. The lower body workout consisted of barbell squat or hip sled machine, lunges with dumbbells, leg curl machine, leg extension machine, and calf raise machine.

Participants who were unfamiliar with the RT exercises were instructed regarding the proper execution of each exercise. Participants were also instructed to utilize a weight that elicited muscular failure after 8–12 repetitions and to adjust the weight as necessary to meet this criterion. Four sets of each exercise were performed and a 90- second rest period between sets was assigned (Tinsley. 2016; my emphasis).

The variables the scientists tracked were, as previously mentioned, the subjects' individual nutrient intakes (as reported in a repeated four-day dietary record) and changes in body composition (X-ray absorptiometry using a "Hologic Discovery W" device for whole-body scans; muscle size was assessed by ultra-sound measurements) and muscular strength (assessed by obtaining the 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) using the hip sled and barbell bench press exercises).

How long did they fast? 20h? Isn't that too much? With a feeding window of 4 hours (at any time between 4PM and midnight | as in Kelly, 2007), the TRF(=IF) regimen in the study at hand is significantly shorter than that in the average IF-dieter who will probably use 6-8h fasting windows... whether the results would be fundamentally different for these shorter fasting windows of 16-18h would have significantly changed the outcome is questionable, also because the subjects fasted only on non-workout days and were allowed to eat ad-libitum on the three days on which they performed RT. Thus, further research is obviously warranted (see bottom line for suggestions).

The reasons that the results are still relevant and worth reporting are (a) they are the first of their kind and (b) it is unlikely that the effect of intermittent fasting is different for people with different training status. What may difference is the baseline response to resistance training, but that's the same for both groups (you can also argue that the response will change over time which is why it is great that the study lasted eight, not just two weeks).

IF cuts energy intake, but not body fat? True, if we focus on statistically sign.

As you can see in Figure 1, the TRF reduced energy intake did, as SuppVersity readers will have expected the reduction in daily energy intake of the subjects by ∼650 kcal per day (see Figure in the bottom line for information on the "macros") - you can only eat so much in a given time-frame and four hours are not long. What may be more interesting than the reduction in energy intake you've expected based on previous research.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition; none reached sign. inter-group diff., d-values indicate effect sizes which show a trend towards fat loss and lean & fat mass gains in the TRF and control group, respectively (Tinsley. 2016).

Against that background, it is quite surprising that the TRF regimen did not significantly affect the total body composition - especially the amount of body fat. In that, it is possible that this was just because the study duration was too short, but eventually 4 weeks of being in a caloric deficit should suffice. Eventually, however, the body fat (total mass and %) reduction in TRF shows that (cf. Figure 1) what's missing is only the statistical significance of the difference (and that's nor really a wonder with only N = 28 subjects in total and thus only n = 14 subjects in each group). This in turn which raises the question(s): (A) Was there a reduction in physical activity in TRF that of which we could assume that it compensated maybe 200-300kcal of the ~650kcal deficit? And (B) how accurate the 4-day food logs reflected the energy intake over the two 4-week periods during which they were recorded.

Similar questions and that criticism of the methodology can be brought forward for the lack of significant difference in the increase in cross-sectional area of the biceps brachii and rectus femoris in the two groups. If we look closely at these values and take the effect size data (values over the bars) instead of the p-values for the absolute gains as our yardstick, there is evidence that the TRF regimen impaired the lean mass gains (+2.3 kg, d = 0.25) and upper and lower body muscular endurance increases (not shown in Figure 1) that were brought about by the standardized resistance training protocol both groups followed for 8 weeks.

The lack of protein in the TRF group (0.88g/kg vs. 1.3g/kg) could be a reason for the lack of muscle gains.

So, the study had no results we can use? Not really, but there's certainly reason for further research, because (a) it would be nice to ascertain that the extent of the caloric deficit was in fact -33% (that's neither unlikely nor unheard of, but it is important enough to ask for a more rigid control) and to (b) evaluate whether the 20h fasting window was simply too large. Especially the last-mentioned follow-up study which ideally should involve a control (no fasting), a 16h- and 18h-fasting window could yield very interesting results, after all studies show that significant protein breakdown will occur only after >18h of fasting and last for ~another 24h before the body starts to react to conserve lean mass (reduced RMR, etc.).

What would be similarly interesting, though, would be having a standardized, prescribed protein intake in both groups. With "only" 72 and 81 g of protein per day in the first and second four weeks, respectively the TRF group consumed not just much less protein than the control group (107 and 97 | that's not sign. less, though due to high inter-personal variation); with only 0.88 g/kg they also consumed way less protein than any reasonable recommendation for resistance trainees [~1.6-2.2 g/kg] would suggest.

Overall, the study at hand is thus the first study to investigate the interaction between intermittent fasting and resistance training. The results appear to confirm what I have repeatedly written in the past, i.e. "intermittent fasting" is great for cutting (and potentially "recomp", i.e. losing fat while maintaining lean mass and thus improving your body composition), not so good for gaining weight, but - for the previously outlined reasons - it is not the study to yield final insights into how good / bad it actually is for these purposes and how it compares to alternate-day-fasting that produced impressive weight or rather fat loss in a very recent study | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Kelly, Caleb J. "A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults." The American journal of clinical nutrition 86.4 (2007): 1254-1255.
• Tinsley, Grant M., et al. "Time-restricted feeding in young men performing resistance training: A randomized controlled trial†." European Journal of Sport Science (2016): 1-8.

Double Your Muscle, Maximize Your Endurance Gains: Train in the PM, not the AM, and Do Your Cardio Before Weights

Both, time and exercise order matter - at least when untrained subjects have trained for at least 12 weeks.

The debate about whether you should (a) do cardio and weights together and (b) whether you shall do either or both in the AM or PM for maximal muscle anabolism is older than the SuppVersity and has thus been addressed in many of the hitherto published approx. 2300 articles on suppversity.com.

The reason you should still read today's article, however, is that the approach to the topic is a bit different than usual, so that the study, which certainly leaves much to be desired (more on that in the bottom line), adds more practically relevant (which you cannot say about studies measuring the testosterone : cortisol ratio, for example) data.

AM or PM, you got to make sure you slept / sleep enough & well before or after workouts

Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight and Your Clock

Sunlight a La Carte: "Hack" Your Rhythm

Breaking the Fast to Synchronize the Clock

Fasting (Re-)Sets the Peripheral Clock

Vitamin A & Caffeine Set the Clock

Pre-Workout Supps Could Ruin Your Sleep

Said data has been gathered over 24 weeks during which previously untrained, but healthy participants none of which belonged to either an extreme morning or evening chronotype or worked night shifts followed identical strength (S) and endurance (E) training regimen. The interesting and uncommon thing was was, that these workouts took place either in the AM (m, as in morning) or in the PM (e, as in evening) and were, on top of that, differently ordered (i.e. endurance (E) before strength (S) = E+S or strength (S) before endurance (E) = S+E) - according to cocker we should thus have 2x2 = four groups... and indeed, here they are:

• mE+S n=9, training in the morning, endurance before strength
• mS+E n=9, training in the morning, strength before endurance
• eE+S n=12, training in the evening, endurance before strength
• eS+E n=12, training in the evening, strength before endurance

In that, the workouts were identical with two workouts per week in the first and two-to-three workouts per week in the second 12-week-period (an additional session was added every two weeks so that all participants performed 5 training sessions in a 2-week period, the reasoning behind this was to "allow further progression in training adaptations" | Küüsmaa. 2016). Here are some details:

"The morning training groups (mE+S and mS+E) performed all training sessions between 6:30-10:00h, while the evening training groups (eE+S and eS+E) performed their training sessions between 16:30-20:00h. The training programs were identical for the E+S and S+E group independent of the training time, only the sequence of strength and endurance training was reversed. Endurance and strength training were combined into the one training session so that no more than a 5-10 minute break was allowed during the two training sections. The duration of the combined endurance and strength training sessions progressively increased from 60 to 120 minutes. All the training sessions were supervised.

Strength training consisted of exercises aimed at improving both maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy and was planned as a whole body periodized program with the main focus on knee extensors and flexors as well as hip extensors. Each training session consisted of three lowerbody exercises: bilateral dynamic leg press, seated dynamic knee extension and flexion. Four to five exercises were performed for other main muscle groups (lateral pull down, standing bilateral triceps push down, bilateral biceps curl, seated military press, or bilateral dumbbell fly, trunk flexors and extensors). Strength training was designed to improve muscular endurance in the first 4 weeks, which was performed as circuit training (intensity 40-70% of 1 RM). The subsequent 4 weeks (weeks 5-8) were designed to produce muscle hypertrophy (intensity 70-85% of 1 RM) and followed by 4 weeks (weeks 9-12) of mixed hypertrophic and maximal strength training (intensity 75-95% of 1 RM). A similar strength training program with slightly higher intensities was carried out also during the second 12 weeks of training" (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The cardio workouts were a mix of interval and continuous cycling on an ergometer. The sessions averaged from 30-50 minutes. Interval (85-100% of HRmax for 4x4 min, 4 min active rest in between) and continuous (65-80% of HRmax) training protocols were performed weekly.

Yes, this study really had it all, HIIT, steady state, weights... and no, that does make it more reliable. Rather than that, it makes it more difficult to identify cause and effect and thus to interpret the results. This is why I would like to warn you: do not to assume that either of the initially raised questions for the optimal workout time and order would be answered by this single study once and for all. Needless to say that this doesn't mean the study results are worthless, but if you feel what worked for the subjects in the study at hand doesn't work for you, don't be a lemming and stick to a protocol of which you feel and see after giving it a fair chance (3-4 weeks) that it's bad for you.

As you'd expect it from a study like this, participants were tested for dynamic leg press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and time to exhaustion (Texh) during an incremental cycle ergometer test both in the morning and evening before, during (12-week, see Figure 1) and after the 24-week intervention. all relevant information to address the practical value of training in the AM vs. PM and doing endurance before or after weights - a fact I would like to highlight (and applaud to), because that is unfortunately not the case in many other studies that lack practically relevant study outcomes, such as performance increases (here 1RM and Texh) and gains (here CSA values).

Figure 1: Study design and measurements. 1 RM = one repetition maximum in the dynamic leg press; Texh = time to exhaustion during the incremental cycling test; CSA = cross-sectional area; m = morning; e = evening (Küüsmaa. 2016)

I mean, who cares about acute (post workout) levels of exhaustion, 2-6h max protein synthesis or the testosterone to cortisol ratio and its diurnal rhythm if neither of these values can answer the question we are actually asking: Does it help you make extra strength, endurance or muscle gains? Not me (if you care, here's another of these studies, just out, speculating based on questionable markers of a "differential hormonal milieu" and free to read | Burley. 2016), because all these values are as reliable predictors of muscle gains as yesterday's weather forecast for Christmas... well, ok, maybe a bit better, but eventually it's results like those, Küüsmaa et al. present in their recent paper in Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, that matter:

• 

  It's the Same (!) Time of the Day That Matters If You Want to Excel | Learn more about the effects of habitual training times on performance!

  1RM gains were similar in the morning (14-19%; p<0.001) and evening (18-24%; p<0.001); no sign time-of-day-effect
• CSA increased in all groups by week 24 (12-20%, p<0.01), however, during the training weeks 13-24 the evening groups gained more muscle mass; time-of-day main effect; p<0.05)
• Texh increased in all groups in the morning (16-28%; p<0.01) and evening (18-27%; p<0.001), just as the 1RM gains without effect of the exercise order, but with the data suggesting an advantage of doing cardio first (E+S) at 12 and 24 weeks

The overrated testosterone to cortisol ratio, the scientists assessed as well and even its diurnal rhythms, on the other hand, remained statistically unaltered by the training order or time at any point in the study. So that the study only confirms what I have said before to use the Bro's "holy yardstick of anabolism", i.e. the testosterone to cortisol ratio (T/C) after or in the vicinity of your workouts as an "anabolic guide" won't work, because it's simply not an acceptable predictor of any of the previously mentioned relevant training outcomes (strength, muscle size, and endurance).

Figure 2: Change (%) of the CSA of vastus lateralis (left), endurance performance in the AM (right, top) and PM (right, bottom) in the different training groups - left figure: *sign. (p < 0.05) within-group increase; # sign. different from controls; & sign. time-of-day main (TOD) effect | right figures: ¤ sign. between group differences as indicated; # sign. different from controls; $ sign. order main effect; sign. time-of-day (TOD) main effect (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The actual relevant messages of the study at hand have thus nothing to do with the T or C values or the T/C ratio. Rather than that, the present study "indicate[s] that combined strength and endurance training in the evening may lead to larger gains in muscle mass [in the 2nd part of the study, the PM training groups gained twice the amount of muscle the AM group did], while the E+S training order might be more beneficial for endurance performance development" (Küüsmaa. 2016). What is interesting, however, is that "training order and time seem to influence the magnitude of adaptations only when the training period exceeded 12 weeks (Küüsmaa. 2016; my emphasis) - that's an important observation from which I would like to segue right into the previously announced bottom line discussion of the few potential shortcomings of the study at hand.

Maybe, you don't have to choose between endurance and muscle gains! I am not sure if you looked close enough at Figure 2 to realize that, but the data from the study at hand shows that the PM cardio before weights group (eE+S) made both, the greatest CSA (muscle size) and Texh (exercise till you drop) gains of all groups... yes, I know the difference to the other PM group for CSA was as nonsignificant as the difference between the endurance gains in the AM vs. PM group, but overall that doesn't change the fact that the study at hand suggests that cardio before weights is the better way to go.

Does the study prove that everyone should do cardio first? Wtf!? Obviously not. Why do I even tell you about individuality and the influence of habits and training experience in the bottom line if you still think one study could prove everything you've been successfully for years wrong? Ah, and no, you don't have to start doing cardio and weights on the same day, if doing it on separate days works for you ;-)

Bottom line: I've already hinted at it at the top and in the the last line(s) of the main part of this article: compared to your average "Cardio or weights first?" and / or "AM or PM what's the best time to train?" experiments, the Küüsmaa study provides practically relevant outcome measures, unfortunately, it also provides evidence that its results may be subject specific and may not translate one-to-one from untrained beginners, as they were used in the study at hand to trained (semi-)professionals.

What does that mean? Well, if the influence of the time of the day (AM vs. PM) became significant only in the latter 12 weeks. That would suggest that (a) one's training experience and/or (b) the marginally increased training load determine the importance of AM vs. PM training - whether this relationship is linear, as in "the more training experience you have and / or  the higher your training volume, the more you will benefit from doing your workouts in the PM", however, requires future studies in better-trained individuals and with differences in training volume that go beyond the planned addition of one workout every other week that was used in the study at hand.

With that being said, the take-home messages of the study are still: (1) Do cardio first, if you want to increase your endurance performance, too; (2) Train in the PM (if you can choose freely and are not an extreme morning type) and benefit from a likely increase in size and a non-significant increase in 1RM gains; but (3) don't forget that our response to training may depend on (a) training experience (see previous elaborations), (b) habits and (c) individuality. If you find that doing (1)-(2) sucks for you, just return to what you've previously done | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Burley, Simon D., et al. "The Differential Hormonal Milieu of Morning versus Evening May Have an Impact on Muscle Hypertrophic Potential." PLOS ONE 11.9 (2016): e0161500.
• Küüsmaa, Maria, et al. "Effects of morning vs. evening combined strength and endurance training on physical performance, muscle hypertrophy and serum hormone concentrations." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism ja (2016).

Study Quantifies Disadvantage of Doing Cardio & Weights on the Same Day: Your Fat Loss May Stall Completely

Weight training on separate days!?

In "bottom lines" of SuppVersity articles you've repeatedly read that "in spite of the promising results of the study at hand, I would still suggest that you do your cardio and resistance training on separate days if that's possible".

That's a conclusion nobody ever questioned - and that in spite of the fact that the effects of splitting strength (S) and endurance (E) training onto different days on body composition in the long term have not even been investigated, yet.

The aim of a recent study by Eklund, et al. (2016) was thus the first to investigate possible differences in body fat and lean mass, blood lipid levels and physical fitness profile following 24 weeks of volume-equated different-day and same-session combined strength and endurance training in previously untrained healthy men and women.

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

Study: Over-training Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

More specifically, this was achieved through comparing adaptations following strength and endurance training performed on different days (DD) or in the same session with two different orders (ES and SE). Ah, and yes, the recruited subjects were required not to have participated in systematic strength or endurance training for at least 1 year prior to the study. The significance of the results for trained subjects is thus not exactly clear. What is clear, however is the overall study design:

"After the basal measurements of body composition, blood lipids, maximal strength and endurance performance, each participant was randomly assigned to one of the three training modes for the entire 24-week duration of the study: 1) strength and endurance training performed on different days (DD, men n=21, women n=18), 2) strength and endurance performed in the same training session with endurance preceding strength (E+S, men n=16, women n=15) or 3) vice versa, i.e. strength and endurance performed in the same training session with strength preceding endurance (S+E, men n=18, women n=14) [...] The training program has been described in detail previously (Eklund et al. 2015). In short, the training was designed to reflect recommendations for physically active individuals as well as targeted at improving both maximal strength and endurance performance. During the initial 12 weeks, the same-session subjects completed two weekly sessions of [1E+1S] or [1S+1E] (respective to the assigned training order), and five sessions per two weeks (5x [1E+1S] or [1S+1E]) during weeks 13-24. The time between training modes was 5-10 min and recovery time between training sessions 48-72 h. The DD-group adhered to the same training program but performed S and E on alternating days, i.e. completing 4 weekly training sessions during the first 12 weeks and 10 sessions per two weeks during the latter 12 weeks. Training sessions were supervised by research staff" (Eklund. 2016).

Nutritional intake was controlled through food diaries, which were filled in by the participants for three consecutive days at weeks 0, 12 and 24. Energy intake was analyzed based on the food diaries with a nutrient analysis software (Nutriflow, Flow-team Oy, Finland). The participants received written and verbal nutritional recommendations according to the national guidelines and were asked to maintain constant dietary intake throughout the intervention which included the following strength and endurance training component(s):

• Strength training mainly targeted the knee extensors and flexors as well as hip extensors, with the exercises consisting of horizontal leg press, seated hamstring curls and seated knee extensions. During the initial weeks, the exercises were performed in a circuit (2-4 sets of 15- 20 repetitions with up to 60% of 1RM) and then continued through hypertrophy-inducing training (2-5 x 8-12 at 80-85% of 1RM, 1-2 min rest) towards maximal strength training (2-5 x 3-5 at 85-95% of 1RM, 3-4 min rest). A similar periodization scheme was used for the upper body. Dumbbells and cable pulley machines were used for upper body exercises, and both machines and body weight were utilized for exercises of the trunk. The periodization was repeated during weeks 13-24 with increased training intensity and volume. The duration of each strength session was 50-60 min.
• Endurance training sessions were performed on a cycle ergometer. The training intensities were controlled through heart rate zones, which corresponded to the threshold values of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. The training consisted of 30-50 min continuous cycling near the aerobic threshold (weeks 1-7 and 13-16), including interval training at and above the anaerobic threshold (weeks 8 and 17 onwards). The interval sessions were initiated and finished with 10-15 minute bouts below the aerobic threshold, with 5-minute altering bouts on the anaerobic threshold and below the aerobic threshold in between. 

Interestingly enough, the adherence of those participants who made it to the end of the study was close to 100% in both groups. Against that background it may be only mildly surprising that the adaptational response to the workouts was comparable in all three groups, too.

Figure 1: Rel. changes in lean mass and body fat over 24 weeks (Eklund. 2016).

A closer look at the data from the full text does yet reveal the following, at least for some of you, unquestionably significant and important differences:

• Muscle gains - Interestingly enough, the total lower body lean mass didn't increase significantly in the DD (individual days) group; measuring only the trunk lean mass, on the other hand found no increases in the SE-women and ES-men; and no increase in sleeve size was observed in ES-women and SE-men. 
• Fat loss - Fat mass decreased in all regions in the DD-groups, while significant changes in ES and SE were not found during the training intervention; furthermore, in women, the difference achieved statistical significance with DD women losing significantly more total body fat than those in the ES and SE groups 

Could the lack of effect on fat loss be a mere results of eating too much? Not really. After all, Total energy intake (MJ) at week 0, 12 and 24 in men were as follows 9.3±1.8, 10.2±2.6 and 9.5±2.6 for ES; 9.4±2.0, 9.3±1.7 and 7.9±1.7 for SE; 8.4±2.3, 9.0±1.4 and 9.2±1.6 in DD, respectively. Total energy intake was in women 8±1.2, 7.8±1.8 and 8.2±2.1 for ES; 7.6±1.2, 7.7±1.6 and 7.1±2.1 for SE; 7.0±1.9, 6.9±1.6 and 7.0±1.8 for DD, respectively. 

If it's not the diet and the training volume was strictly matched in all groups in the present study, the benefits of training on separate days must have a different reason - a possible explanation Eklund et al. list could be an increase in post-exercise energy costs with more frequent (shorter) training compared to fewer (long) long-duration session (+40% in Almuzaini et al. 1998).

Yes, you will have read conflicting Evidence: "Cardio Can BOOST Your Gains?! Do it Before Weights and be Rewarded With 28% Increased Fiber Size & VO2 Gains" | more

Bottom line: I think it's important to conclude this article by referring back to the idea from its introduction - any exercise is better than no exercise and "the present study showed that all of the three modes of combined strength and endurance training were effective in increasing maximal strength and endurance performance as well as lean body mass in healthy individuals following 24 weeks of combined strength and endurance training" (Eklund. 2016).

That the increases in endurance performance and improvements in body fat mass were larger when strength and endurance were performed on different days, however, confirms what I've written before: if possible, do cardio and weights on different days.

What exatly it is that explains the benefits will yet have to be investigated in future studies and whether or not the results would be different for trained individuals | Comment!

References:

• Almuzaini, Khalid S., Jeffrey A. Potteiger, and Samuel B. Green. "Effects of split exercise sessions on excess postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 23.5 (1998): 433-443.
• Eklund, Daniela, et al. "Fitness, body composition and blood lipids following three concurrent strength and endurance training modes." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism ja (2016).