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.

Synergistic vs. Antagonistic Supersetting - Is One a Better Fat Burner? Rather NOT, Data From New Study Shows

Superset or not? The research question here is a different one...

I have to admit. I've recommended super setting during fat loss phases before, too. It simply appears too logical to assume that with the decreased rest times you'd burn more energy and - as you, as a SuppVersity reader know - it's your energy deficit that determines your weight loss.

Unfortunately, a recent study from Brazil has recently disillusioned me within less than one second - the title was enough: "Supersets do not change energy expenditure during strength training sessions in physically active individuals" (Brentano. 2016)... until I realized that it fooled me to believe that we were talking about a comparison of super setting to super setting... synergistic and non-synergistic that is.

No matter how you train. You must periodize appropriately to maximize your gains!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodization

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodization

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What? Yeah, the scientists from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul measured the energy expenditure (EE) during standardized strength training (ST) of 20 subjects who were assigned to either a "grouped exercise" (GE: 26.6 ± 3.4 years) or a "separated exercise" (SE: 24.9 ± 2.6 years) - both of them superset protocols, albeit one with synergistic (grouped) and one with antagonistic (separate | actually, this was rather "non-synergistic", as you will learn in minute.

Figure 1: Illustration of energy expenditure data acquisition. EPOC = excess postexercise oxygen consumption;
ST: strength training; VO2: oxygen uptake (Brentano. 2016).

From previous SuppVersity articles, you will know that the number of studies that investigate the physiological response to super setting is very limited - information about the influence of how you combine your sets is simply non-existent. Thus, Brentano, et al. (2016) aimed to determine whether supersets of ST exercises influenced EE during and after one strength exercise session, even doesn't exist - at all.

Intra- and post-workout aerobic energy expenditure with super setting and traditional resistance training (Kelleher. 2009).

Yes, I fully agree... this study lacks a "non-supersetting" group: I personally would rather have preferred to learn whether super setting increases intra- and post-workout EE compared to regular training. Luckily, this study has been done before. 7 years ago, when Kelleher et al. published their paper "The Metabolic Costs of Reciprocal Supersets vs. Traditional Resistance Exercise in Young Recreationally Active Adults " in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research - a study that shows no sign. differences in aerobic EE during super setting vs. traditional exercise (SUPER 1,009.99 ± 71.42 kJ; TRAD 954. ± 83.31 kJ), p = 0.371 - despite what appears to be a consistent elevation in oxygen consumption for SUPER above TRAD in Figure 1 (top).

A sign. effect was observed, however, for the post-exercise excess energy consumption (EPOC), which increased by a whopping 33% - sounds like much, but with an absolute difference of only ~4.78 kcal per workout (SUPER 79.36 ± 7.49 kJ; TRAD 59.67 ± 8.37 kJ) that's as irrelevant as the non-sign. 7% (= 0,25 kcal/kg body weight) difference in the total metabolic cost of the two workouts, i.e. SUPER (15.52 ± 1.13 kJ/kg body weight) and TRAD (14.52 ± 1.17 kJ/kg; p = 0.265). 

In the study Brentano et al. (2016) had their subjects do four exercises (5 sets of 8 à 10 maximum repetitions) for knee extensor muscles and shoulder horizontal flexor muscles were executed in both training sessions:

• Hypertrophy oriented - All exercises were performed at the load obtained during the 10 RM tests; therefore, both sessions were conducted with loads equivalent to 85% of 10 RM.
• Grouped exercises (GE) - During GE, the participants performed one set of the leg press exercise, immediately followed by one set of the knee extension exercise, with no rest between each exercise. After five sets, the participants performed one set of the bench press exercise, immediately followed by one set of the pec deck exercise, with no rest between each exercise. 
• Separated exercises (SE) - During SE, the participants performed one set of the bench press exercise, immediately followed by one set of the knee extension exercise, with no rest between each exercise. After five sets, the participants performed one set of the leg press exercise, immediately followed by one set of the pec deck exercise, with no rest between each exercise. 
• Standardized rest - In both GE and SE, there were 3 minutes of rest between every two exercises (superset) to minimize the decrease in total work for subsequent sets.

To get accurate data, the scientists measured the actual oxygen uptake during and after exercise (60 minutes post-session). And what they found is ... well, neither what the title would suggest, nor what common sense would dictate:

"Total work during the session and increases in lactate concentrations were similar between the GE and SE Groups. During exercise, EE was greater in the SE Group when compared with the GE Group (GE: 123.8 ± 14.36 kcal vs. SE: 131.77 ± 20.91 kcal). During the postexercise period, GE induced greater EE when compared with SE (GE: 25.12 ± 7.86 kcal vs. SE: 19.76 ± 5.53 kcal)" (Brentano. 2016).

What? Doesn't that mean that the EE did differ? Yes, it does, but the exercise sequence did not influence the previously cited, most relevant parameter, the overall EE (GE: 148.92 ± 18.72 kcal vs. SE: 151.53 ± 17.97 kcal, p = 0.920). Accordingly, the scientists rightly say that "in physically active men, ST supersets do not influence total EE during and 60 minutes after a single session" (Brentano. 2016).

Supersetting is fun, time-efficient, exhausting and based on the reasonable assumption that you can benefit from training agonist + antagonist together, but does it build size & strength? I knew that this is what you were about to ask on Facebook... luckily, I've answered this question before - in this 2015 article!

So what? Eventually, it takes the Kelleher study discussed to draw a practically relevant conclusion because most of you will probably be interested in an answer to the question "Should I or shouldn't I superset?"

Now, it should be obvious that you shouldn't base this decision solely on the amount of energy you can spend during a workout, but if that is an important criterion for you, because, e.g., you want to shed some body fat and could use the extra 100kcal of energy expenditure many people will believe super setting may entail, I have to disappoint you: In conjunction the studies by Brentano (2016) and Kellehrer (2009) clearly indicate - a practically relevant difference between the intra-, post- and total-workout energy expenditure of traditional and superset training does not exist... or do you consider 4kcal significant? | Comment on Facebook!"

References:

• Brentano, M. A., et al. "Supersets do not change energy expenditure during strength training sessions in physically active individuals." Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness 14.2 (2016): 41-46.
• Brennecke, Allan, et al. "Neuromuscular activity during bench press exercise performed with and without the preexhaustion method." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.7 (2009): 1933-1940.
• Kelleher, Andrew R., et al. "The metabolic costs of reciprocal supersets vs. traditional resistance exercise in young recreationally active adults." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.4 (2010): 1043-1051.

Mix Things Up ⇨ Up Your Gains: Altering Loading Schemes in Every Session Accelerates the Strength Gains in 6-Week Study Involving 200 Experienced (5 Years+) Trainees

Looking for a new routine for your new-years gym resolution? This SuppVersity article offers suggestions that will pay off in form of strength gains. 

For the rookie, everything works. If you have more than five years of series training experience under your belt, however, you will be progressing much slower - often frustratingly slow(er)... This is why the results of a a soon-to-be-published study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research are particularly interesting. In contrast to your average resistance training study, the subjects of this study belonged to previously described group of experienced trainees. With a mean training experience of more than 5 years, the initially more than 300 volunteers were thus significantly more representative of the average SuppVersity reader than the "recreationally trained" subject who goes for a jog once a month.

The method used int he study is an alternative to classic periodization schemes.

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What was likewise remarkable about the study at hand is the number of participants. Ok, after 67 dropouts, there were only 200 subjects left when the author, Christoph Eifler from the Department of Applied Training Science at the German University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management (DHfPG) in Saarbrücken, Germany, kicked out another 33 subjects to get identical sample sizes and a homogenous gender distribution in all study groups. N=200, however, is still far from what the average resistance training study has to offer.

Table 1: Study design: constant and variable loading parameters (Eifler. 2015).

Overall, this means we have N=50 participants in each of the 4 samples in which the subjects trained as shown in Table 1:

• CL - constant load and constant volume of repetitions over 6 weeks.
• IL - increases in load and decreasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DL - decreases in load and increasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DCL - daily changing load and volume of repetitions.

The total number of repetitions were identical between samples. In addition, both within- and between-set rest was standardized between samples, to isolate the variables of interest (i.e. intensity and volume).

What's the mechanism? While we cannot tell for sure what triggered the increased strength gains in the study at hand, the author's suggestion that "[i]t is possible, that the ongoing alteration between training intensity and training volume prevents habituation effects, at least in short-term resistance training periods" (Eifler. 2015) constitutes a very convincing hypothesis, also in view of the fact that we may assume that "this loading scheme [DCL] places greater stress on the neuromuscular system, so greater strength gains are the result" (ibid.). Supporting evidence for this hypothesis comes from Rhea et al. (2002) who reported as early as in 2002 that DCL-like loading periodization-schemes support a greater adaption of the neuromuscular system.

To asses the effect of the different approaches to "periodize" the subjects' workout regimen, the author used a standardized 10-RM- and 1-RM-test that was performed before and at the end of the 6-week intervention:

"Both 10-RM-testing and 1-RM-testing were designed with the following procedure: 5 minute general warm-up with an intensity of 60% of the theoretical maximum heart rate; one warm-up set with 50% of the load in the first test set; performance of 3 at most test sets to quantify RM (trial and error principle) by 3 minutes rest interval between test sets. Pre- and post-testing occurred at the same time of day to eliminate the potential influence circadian rhythm on strength. The documentation of the test results followed standardized test protocols. At each date of testing, all participants were interviewed about their current state of motivation and their form of the day. Moreover, the temporal gap between the last resistance training session and the presence of muscle soreness and muscle stiffness were recorded" (Eifler. 2015).

Familiarization sessions were unnecessary as subjects had recent experience with all exercises, i.e. horizontal leg presses, chest presses, butterfly, lat pulldowns, horizontal rows, dumbbell shoulder press, cable triceps pushdowns, and dumbbell biceps curls, they had to perform in the given order and over the full range of motion (ROM) in each of their workouts.

Figure 1: Effect sizes of the 6-week training intervention with different loading schemes (Eifler. 2015); * denotes significant differences compared to all other groups - in short: only the DCL workout made a significant difference.

Even though using trained and highly motivated subjects obviously has its advantages, the author adds for consideration there may be selection effects caused by voluntary participation or Hawthorne effects (Macefield. 2007). More specifically, the volunteers in the study at hand were probably (just like you ;-) more likely to comply to changes in behavior and to put maximal physical effort in testing and training. In addition, even though the subjects were told to refrain from additional physical activity and to maintain their regular diets, not all confounding variables, such as differences in nutritional intakes, prior sleep, or interferences caused by other fitness club customers, could be eliminated in this field test study.

Figure 2: Relative strength increases in the four study groups (Eifler. 2015); due to the large inter-individual differences, evidenced by the long error bars, the DCL advantage was not statistically significant.

As Eifler rightly points out, though, "the probability of occurrence of these confounding variables, selection effects or Hawthorne effects, is equal in all samples" (Eifler. 2015), which is why they should average out when you compare the inter-group effect sizes and relative strength increases based on the pre vs. post 1-RM and 10-RM strength test (see Figures 1 & 2).

Overall, there's thus little reason to doubt the results of the study at hand. Results that clearly suggest an advantage of the daily changing load regimen when it comes to maximizing strength increases in trained individuals over the course of a six-week period - and that in spite of the fact that Eifler failed to detect statistically significant effects for the relative strength increases due to the large inter-personal differences (see Figure 2).

This is not the first SuppVersity article discussing evidence in favor of "changing up things more frequently". Back in 2012 I already discussed Spinetti's linear vs. undulating periodization studies w/ similar benefits on the subjects' strength gains.

So what's the verdict, then? Just as the author says, while DCL is widely known, the fact that it is rarely practiced may have average and extraordinary gymrats miss out on a "potential for improving resistance training in commercial fitness clubs" (Eifler. 2015). After all, there's little doubt that the data from the study at hand "indicates that resistance training following DCL is more effective for advanced recreational athletes than" (ibid.) more conventional loading patters, i.e. CL, IL, DL.

Whether the benefits are due to a novelty effect that would be lost over long(er) training periods and whether the same or similar benefits could be achieved in untrained subjects will have to be determined in future research, for the time being however, daily changing load (DCL) and volume of repetitions appears to be worth adding to your list of things to try in the gym in 2016 | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Eifler, Christoph. "Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2015).
• Macefield, Ritch. "Usability studies and the Hawthorne Effect." Journal of Usability Studies 2.3 (2007): 145-154.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.2 (2002): 250-255.

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

If you feel totally wasted after every workout, I have bad news for you. In the two-a-day studies at hand the rest between the first and second workout was only 2h! Not exactly much time to recover, but the idea is to "train low" (on glycogen) on the second workout.

It sounds like madness or something for the "enhanced" athletes, but an older scientific study I recently dug out, accidentally, says that "training twice every second day may be superior to daily training" (Hansen. 2005). When I tried to learn more about this topic, though, I had to realize that the evidence is scarce. Similar results have been presented by Yeo et al (2008), though, albeit for trained triathletes and cycling.

In their study, Yeo and colleagues determined the effects of a cycle training program in which selected sessions were performed with low muscle glycogen content on training capacity and subsequent endurance performance, whole body substrate oxidation during submaximal exercise, and several mitochondrial enzymes and signaling proteins with putative roles in promoting training adaptation.

Overtraining can obviously still be an issue | Learn how to check your training status:

Heart Rate Variablity (HRV)

ABEL Sports Test + More

Overtraining & Undereating

Calculate your Energy Intake!

Overtraining W/ Only 25min/day?

Reinvent Your Training!

Now, the interesting thing about Yeo's study and the reason I want to discuss their results first is that the scientists from the School of Medical Sciences at the RMIT University in Victoria, Australia used trained subjects - seven endurance-trained cyclists/triathletes who were used to training daily anyway. During the three week study period, however, the subjects had to stick to one of the following training schedules:

• Daily training (Daily - aka "High") - In this group the subjects alternated between 100-min steady-state aerobic rides (AT) one day, followed by a high-intensity interval training session (HIT; 8x5 min at maximum self-selected effort) the next day.
• Twice every second day training (Two-A-Day - aka "Low") - Subject who had been randomly assigned to this group performed the AT, first, then 1–2 h later, the HIT. 

Forty-eight hours before and after the first and last training sessions, all subjects completed a 60-min steady-state ride (60SS) followed by a 60-min performance trial. Muscle biopsies were taken before and after 60SS, and rates of substrate oxidation were determined throughout this ride and the results were... well, let's say interesting:

Figure 1: Markers of fact glycogen use and fat oxidation during steady state exercise after 3 weeks of training (Yeo. 2008)

As you can see markers of mytochondrial beta oxidation (citrate synthase), as well as the glycogen concentrations and whole body fat oxidation during the 60 minute steady state ride pre-/post-test increased exclusively in the "two-a-day" group. That's a relevant results, even though the increase in cycling performance improved by 10% in both Low and High and the performance during the HIIT trials, which were performed after the aerobic rides, suffered in the LOW, i.e. the "Two-a-Day" arm o the study (see Figure 2, right).

Figure 2: During the training sessions the HIIT performance is initally lower, but even then the increased capacity to oxidize fat and thus ability to spare gluocose pays off in slowly increasing performance markers (no sign. difference anymore) after only 7 HIIT sprints - during a race the fat oxidation boost (right) may be even more important (Yeo. 2008)

Why's that beneficial? Well, while it is not relevant for short bouts of HIIT, the significant increase in fat oxidation during the exercise test (see Figure 2, right) indicates that, the subjects' ability to use fuel as substrate during steady state, as well as longer interval rides increased significantly. The spared glycogen may then, during a longer race, for example, decide victory and defeat when the glycogen depleted every-day trainer cannot keep up with the glycogen sparing two-a-day every other day trainer during a sprint at the end of a race.

Want to learn more? At this point you may be reminded of a previous article of mine with the telling title "8x Increase in "Mitochondria Building" Protein PGC1-Alpha W/ Medium Intensity Exercise in Glycogen Depleted Elite(!) Cyclists: Training Revolution or Recipe for Disaster?". If not, I suggest you head back and read it now!

The obvious question that's probably preying on your minds already is: How on earth does that relate to strength training, bro? Well, let's see... so, in the strength training study by Hansen, et al., the authors actually speculated to observe an effect as it was observed in the study I discuss in the article I referenced in the red box, i.e.  that "training at a low muscle glycogen content [during a second workout on the same day] would enhance training adaptation" (Hansen. 2005). Therefore, the Hansen et al performed a study in which seven healthy untrained men performed knee extensor exercises with one leg trained in a two-a-day fashion (2h rest between the 1h sessions), the other one in everyday. Luckily, the study duration in this study was 10 and not just 3 weeks.

Against that background it is not surprising that the training load increased significantly. Since the latter has little to do with the mitochondria, it is also not that surprising that the increase in maximal workload was identical for the two legs. What may be surprising for those who think that training twice a day would be bogus, however, is that the time until exhaustion and total volume during the post-test was "markedly more increased" in the leg that was trained twice a day, albeit only every other day vs. the one that was trained daily, but only once (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Relative performance increases from pre- to post-test (left) and glycogen levels before and after exhausting bouts of knee extensor exercises (right) | high = daily training, low = twice a day, but only every other day (Hansen. 2005).

Just like in the previously cited cylcling study by Yea et al, the effect may be attributed to (a) increased resting muscle glycogen and (b) higher activities of the mitochondrial enzyme 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase and citrate synthase which are both involved in the oxidation of fat in the mitochondria of your muscle.

"Just One More Set" (1/2): Metabolic Response to 10,000kg vs. 20,000kg Regimen. EPOC: Do Reps and Loads Both Figure? And What About Elite Athletes Do They Need More? Find answers to these questions, here!

Bottom line: While it should be obvious that (a) further research is necessary and (b) the benefits of two-a-day training will depend on your training goals, the (older) studies presented in this article clearly support what Hansen et al phrase like this: "training twice every second day may be superior to daily training" (Hansen. 2005).

Ok, while the benefits for cyclists are obvious, it will have to be proven that the additional one or two reps or the extra high intensity set you may be able to do due to the improvements in glycogen sparing fatty oxidation will actually increase your muscle gains, but the mere possibility that training twice a day every other day could be better than training everyday, which is something I see people do at the gym regularly, is intriguing, isn't it? Comment!

References:

• Hansen, Anne K., et al. "Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once daily." Journal of Applied Physiology 98.1 (2005): 93-99.
• Yeo, Wee Kian, et al. "Skeletal muscle adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day endurance training regimens." Journal of Applied Physiology 105.5 (2008): 1462-1470.

GYM-Science Update: Bands Aid W/ Deadlifts? 16x1 or 4x4 for HIIT? Kettlebell HIIT Workout Better Than HIIT-Cycling?

Deadlifts w/ bands as they were done in the Galpin study (original photo from Galpin's 2015 study | see below).

Time for a news-quickie with the latest science to use at the gym - either for your workouts or just to impress the bros with your knowledge. I mean, who else reads and understands all the latest papers in the #1 strength and conditional journal on earth? Well, you do... ok, you read my laymen summaries, but your bros don't have to know that, do they?

Ok, that's enough of the pseudo-comedian warm-up, let's deadlift the first scientific paper... oh,yeah: Actually the paper is about deadlifting, deadlifting with resistance bands as it is shown in the photo on the right, where a subject performs the deadlift on a force plate.

Read more about exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

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

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

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

BFR-Preconditio- ning Useless for Weights?

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

• Deadlift with bands for power and speed - Galpin et al. (2015) investigated how using bands while deadlifting at different loads, namely 60 and 85% of one's individual 1RM, i.e. the maximal weight you can lift for exactly one perfect rep, would influence the power and velocity at which twelve trained men (age: 24.08 ± 2.35 years, height: 175.94 ± 5.38 cm, mass: 85.58 ± 12.49 kg) with deadlift 1 repetition maxima (1RM) of 188.64 ± 16.13 kg pulled the weight off the floor.
  
  The results of the study show that there were significant peak (yet not relative) power changes irrespective of whether only 15% of the total resistance (group B1) or 35% of the total resistance (group B1) came from the bands (vs. the actual weight).
  

  

  Figure 1: Relative changes in power and bar velocity (compared to training w/out bands = control); * denotes sign. difference to control, ** denotes significant difference to control and light bands (Galpin. 2015)

  The effect became even more pronounced and extended from peak to average power, when the subjects used the heavier (85% 1RM) weights. In this condition using bands lead to greater peak and relative power production and lowered the velocity significantly compared to the control condition in which the subjects lifted at the same total level of resistance, albeit without bands (all values in Figure 1 are relative differences).
  
  For trainees the data in Figure 1 could be highly relevant, because it indicates that heavy bands should be used, when "prescribing the deadlift for speed or power, but not maximal force" (Galpin. 2015). If that's not you, i.e. you're not training for speed and power, but e.g. for size, future long(er)-term studies will have to show whether using bands makes a difference with respect to this study training goal.
• Interval length, can you really pick whichever suits your best? Even though a recent study by Wesley Tucker et al. (2015) shows that the rate of perceived exertion, as well as the mean heart rate of 14 recreationally active and thus not exactly jacked males who participated in their latest study were identical on 4x4 and 16x1 high intensity interval protocols (i.e. 4 intervals à 4 minutes vs. 16 intervals a 1 minute | see Figure 2), seasoned SuppVersity readers will probably remember that previous studies showed highly relevant differences in the long(er) term effects which obviously cannot be measured in an acute phase study like the one at hand.
  

  

  Figure 2: Illustration of the two HIIT protocols, incl. warm-up and cool down on cycle ergometers. White boxes are intervals during which the subjects were supposed to exercise at 90% of their peak heart rate (during the 16x1 protocol this was not achieved by all study participants in the latter intervals, though | Tucker. 2015).

  To be more specific, previous studies on high intensity interval training suggested that athletes who want to increase their VO2 max benefit more from fewer longer intervals, while "Mr. and Mrs. Average" could be better off improving their body composition and metabolic rate with a higher number of short intervals (even as short as 15 seconds in the Tabata protocol). Against that background and in order to explain or contradict the previous findings, it may be worth to consider other study outcomes in Tucker et al. (2015). Study outcomes which did differ. The total energy expenditure, for example, was 19% higher during the 16x1 protocol (p < 0.001) which is in line with the previously referenced recommendation of short intervals for people who are trying to lose weight.
  

  

  Figure 3: VO2, heart rate, and energy expenditure during the two HIIT protocols (watch the units! I converted them to be able to put all data into the same graph | Tucker. 2015).

  The VO2 uptake, as well as the maximal heart rates, which could be of interest for endurance athletes, on the other hand, were higher in the 4x4 protocol - a finding that would likewise support the previously voiced recommendation that (endurance) athletes should torture themselves with long(er) intervals to trigger further adaptations in VO2max and heart rate at a given power output.
  
  Overall, the study at hand will thus not revolutionize your training, but if you haven't read the previous SuppVersity articles, you may still have gotten some new insights into how you may want to adapt your HIIT training in the future.
• Kettlebell or cycle ergometer? Which do you chose for your HIIT sessions? I've written about kettlebell swings as muscle builders before and I've also hinted at the possibility of using the "bells" for your HIIT workouts. Now, a recent study by Williams and Kraemer shows that

  "[kettlebell high intensity interval training aka] KB-HIIT may [even] be more attractive and sustainable than [sprint interval cycling aka] SIC and can be effective in stimulating cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses that could improve health and aerobic performance" (Williams. 2015).

  The purpose of the study was - you probably already guessed it - to determine the effectiveness of a novel exercise protocol we developed for kettlebell high-intensity interval training (KB-HIIT) in comparison to the classic, standard sprint interval cycling (SIC) exercise protocol most people associate with equipment-based HIIT sessions. To this ends, the researchers from the Southeastern Louisiana University had eight "very active" young men (mean age 21.5 years; body fat 18.52 +/-3.04%, fat free mass 67.44 kg of a total weight of 82.95 kg) complete two 12-minute sessions of KB-HIIT and SIC in a counterbalanced fashion.

  

  Figure 4: Overview of the KB-HIIT workout (my illustration).

  "In the KB-HITT session [exercises see Figure 4, mean weight depending on exercise and subject 10-22 kg], 3 circuits of 4 exercises were performed using a Tabata regimen.

  
  

  In the SIC session, three 30-second sprints were performed, with 4 minutes of recovery in between the first 2 sprints and 2.5 minutes of recovery after the last sprint" (Williams. 2015)

  The study's within-subjects' design over multiple time points allowed Williams and Kraemer to compare the oxygen consumption, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER, a marker of the ratio of fat to carbohydrates that is used as fuel during the workout), the tidal volume (TV, the volume of air that is inspired or expired in a single breath during regular breathing), the breathing frequency (f), the subject's minute ventilation (VE), caloric expenditure rate (kcal/min), and their heart rate (HR) on an individual basis between the exercise protocols. In conjunction with the total caloric expenditure which was likewise measured / calculated and compared. The total amount of data the authors collected was thus quite large.
  

  

  Figure 5: Mean total energy expenditure in kcal during the KB and SIC sessions (Williams. 2015)

  Significant inter-group differences were found for VO2, RER, TV and total energy expenditure, with VO2 and total energy expenditure being higher and TV and RER being lower in the KB-HIIT compared with the cycle ergometer HIIT protocol. For f, VE, the energy expenditure per minute and the heart rate, there were no general inter-group differences, but "only" significant group × time interactions. Practically speaking, this means that they changed differently over the course of the whole protocol and are thus maybe relevant for certain athletes, yet not for the general public.
  
  Overall, the William's and Kraemer's study does therefore support the notion that doing kettlebell HIIT workouts is probably at least on par with the classic cycling HIIT sessions. In view of the increased total caloric expenditure and the lower RER, which signifies a significantly higher fat oxidation during the workout, it is even possible that KB-HIIT would be the better choice for dieters than doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. Since there is no direct link between fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure during workouts and fat loss, however, long(er)-term studies are necessary to find out whether doing KB-HIIT is in fact more than a equivalent and for many of you maybe funnier alternative to doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. 

Block Periodization - Training revolution or simple trick? This is what we have to ask ourselves in view of the results of a previously discussed study from 2014 | Read the full SV-Classic article here!

Bottom line: That's it for today; so I suggest you take what you learned, pack it in your gymbag and go and impress your bros at the gym ;-) I am just kiddin'... actually I hope that you can really use some of the information in today's installment of the SuppVersity Short News to make your workouts more productive, more enjoyable and/or simply more versatile.

Personally, I will probably give the KB-HIIT workout a try,... and that even though I expect it to be much harder than cycling which is something I am already used to. But hey, isn't that what training is all about? You have to challenge your body - even if that means conquering your weaker self.

I mean, we all know that as soon as you are staying within the cozy comfort zone of doing the same exercises with the same weights workout after workout your progress will stall; and unless you are one of those people who hit the gym to be able to talk to their athletic friends, that's certainly nothing you should aim for | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Galpin, AJ, Malyszek, KK, Davis, KA, Record, SM, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, Harmon, RA, Steele, JM, and Manolovitz, AD. Acute effects of elastic bands on kinetic characteristics during the deadlift at moderate and heavy loads. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3271–3278, 2015
• Tucker, WJ, Sawyer, BJ, Jarrett, CL, Bhammar, DM, and Gaesser, GA. Physiological responses to high-intensity interval exercise differing in interval duration. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3326–3335, 2015
• Williams, BM and Kraemer, RR. Comparison of cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses in kettlebell high-intensity interval training versus sprint interval cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3317–3325, 2015