30 Min "Moderate Intensity Cycling" Enough to Cut Biceps Muscle Gains by 59%, Follow Up on 2015 HIIT Study Says

Cardio (legs) and biceps training don't mix.

You may remember my 2015 article about how "HIIT-ing it After Arm Workouts Will Ruin Your Gains" ((re-)read it), well the authors are back and published a follow-up study in the latest issue of the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. In it, Shigeto Tomiya and colleagues from Japan write: "Changes in CSA might be affected by subsequent cycling exercise after 8 weeks of training."

And indeed, the relative difference between the 12.1% and 5% increases in biceps muscle size the scientists measured is the reason for concern for everyone trying to increase his sleeve sizes as fast as possible.

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

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order and Leptin Levels

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

Combine Cardio & Strength, Right

Cardio or Weights First? What the...

With their previous study investigating the effects of relatively hard interval training, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of 30-min moderate intensity cycling exercise immediately after upper-body resistance training on the muscle hypertrophy and strength gain.

What is "moderate intensity"?

Unfortunately, this question must be answered for each and every study individually, because scientists haven't yet adopted a standard everyone would comply to. For Tomiya et al. doing "moderate intensity" cardio right after the workout meant...

"30-min moderate intensity endurance training at 55% load (W) of VO2max using a cycle ergometer immediately after 30 min of the resistance training protocol (CT) or on separate days at least 24 hours apart (SEP)" (Tomiya 2017).

The subjects, 14 male volunteers (age: 22.0 ± 0.7 years, height: 1.72 ± 0.05 m, weight: 62.1 ± 5.8 kg, arm-curl 1RM: 22.3 ± 3.0 kg), were randomly divided into two groups. One group performed the previously described moderate intensity (55% of maximum oxygen consumption [VO2max], 30 min) cycle training immediately after arm resistance training as concurrent training (CT; n = 7, age: 21.8 ± 0.7 years, height: 1.68 ± 0.06 m, weight: 60.3 ± 7.4 kg); the second group performed the same endurance and arm RT on separate days as control group (SEP; n=7, age: 22.1 ± 0.7 years, height: 1.76 ± 0.05 m, weight: 63.8 ± 3.6 kg).

Figure 1: Concurrent training protocols. RT, resistance training; ET, endurance training; SEP, concurrent endurance, and resistance training on separate days; CT, endurance training immediately after resistance training (Tomiya 2017).

The authors explain that the "supervised progressive RT program was designed to induce muscular hypertrophy (3-5 sets of 10 repetitions) with bilateral arm-curl exercise using 75% of the one repetition maximum (1RM) with 2-min rest intervals" (Tomiya). The RT program was per formed for 8 weeks, twice per week.

Figure 2: Overview of size and strength gains; %-ages indicate pre vs. post differences (Tomiya 2017).

Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA | measured by RMI), 1RM, and VO2max were measured pre- and post-training. And here are the results:

• Significant increases in muscle CSA from pre- to post-training were observed in both the SEP (p = 0.001, effect size [ES] = 0.84) and the CT groups (p = 0.004, ES = 0.45). 
• A significant increase in 1RM from pre- to post-training was observed in the SEP (p = 0.025, ES = 0.91) and CT groups (p = 0.001, ES = 2.38). 
• There were no interaction effects (time × group) for CSA, 1RM, or VO2max. 
• A significantly higher percentage change of CSA was observed in the SEP group (12.1 ± 4.9%) compared to the CT group (5.0 ± 2.7%, p = 0.029), but no significant difference was observed in the 1RM (SEP: 19.8 ± 16.8%, CT: 24.3 ± 11.1%). 

As I already hinted at, the scientists rightly point out that their "data suggest that significant improvement of CSA and strength can be expected with progressive resistance train ing with subsequent endurance exercise performed immediately or on a different day" (Tomiya 2017). For me, that seems odd, but eventually not impossible.

"Cardio Can BOOST Your Gains?! Do it Before Weights and be Rewarded With 28% Increased Fiber Size & VO2 Gains" - This previously discussed study seems to refute the results of the study at hand; but there are a few important differences: muscle groups involved, type of exercise, timing.

Putting things into perspective: As usual, there are a few issues you should keep in mind when interpreting the results - with the most important issue being the lack of dietary control. With neither control nor suggestions for energy and protein intake, it's not clear if and to which extent the reduction in biceps gains may be mediated by a decreased ratio of protein intake/energy requirement and/or a reduced ratio of total energy intake/energy requirement.

In addition, the absolute differences don't sound anywhere as huge as the 59% relative difference in CSA gains. While the SEP group upped their sleeve size from 8.8 to 9.9 cm² (+1.1 cm²), the CT group made it from 9.7 to 10.2 cm² (+0.5 cm²) - that's 0.6 cm² more for the "biceps only" group.

It's also odd that the size gains were impaired, while the strength gains were not. Previous studies usually found detrimental effects on both (Hickson 1980, Hennessy 1994, Leveritt 1999, Häkkinen 2003) - albeit in most cases in studies where cardio and strength training trained the same muscle group (legs). The mechanistic explanation for these observations is that the muscle receives disparate signals (Docherty 2000), with one saying build more mitochondria and the other signaling the muscle to increase protein synthesis, is thus not really applicable the study at hand. Plus: The results are inconsistent (Alabinis 2003) and depend on the "modality, frequency, and duration of the endurance training selected" (Wilson 2012).

A working model of the intracellular signaling networks mediating exercise-induced skeletal muscle adaptations. While RT works the mTOR signaling cascade, "cardio" ramps up AMPK signaling, which may (a) inhibit mTOR signaling via TSC and (b) suppress resistance exercise-induced muscle-protein synthesis (Nader 2006).

With respect to the observations in the study at hand, the authors speculate that the reduced gains are a potential consequence of reduced "phosphocreatine (PCr) recovery in strength trained muscle [...] due to blood redistribution for subsequent leg exercise" (Tomiya 2017). The authors elaborate: "Increased blood flow in arm muscles is important not only for early recovery of PCr but also for muscle development after strength training. Blood flow might be decreased in the arm during lower extremity exercise due to redistribution". It would be nice if we had fractional muscle synthesis or other data that would give us more than speculative insights into the underlying mechanism of the effect... also, if the scientists' hypothesis is correct, any type of exercise that doesn't involve the previously trained muscle group would compromise your gains. If that's indeed the case, this would mean that you'd better switch to a 6-way split if you want to maximize your gains. Studies that this way of training is superior, on the other hand, doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the previously discussed study by Kazior suggests, albeit for cardio before weights, increased gains in fiber sizes, when the same muscle (here legs) are trained during both, the cardio and resistance training regimen. Would be interesting to see what pre-lifting arm cranking would have done to the subjects' gains... but hey: that's a chance for another follow-up | Comment!

References:

• Docherty, David, and Ben Sporer. "A proposed model for examining the interference phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and strength training." Sports Medicine 30.6 (2000): 385-394.
• Hennessy, Liam C., and Anthony WS Watson. "The interference effects of training for strength and endurance simultaneously." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 8.1 (1994): 12-19.
• Hickson, Robert C. "Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance." European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 45.2 (1980): 255-263.
• Leveritt, Michael, et al. "Concurrent strength and endurance training." Sports Med 28.6 (1999): 413-427.
• Nader, Gustavo A. "Concurrent strength and endurance training: from molecules to man." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 38.11 (2006): 1965.
• Tomiya, Shigeto, Naoki Kikuchi, and Koichi Nakazato. "Moderate Intensity Cycling Exercise after Upper Extremity Resistance Training Interferes Response to Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength Gains." Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 16 (2017): 391-395.

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).

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).