Glucose or Caffeine? What to Snort to Boost Your Exercise Performance? Glucose Spray Increases Avg. Power Sign.

Pre-workout drinks were yesterday, the modern athlete snorts his ergogenics.

No, I didn't mean the headline to be figurative. A recent study in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance built on the observation that nasal sprays (NAS) containing caffeine (CAF) or glucose (GLUC) activate the sensory(motor) cortices in your brain.

In their latest study, Kevin De Pauw, et al. investigate whether this effect would translate to real-world increases in exercise and/or cognitive performance (reaction times).

You can learn more about coffee and caffeine at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

Caffeine Helps When Taken Intra-Workout, too

Coffee can Help You Get into Ketosis

Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG

The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood

Quantifying the Benefits of Caffeine on Ex.

For their study, the scientists recruited eleven non-smoking and moderately trained male subjects (age: 22±2 yrs) with a low daily caffeine consumption (23 ± 27 mg/day). All subjects were asked to maintain the same nutrition pattern before each experimental trial. The latter included a 30 s Wingate test and a 30 min time-trial (TT) performance test interspersed by 15 min of rest.

"The three experimental trials that were identical except for the NAS solution. Each trial started at the same time of the day and included two exercise performances, i.e. the 30 s Wingate test and a 30 min TT performance, always performed in the same order and separated by 15 min of passive rest. During the exercise performances no verbal encouragement or other motivational measures were provided" (De Pauw. 2017). 

Before they started to cycle, the subjects used a nasal spray that contained solutions with caffeine (CAF), glucose (GLUC) or placebo (PLAC) in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over manner. The solutions were nasally administered with a standard insufflator and were prepared by an independent company an here's what was in the sprays:

• all nasal sprays contained 400 mL water, 40 mg benzalkoniumchloride as a preservative plus natrium chloride as a base, as well as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) and mannitol to modify the particle morphology and flowability 
• the caffeine spray (CAF) and glucose sprays (GLUC) contained a final concentration of 16mg/ml and 80mg/ml caffeine and glucose, respectively

The sprays were used before each exercise performance and at 25, 50 and 75% of the 30 min TT (see graphical overview in Figure 1 | they cleared their nose before each application to ensure optimal distribution and absorption). Each time the subjects sprayed the solution within the nasal cavity, they alternately sprayed twice in the right and twice in the left nostril in order to optimally disperse the solution within the nasal cavity. As the scientists point out, this nasal spray (NAS) strategy is in accordance with previous research using mouth rinse solutions (Chambers 2009; Doering 2014).

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the study design (De Pauw. 2017).

Mouth rinse? Yes, you read that right. After all, scientists who have been dabbling with mouth rinsing as a means to improve athlete performance believe that the effects are mediated by the very increase in brain activity that Phillips et al (2014) observed in their previously discussed study. And De Pauw et al. believed that the same mechanism would be responsible for any potentially observable performance increase in the study at hand (brain activity was not measured, though).

What about the increases in cognitive performance? In contrast to what De Pauw et al. had hoped for, their reaction time test did not show a statistically significant benefit of either of the treatments. This does not mean that other parameters in the cognitive domain couldn't benefit from snorting glucose or caffeine, though. Thus, it would be interesting to see future studies investigate the effects on memory performance and co.

Performance increases that reached statistical significance only in the glucose, yet not in the caffeine group, where the 1.2% and 0.5% increase in power output during the Wingate test and time trial in the caffeine group did not achieve statistical significance. The average increase in power output during the time-trial in the glucose group, on the other hand, was statistically significant.

Figure 2: Peak power and average power in watt, relative change compared to placebo trial in % (De Pauw. 2017).

In a similar vein, the scientist's magnitude-based inference analysis showed that the use of the glucose nasal spray had a "very likely beneficial (98 %)" beneficial effect on average (time-trial) and a very unlikely/trivial (2 %) negative effect on the peak power output during the Wingate trial. Accordingly, the scientists' mechanistic inference, based on threshold chances of 5 % for substantial magnitudes, shows that the glucose spray exerts a very likely positive effect on endurance performance as a whole - albeit only compared to placebo, not compared to caffeine which yielded small, but statistically non-significant increases in both peak (Wingate) and average (time-trial) wattage, of which I simply have to ask myself whether they would have been more pronounced and statistically significant if the concentration of caffeine in the spray had been higher than the meager 15mg/ml (based on blood tests we know that it was not sufficient to affect the level of caffeine in the blood, but that's not what we wanted to achieve, anyway).

Read up on the mechanism that's supposed to power both, mouth rinsing and snorting in this previous SuppVersity article, which includes brain scans showing the activity of sensory cortices in our brains.

So is snorting glucose and/or caffeine "worth it"? If you are an Olympic athlete, the small but "likely beneficial" effect of using a glucose nasal spray is unquestionably something interesting. After all, a 2% performance increase at the elite level of athletism would require years of training. What we must not forget, though is that this increase was not observed in professional athletes so that it warrants further studies to confirm that the results obtained in Average Joes translate to the Usain Bolts of this world.

Further trials would also be necessary to test (a) whether higher dosages of caffeine would increase the effect of snorting everyone's favorite supplement on exercise performance to a statistically significant level (remember: caffeine wasn't useless in the study at hand) and (b) whether combining the two, i.e. glucose and caffeine, in a nasal spray wouldn't yield even better results | Comment!

References:

• Chambers, E. S., M. W. Bridge, and D. A. Jones. "Carbohydrate sensing in the human mouth: effects on exercise performance and brain activity." The Journal of physiology 587.8 (2009): 1779-1794.
• De Pauw, Kevin, et al. "Do Glucose and Caffeine Nasal Sprays Influence Exercise and/or Cognitive Performance?." International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (2017): 1-22.
• Doering, Thomas M., et al. "The effect of a caffeinated mouth-rinse on endurance cycling time-trial performance." International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism 24.1 (2014): 90-97.
• Phillips, Shaun M., et al. "The Influence of Serial Carbohydrate Mouth Rinsing on Power Output during a Cycle Sprint." Journal of sports science & medicine 13.2 (2014): 252.

Bench Press Study: The Higher the Weight, the Less of it Will be Lifted by Your Pecs - What are the Implications?

Lighter weight = relatively larger contribution of the pecs ≠ greater gains

In their latest paper in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, Henryk Król, and Artur Golas (2017) write about an experiment they designed to identify the "prime movers" during the bench press - an interesting and methodologically complex experiment that can tell us one or two things about the effects of increasing the weight you bench gradually from the standard 12-rep (70%-1RM) to the maximal 1-rep (100%-1RM) load and how it affects the activity of your chest (pectoralis major), front delts (anterior deltoids), triceps (triceps brachii) and even your lats (latissimus dorsi) during different phases of the movement.

Learn all about training your chest/pectoralis muscle at the SuppVersity

Best Pec Exer-cises by EMG

Fast or Slow, Ec- or Concentric?

Alternative Pec Ex. Equip.

Truth About the Bench Angle

What are Optimal Angles & Grips

DB, BB or Machine for BPs

By combining IEMG and camera techniques in a multimodular measuring system SMART, the scientists were also able to record the muscle activity and track the exact path of the barbell in the twenty healthy, male recreational weight trainers with at least 1 year of lifting experience (the mean +/- SD = 3.3 +/- 1.6 years) who were recruited for their study.

Figure 1: As you can see in the relative difference between pectoralis and anterior deltoid activity (negative value = anterior deltoids do the main work) the magic happens during the early phase of the

In the measuring session, the participants performed consecutive sets of a single repetition of bench pressing with an increasing load (about 70, 80, 90, and 100% of their 1 repetition maximum - 1RM).

Relative increase in load (%) = increase of EMG activity of pecs, delts, triceps and lats compared to lifting only the 12-RM (70% of 1RM).

Previous studies showed: More weight = more activity -- While this is right, these previous studies did not do the same complex measurement of how the load spreads across the pectoralis, deltoid and triceps muscle. If you look at the absolute values, this is still the case... I've plotted that for you in the figure to the left. If you scrutinize the data you will see that the relative change in load with an increase in weight on the pectoralis during when you go from 70% of the 1RM to 80% is 13% during the descending phase and 1% during the ascending phase. For the triceps, however, it's 29% and 22% - that's a difference of 16% and 21%, respectively; and if you ramp the weight up from 70% to 100% of the 1RM the difference increases to 62% and 82%.

In other words: If you go from your 12RM (that's ~70% of your 1RM) the relative load on the pecs on the descending and ascending phase of the bench press increases 62% and 82% less, respectively, than the load on your triceps.

As you can see in Figure 1, the relative contribution of pectoralis and deltoid muscle at the beginning of the movement reverses with increasing weights. Let's look at an example: At a weight equal to your 12RM (70% of the 1RM max), the pectoralis is still doing most of the work (3-6% more than the delts), with increasing weights, however, the anterior deltoid will take over. Eventually, at 100% of the 1RM, its normalized EMG activity will be 14-26% higher than those of the pectoralis.

Figure 2: Phase structure of the movement. Internal structure (averaged and normalized IEMG of shoulder muscle activity) of the descent phase (left string of figures) and ascent phase (right string of figures) during the flat bench press when attempting loads at 70% of the 1RM (top) and 100% of the 1RM (bottom | Król. 2017).

As you can conclude based on the absolute activity levels in Figure 2, the anterior deltoid muscles are yet not the only muscle group to help the pectoralis as the light increases. Especially during the middle segment of the ascending phase (25-75%) of the movement, it is the triceps that fills the gap between what your chest muscle can actually press and the weight you've loaded onto the bar.

"EMG Study Can Tell Us Something About Using Dumbbells, Barbells and Machines During Chest & Triceps Workouts"- The dumbbell bench press is a pec-stretcher. Doesn't it already look like maximal pectoralis major activity? I've discussed this and related questions in an October 2016 article about a study from Brazil.

So, does that mean that you should always bench with light weight? It's not that simple, no. It's true that the main message of Król's study is that the load on the pectoralis increases much less with increasing weights. So much less, in fact, that during the ascending phase (Figure 2, right, bottom) the activity of all three supporting muscles, i.e. delts, triceps, and lats, will be higher than that of the pectoralis muscle. On the other hand, though, the absolute EMG activity the scientists measured for the pectoralis major, the large chest muscle, will still increase (see Figure in the light box) - linearly up to 90% of the 1RM, a weight with which you should be able to perform ~3-4 reps and thus the lowest number of reps of which it appears to make sense to use them as the rep-goal in your regular workouts (Yes, you can train by doing only 1-RM max efforts, but does that make sense for the average gymrat?).

To cut my long elaborations short: If you are aware of the caveat that increasing the weight will reduce the ability of the bench press to isolate the chest muscle, you are free to increase the weight to 90% of the 1RM and train with 3-4 reps and will still see a higher muscle activity in the pecs than you'd do with 70% and 12 reps. Whether that's conducive to your goals, however, is a totally different question, one that you are most likely to answer affirmatively if your goal is to build strength and/or to doing full body workouts with only a limited number exercises | Comment!

References:

• Król, Henryk, and Artur Golas. "Effect Of Barbell Weight On The Structure Of The Flat Bench Press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).

Pyramid Training & Drop-Setting - Both Useless? | Part 2/2 of a Research Update on 3 Popular 'Intensity Techniques'

Machines offer ideal conditions for drop-setting: Switching back and forth between weights is easy and fast.

As I've pointed out in the first part of this article (published on Tuesday), people tend to assume that there is a linear relationship between workout intensity and the gains you're rewarded with. "It just feels effective", or "I feel that I've made greater progress" are characteristic statements you will hear people make even though studies suggest otherwise.

While "no pain, no gain" may be a valid statement, "more pain, more gain" is a motto that may easily burn you out and ruin, not multiply, your gains.

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2016? Find inspiration in these articles:

What's the Latest on Failure?

Drop-Sets: Vol-ume ↑, Gains ↕

Pre-Exhaustion = Growth!?

Full ROM ➯ Full Size Gains!

Super-Setting - Yes, but How?

Eccentrics For Excellent Gains?

The above obviously is the worst case scenario, while abusing intensity techniques can impair your gains, the majority of studies with negative study outcomes simply found no differences in long(er)-term outcomes such as lean mass or strength increases; and that's also the the case for the latest study of the effects of "crescent pyramid and drop-set systems" by Vitor Angleri, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, and Cleiton Augusto Libardi (Angleri. 2017).

Just like Nóbrega et al. (2017 | discussed in part 1), Angleri, et al. did a "leg-to-leg" comparison. In contrast to the previously discussed study, however, Angleri's 12-week within-subject design study compared the effects of traditional (TRAD), crescent aka pyramid set (CP) and drop-set (DS) training (note: for each participant, the comparison was TRAD vs. CP or DS). 

• TRAD: 75% of the 1-RM load in the unilateral 45° leg press and leg extension exercises; 3–5 sets of 6–12 repetitions on each exercise; failure was achieved only during the later sets.
• CP: ~15 x 65% 1-RM, in the 1st, ~12 x 70% 1-RM in the 2nd, ~10 x 75% 1-RM in the 3rd, 8 x 80% 1-RM in the 4th set and ~6 x 85% 1-RM in the fifth set. 
• DS: After reaching failure on a given set, the subjects performed up to two drop-sets, for a sequence the scientists describe as follows: "initial load—repetitions to muscle failure—short pause—reduction of 20% of the load—repetitions to muscle failure— short pause—reduction of 20% of the load—repetitions to failure" (Angleri. 2017)

In addition, Angleri's N=32 subjects were not untrained rookies but had 6.4 ± 2.0 years of training experience. Participants were advised to maintain their eating habits, and to consume only the nutritional supplement provided by the P.I., after each RT session (i.e., 30 g Whey Protein–Whey

Select–3VS Nutrition–Brazil); and the total training volume (TTV) was standardized as follows:

Figure 1: The scientists' standardization strategy worked out well: the total training volume in all groups was identical (see bottom line of a discussion of whether that's a good or bad thing).

"[...] we utilized RT records to determine initialtraining load for each participant. Initial TTV was defned as 120% of the TTV that each participant performed in the 2 weeks prior to the commencement of the study. This procedure ensured the absence of abrupt increases or decreases in TTV at the beginning of the study. The TTV performed on each CP or DS session was equalized to the TTV performed on the TRAD session (i.e., trained frst). 70 and 30% of the TTV was performed in the 45° leg press, and leg extension exercises, respectively. The TTV was increased by ~7% every 3 weeks (i.e., 6 RT sessions) for all of the participants" (Angleri. 2017).

Each leg was trained for 12 weeks. All training regimen allowed for 2 minutes of rest between sets and exercises; and the subjects' gains in muscle CSA and architecture, 45° leg press and leg extension 1-RM loads were re-assessed 72 h after the last RT session at post-training.

Why's the within-subject design with its leg-to-leg comparison a problem? There is no conclusive evidence that training one leg will have the other grow, as well. While this may be less of a problem in Angleri's study in which both legs were trained, an interference effect is still possible [If you haven't read up on the evidence and explanation in part 1 of this article, this would be a good time to do just that].

As the scientists point out in the conclusion of their abstract, the results show quite unambiguously that "CP and DS systems do not promote greater gains in strength, muscle hypertrophy and changes in muscle architecture compared to traditional resistance training" (Angleri. 2017).

Figure 2: Maximum dynamic strength (1-RM) in unilateral 45° leg press (LP) and unilateral leg extension (LE), combined measured at baseline (Pre) and after 12 weeks of training (Angleri. 2017).

As you can see in Figure 2 and Figure 3, there's no real doubt that this conclusion is correct. After all, the changes in muscle cross-sectional area, pennation angle ( a measure of changes muscle structure; 45° would be ideal for to produce a strong yet powerful contraction) and fascicle length (not shown in Figure 2) show the same non-significant inter-leg differences as the 1-RM values.

Figure 3: Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (a), pennation angle (PA) (b) and fascicle length (FL) (Angleri. 2017)

More specifically, the muscle cross-sectional area (CSA, measure of muscle size) increased significantly and similarly for all protocols (TRAD: 7.6%; CP: 7.5%; DS: 7.8%). The strength gains on both exercises were similar with the values for the leg press and extensions being TRAD =25.9%; CP=25.9%; DS= 24.9% TRAD=16.6%; CP=16.4%; DS=17.1%, respectively.

And even individuality appears not to matter as much, as previous studies have suggested. As the authors point out, resistance training-induced "changes in muscle CSA [usually] have a high between-subject variability (range: 11–30%)".

Figure 4: Individual relative changes (%) in compound maximum dynamic strength (1-RM, unilateral 45° leg press plus unilateral leg extension) (a) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (b) in relation to baseline values for the traditional (TRAD), crescent pyramid (CP), and drop-set (DS) protocols (Angleri. 2017).

In the study at hand, the "between-subject variability was lower than previously reported" and ranged from as little as 1.7 to 13.3%. That's interesting because it addresses the often-heard question of what the results of the study at hand can tell you as an individual; and while there are outliers, the chances to see a 100% increase in size or strength gains according to the training regimen is slim (take another look at Figure 2-3, too, where the pre-post slopes are very similar).

It is unquestionably right that the standardization of the workout volume could have annihilated the benefits of drop-setting which will - just as in Fisher's 2016 study, yield higher total training volumes. Fisher's study does yet also show that this won't translate to increased gains.

So what do we make of the results? If we disregard the previously discussed issues with possible let-to-leg interferences (read up on them), the study at hand provides excellent evidence against the superiority of pyramid and drop-setting - a result that does, unfortunately, line up nicely with previous, similarly disappointing research

Now, one could argue that, without the standardization for total volume, a factor that would not be present in the real world, the results may have been completely different - especially for the drop-set group, where you'd expect subjects to perform more reps and thus move more weight in total. That this doesn't necessarily translate to increased gains, is something you could know from Fisher's 2016, a study which compared training to failure with and without drop-sets, I've discussed in April, last year.

As disappointing as this may sound, the new evidence on "intensity techniques" discussed in this two-part series appears to support the conclusion one could draw based on previous research: it is unlikely that training to failure, pyramid- and drop-sets will boost your gains significantly. To use them within a periodization regime may still make sense. Why's that? For training to failure, I would like to remind you that the jury on training to failure is still "out there", while the weight of evidence is differently distributed for pyramid and drop-set-training. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use them, though. They did, after all, (a) produce similar gains as traditional training and may, secondly, be a (b) motivational or practical reason, with both of them offering a welcome distraction from the ever-same traditional training regimen and drop-sets allowing you to train at a given volume in a much shorter period of time - something that is unquestionably an argument for those of us who aren't (yet? ;-) paid for going to the gym | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Angleri, Vitor, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, and Cleiton Augusto Libardi. "Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men." European Journal of Applied Physiology (2017): 1-11.
• Fisher, James P., Luke Carlson, and James Steele. "The Effects of Breakdown Set Resistance Training on Muscular Performance and Body Composition in Young Men and Women." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30.5 (2016): 1425-1432.
• Nóbrega, Sanmy R., et al. "Effect Of Resistance Training To Muscle Failure Versus Volitional Interruption At High-And Low-Intensities On Muscle Mass And Strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).

Training to Failure - Overtraining Prone & Useless? | Part 1/2 of a Research Update of 3 Popular 'Intensity Techniques'

No deadlifts in Nóbrega's training to failure study and + there are other issues w/ the "one-legged leg extension, only"-design.

Be honest, even though you may know that there's no convincing evidence of the superiority of training to failure, doing pyramid sets and/or drop-sets for increased size and strength your gut says: "Bro, that feels so damn challenging. It's got to work!"

That's not you? Well, I guess you will nevertheless be interested, whether the latest studies by Nóbrega et al. (training to failure | this part of the article) and Angleri et al. (pyramid and drop-sets | read about it in part 2 of the article) prove your gut feeling wrong, once and for all.

Don't fool yourselves, there is no single best workout for the rest of 'us life -- periodize!

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

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodization

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodization

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

In this installment of this two-part review we will start with the never-ending debate about training to failure. A technique of which a 2007 review by Willardson et al. says that it "might provide the extra stimulus needed for advanced lifters to break through plateaus" (Willardson. 20017). Against that background, it appears to be logical that a cursory read of the literature suggests that there is a sign. number of studies to confirm that 'training to failure is more anabolic than shying away from failure'. A closer read of the corresponding studies, however, indicates that the hypertrophy and/or strength advantages many papers respond could well be the mere effect of an increased training volume. How's that and why's that relevant? Well, if one group of subjects stopped after 8 reps while the other did another 1-2 rep/s on almost every set, that's a 10-20% increased workout volume, which, in turn, is one of the few variables with sufficient scientific evidence that it facilitates skeletal muscle hypertrophy (Schoenfeld. 2010 & 2013).

Against that background, the results Sanmy R. Nóbrega and colleagues present in their soon-to-be-published paper in Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research are all-the-more surprising. After all, their study design did not equate the volume in the four groups of untrained young men (age: 23.0 ± 3.6 years; height: 176.0 ± 0.6 cm; BMI: 24.3 ± 3.9 kg/m²) who participated in 12x2 workouts per week over the course of the 12-week experiment:

• HIRT-F and HIRT-V: Three sets of unilateral (=single leg) leg extensions at 80% of the individuals' 1-RM twice a week performed to failure (HIRT-F) or the point where the subjects stopped voluntarily (HIRT-V), respectively
• LIRT-F and LIRT-V: Three sets of unilateral (=single leg) leg extensions at 30% of the individuals' 1-RM twice a week performed to failure (LIRT-F) or the point where the subjects stopped voluntarily (LIRT-V), respectively

What the study did do, unfortunately, is to use single-leg leg extensions to allow for four study groups with only 30 subjects by having each subject train his two legs differently - one to failure another to volitional interruption. And that's a problem...

Figure 1: Maximal dynamic strength (1-RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) at baseline (Pre) after 6 (6W) and 12 weeks; *Significant difference compared to Pre; †Significant difference compared to 6W (Nóbrega. 2017)

Why's that a problem? Well, while there is no conclusive evidence that training one leg will have the other grow, as well, there are at least a good dozen of ways training one leg to failure could have affected the adaptive response in the other leg that have not been convincingly disproven, yet. Catoire et al. (2012) have observed sign. gene changes, for example, in both the trained and untrained legs, Fimland, et al. (2009) and similarly Kannus et al. (1992) report that neural adaptations lead to strength gains in the untrained leg, and Munn et al. (2004) conclude in their meta-analysis that "[p]oling of all available data shows that unilateral strength training produces modest increases in contralateral strength" - 7.8%, a strength increase that's small, but could be pronounced enough to mask an inter-group difference in the study at hand. Not to mention difference according to the muscle group you train and the exercise you do (doing only leg-extensions is not exactly all-encompassing and obviously does not allow for reliable conclusions about the effects on e.g. hamstrings, glutes, triceps, biceps, chest, and doing the corresponding exercises to failure or not).

Figure 2: Effect of unilateral resistance training on the strength of the contralateral limb (Munn. 2004);
last paragraph of the conclusion of Munn's meta-analysis (inset in the lower right corner).

And that's not the only methodological characteristic of the study at hand that refutes the initially alluded to hypothesis that it would provide "proof" that training to failure doesn't add to the exercise-induced increases in strength and hypertrophy. Another, caveat that's at least as relevant is the lack of training experience of the thirty-two subjects - there's, after all, a good reason scientists love untrained subjects: they will see impressive gains, (almost) no matter what they do. The impressive responsiveness of newbie-muscles to any muscle-building stimulus alone could thus have masked an inter-group difference and thus the benefits of training to failure... which brings us back to the initially cited statement from the conclusion of Willardson's 2007 review: "Training to failure might provide the extra stimulus needed for advanced lifters to break through plateaus" - do you notice something? Yes, Willardson et al. were careful or precise enough to highlight who will benefit from training to failure, i.e. "advanced lifters".

And there's more. The scientists from the Eastern Illinois University also highlight that this intensity technique should be "incorporated periodically into short-term microcycles". Eventually, the question whether you should train to failure or not may thus be reduced to the question of when in your macrocycle will you have microcyles (4-6 weeks) of training to failure, but that's a topic for a completely different article.

Reps to failure can propel your gains when you train w/ light weights | more

So, there's there's still hope that all your "failures" were not in vain? Yes, there is. With the study at hand (a) being conducted in untrained subjects in whom their heightened responsibility to strength and size gains, which may have masked any beneficial effects training to failure, and (b) the unquestionably suboptimal way of having subjects train one leg to failure while using the other leg as (non-failure) control-leg, it is another, imho not the most convincing contribution to the partly contradicting research on whether training to failure provide a unique stimulus to strength and muscle gains or not.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that the absence of convincing evidence of its fruitfulness would prove that training to failure works. Rather than that I am saying that the study at hand adds to what all previous research appears to suggest: "It depends"... which reminds me of pointing out that training to failure on every set of every workout of a 5-day-split can easily increase your risk of overtraining and/or injury (Stone. 1996) and would, in that case, clearly reduce, not increase your gains. As Willardson et al. hint at in their 2007 review, training to failure could and maybe even should thus be used by (i) advanced trainees and (ii) only sporadically and within a well-planned periodization scheme | Comment and read the second part of this review!

References:

• Catoire, Milène, et al. "Pronounced effects of acute endurance exercise on gene expression in resting and exercising human skeletal muscle." PloS one 7.11 (2012): e51066.
• Fimland, Marius S., et al. "Neural adaptations underlying cross-education after unilateral strength training." European journal of applied physiology 107.6 (2009): 723.
• Izquierdo, Mikel, et al. "Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains." Journal of Applied Physiology 100.5 (2006): 1647-1656.
• Kannus, P., et al. "Effect of one-legged exercise on the strength, power and endurance of the contralateral leg." European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 64.2 (1992): 117-126.
• Munn, Joanne, Robert D. Herbert, and Simon C. Gandevia. "Contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis." Journal of Applied Physiology 96.5 (2004): 1861-1866.
• Nóbrega, Sanmy R., et al. "Effect Of Resistance Training To Muscle Failure Versus Volitional Interruption At High-And Low-Intensities On Muscle Mass And Strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010): 2857-2872.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training." Sports medicine 43.3 (2013): 179-194.
• Stone, Michael H., et al. "Training to Muscular Failure: Is It Necessary?." Strength & Conditioning Journal 18.3 (1996): 44-48.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M. "The application of training to failure in periodized multiple-set resistance exercise programs." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.2 (2007): 628-631.

Coffee Lengthens, While Caffeine Shortens Your Telomeres: An Essential Paradox? The Latest Evidence Reviewed

If life "begins with coffee", will it also help you end later with coffee?

If you follow the SuppVersity on Facebook, you will be aware that the majority of studies indicates that the chronic consumption of coffee (even in amounts of 5+cups/day) has potent health benefits - at least in normal, healthy individuals. Accordingly, you may not consider the observation Larry Tucker (2017) made when he evaluated the relationship between caffeine intake and coffee consumption and leukocyte telomere length, in his latest study surprising. After all, a drink with overall beneficial effects on one's health, shouldn't have negative effects on our telomere length, a biomarker of the senescence of cells.

You can learn more about coffee and caffeine at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

Caffeine Helps When Taken Intra-Workout, too

Coffee can Help You Get into Ketosis

Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG

The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood

Quantifying the Benefits of Caffeine on Ex.

What is surprising about Tucker's cross-sectional study, however, is that his analysis of data of 5826 adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) shows that the consumption of coffee's main active ingredient was inversely related to telomere length (F = 15.1, P = 0.0005) - or, to be more precise that the subject's telomeres were 35.4 base pairs for each 100 mg of caffeine they consumed on a daily basis; and that after adjusting for the covariates.

Caffeine shortens and coffee lengthens your telomeres - How's that possible? 

Well, the most probable answer is that other substances in coffee, such as chlorogenic acid, ameliorate the negative effects caffeine will have on the length of your telomeres.

Figure 1: The caffeine intake is negatively associated with the length of the telomeres according to the data from 5826 adults from NHANES (1999–2002) in both coffee drinkers and abstainers (Tucker. 2017).

And indeed, the data from the study seems to confirm just that. After all, a re-analysis of the link between caffeine consumption and telomere length revealed that...

• each 100 mg of caffeine consumed by coffee drinkers was associated with telomeres that were 36.7 base pairs shorter than the cohort average (F = 9.0, P = 0.0054), while 
• each 100 mg of caffeine consumed by non-coffee drinkers was associated with telomeres that were 40.0 base pairs shorter (F = 8.5, P = 0.0067).

This observation alone can't explain that coffee intake, in general, was positively related to telomere length (F = 12.6, P = 0.0013), independent of the covariates. If we take into consideration that coffee is not the only source of caffeine in the average American's diet, however, another factor that may interfere with the telomere length emerges: sodas, energy drinks & co.

A short telomere length correlates with an increased risk of mortality and with the (subjectively) rated health status of older subjects in Njajou (2009).

What does telomere length have to do with (healthy) aging: Over the course of your life-cycle, your telomeres naturally shorten. Part of the telomeric DNA does not replicate each time a cell divides. This is commonly referred to as the "end replication problem," and short telomeres generally lead to negative health consequences. Accordingly, the ever-shortening length of your telomere caps limits the number of cell divisions which is why it's only logical that a study in nearly 20,000 participants found that one's telomere length correlates with a 25% greater risk of early death (Weischer. 2012).

Telomeres don't just count in the years before you die, though, Njajou et al. (2009) showed that telomere length is also predictive of years of healthy life, too. Eventually, the research on the predictive accuracy of telomere length on life expectancy and/or health is yet in its infancy.

With sodas, energy drinks & co. being staples and ever-more popular contributors to the American diet, respectively, one could thus assume that the correlation is driven by the ill effects of other ingredients of this beverages - first and foremost sugar - on one's average health and thus telomere length. Whether that's a valid hypothesis, however, appears questionable in view of the fact that Frary, et al. (2005) report, based on USDA data from 1994 to 1996 and 1998, that the "[m]ajor sources of caffeine [in the US population are] coffee (71%), soft drinks (16%), and tea (12%)".

Figure 2: Caffeine intake (mg/d) from beverages and foods by age group, NHANES 2011–2012 (Drewnowski. 2016) 

Similar results have been reported more recently based on NHANES data from 2011-12 by Dewenoski, et al. (2016 | see Figure 2). It would thus be too easy to do what everybody appears to do today and to blame blame the ill effects of caffeine on the consumption of soda & co and thus eventually the obesogenic "sugar boogeyman".

While caffeine is the #1 ingredient in energy drinks, taurine has recently emerged as more important contributor to their effects than everybody may have thought | learn more

So what do you have to remember: The first thing to remember certainly is that the study at hand is only one out of at least three epidemiological studies showing a positive association between coffee consumption and (increased) telomere length (I've reported many of them in the SuppVersity Facebook News | e.g. Lee. 2015; Liu. 2016).

Accordingly, the most important thing to remember is that the study at hand adds to the evidence that your coffee addiction (if kept within reasonable limits <10 cups/day) will positively affect your telomere length and could thus even have life-extending effects.

The fact that pertinent epidemiological studies, like the one at hand, consistently show beneficial effects of caffeinated coffee and taking into account that Takahashi, et al. (2017) showed only recently that, in a rodent model, caffeine adds to the anti-aging effects of coffee, is the second thing you should remember.

The one thing you should not do, however, is to blame sugar for the surprising difference between the telomere-lengthening effect of caffeine intake and coffee that was observed in the study at hand. After all, Figure 2 should remind you that the vast majority of caffeine comes from coffee and tea, and only small quantities from sugary soda & co | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Drewnowski, Adam, and Colin D. Rehm. "Sources of caffeine in diets of US children and adults: Trends by beverage type and purchase location." Nutrients 8.3 (2016): 154.
• Frary, Carol D., Rachel K. Johnson, and Min Qi Wang. "Food sources and intakes of caffeine in the diets of persons in the United States." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105.1 (2005): 110-113.
• Lee, J. Y., et al. "Association between dietary patterns in the remote past and telomere length." European journal of clinical nutrition 69.9 (2015): 1048-1052.
• Liu, Jason J., et al. "Coffee Consumption Is Positively Associated with Longer Leukocyte Telomere Length in the Nurses’ Health Study." The Journal of nutrition 146.7 (2016): 1373-1378.
• Njajou, Omer T., et al. "Association between telomere length, specific causes of death, and years of healthy life in health, aging, and body composition, a population-based cohort study." The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 64.8 (2009): 860-864.
• Tucker, Larry A. "Caffeine consumption and telomere length in men and women of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)." Nutrition & Metabolism 14.1 (2017): 10.
• Weischer, Maren, et al. "Short telomere length, myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, and early death." Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 32.3 (2012): 822-829.