Put Up or Shut Up! How Effective is Caffeine for Gymrats, Self-Proclaimed Bodybuilders & Lifting Weights, in General?

Let's be honest: The authors exaggerate when they call the subjects 'bodybuilders'

Yes, there are dozens, no, I guess hundreds of studies investigating the effects of caffeine in (a) various groups of people (from the obese sedentary slob to the Olympian gold medallist) and (b) a vast range of contexts from the sit-to-stand test in the elderly to the effects of repeated caffeine consumption on high intensity performance (the results are interesting, by the way | learn more). What is surprisingly hard to find, however, are studies that deal with bodybuilding and caffeine which are not case reports of how some bro poisoned himself with an overdose of straight caffeine or caffeine-containing fat burners.

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

Caffeine Resis- tance - Does It Even Exist?

In this regard, a recent study by Hamid Arazi, Nazanin Dehlavinejad, and Roghayyeh Gholizadeh sticks out. Published late 2016 in the Turkish Journal of Kinesiology (Arazi. 2016), even though it is obviously not the only study evaluating the effects of caffeine or, and those studies are more frequent, the effects of caffeine + a plethora of other ingredients in kitchen-sink "pump" or "pre-workout" supplement in gymrats. Since a comparison of these results is (a) not necessary bodybuilding-specific and will yield conflicting results, the authors decided to conduct a

"[...] study aimed to investigate the acute effect of moderate amount of consumption of caffeine 6 mg per kg of body weight on maximal strength, repetition sustainability and training volume in the upper and lower body of novice bodybuilders" (Arazi. 2016).

Fifteen males' healthy gymrats - I guess eventually we have to admit that these "novice bodybuilders" are not Mr. Olympia, yet - who had resistance training between 6 months to a year participated voluntarily in this study.

Figure 1: Subject characteristics - note: while the study calls them "novice bodybuilders" (Arazi. 2016), we should be honest and admit that we are more or less talking about the average gymrat or "total beginner bodybuilder", here.

Subjects' characteristics are presented in Table 1. All were healthy non-smokers and did neither suffer from diseases nor consume products that would mess with the results of the study.
After 24h of caffeine abstinence, the subjects reported to the lab, where they ingested were randomized (double-blind method) to consume

• caffeine (gelatin capsules containing 6mg/kg) supplements or 
• placebo (maltodextrin) supplements,

each with 200 ml of water. To ensure that the caffeine levels would peak, the authors had their subjects wait an hour before the actual test was performed (that's somewhat debatable, because the athletes reported to the lab fasted, so that peak levels may have been reached earlier, but alas | learn more):

"Subjects performed special warm-up activities for 15 minutes. Then, they did one repetition maximum test (1RM) in bench press (as especial upper body exercise) and leg press (as original lower body exercise) with 3-minute rest intervals in the range of 3 to 5 attempts. After 5 minutes of rest, subjects carried out bench press and leg press 5 times with 80% of one repetition maximum with maximum possible repeat until exhaustion with 3 minutes' rest between sets" (Arazi. 2016). 

This testing procedure was repeated twice separated by an interval of one week and the analysis of the results is quite telling.

This cannot be the only study on so-called "bodybuilders"! Well, if we are talking "caffeine, only," it is. There is yet an interesting paper on ephedrine + caffeine by Haghagi, et al. (Haghagi. 2014), which found that, in 12 male bodybuilders (mean age: 24.41±4.42 years, height: 174.83±3.61 cm and weight: 75.67±8.05 kg) training without a supplement (Con), Ephedrine ((E), 0.8 mg/kg); caffeine ((C), 6 mg/kg), a combination of E + C (0.8 mg/kg + 6 mg/kg), or placebo all yielded significant increases in lower body strength (P<0.05) and upper body endurance (P<0.05). Since the FT is not available online, I cannot tell you how large the inter-group differences were - with no differences being reported in the sloppily written abstract, they were presumably not sign., though.

Figure 1: Relative changes in strength and # reps to failure on bench and leg press w/ and w/out caffeine (Arazi. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, the t-test confirms that the subjects' bench press and leg press muscle strength significantly increased in the caffeine condition compared to placebo. Furthermore, all the depicted changes in strength and strength endurance (as evidenced by the increased repetition sustainability in the fourth and fifth set) reached statistical significance.

Table 2: Work volume from the first to the fifth (mean ± SD; *=sign. adv. for caffeine | Arazi. 2016)

It is thus not exactly surprising that the work volume was higher for the two last sets; that it was also higher for the initial sets (see Table 2), on the other hand, shows that the, seen as an average, not exactly impressive 4-6% strength increase is pronounced enough to allow for a significantly enhanced training volume, of which the latest reviews (e.g. Schoenfeld et al. 2016) show that it may, within certain limits, be the main determinant of your gains.

Not Getting into Ketosis? Try Plain Old Caffeine to Double Your AM Ketone Levels | learn more.

So, caffeine works, right? In the study at hand, it sure did. And with related studies by Duncan et al. (2009 | previously resistance trained subjects) and Hudson et al. (2008 | rookies with only 8 weeks of training experience) produced similar (as those that were observed in the study at hand) increases in leg press and bench press performance, respectively. Significant increases in training performance, only for the legs, though, were also reported in Astorino et al. (2011) whose trained subjects did yet suffer from caffeine withdrawal when they had to abstain from the "drug" in the days before testing - which can obviously have negatively affected their performance and thus leveled any benefits.

In contrast to what you could assume, by the way, the effects are not necessarily going to be more pronounced in female trainees: In fact, Goldstein et al. (2010) examined the effect of caffeine (6mg/kg) on the performance of 15 women with a six-months history training and found no increase in strength endurance (but a sign. increase in max strength). A fact of which Arazi, et al. (2016) speculate that it could be the result of an increased metabolism of caffeine during strenuous exercise in women vs. men (Sinclair. 2000). It is likewise worth noting that the majority of studies shows that habitual usage is no obstacle to the performance benefits of caffeine - this goes for the effect on tetanic force (Tarnopolsky. 2000), the rate of fat to carbohydrate oxidation (RER | the jitters due to extreme epinephrine spikes will disappear, though | Bangsbo. 1992). There is, however, evidence that chronic use can, maybe by accelerating the metabolism of caffeine, diminish the endurance gains as it was observed by Fisher, et al. as early as in 1987.

With that being said, the optimal dosage for resistance training ranges from 4-6 mg/kg body weight. Timing is an issue and depends on whether you're taking it on empty or not, but I previously discussed that in the caffeine-article of the "When Timing Matters"-series. So I suggest you read that first before asking about optimal caffeine timing on Facebook!

References:

• Arazi, Hamid, Nazanin Dehlavinejad, and Roghayyeh Gholizadeh. "The acute effect of caffeine supplementation on strength, repetition sustainability and work volume of novice bodybuilders." Turkish Journal of Kinesiology 2.3 (2016): 43-48.
• Astorino, T. A., et al. "Effect of acute caffeine ingestion on EPOC after intense resistance training." J Sports Med Phys Fitness 51.1 (2011): 11-7.
• Bangsbo, Jens, et al. "Acute and habitual caffeine ingestion and metabolic responses to steady-state exercise." Journal of Applied Physiology 72.4 (1992): 1297-1303.
• Duncan, Michael J., Mark Lyons, and Joanne Hankey. "Placebo effects of caffeine on short-term resistance exercise to failure." Int J Sports Phys Perf 4 (2009): 244-253.
• Fisher, S. M., et al. "Influence of caffeine on exercise performance in habitual caffeine users." International journal of sports medicine 7.05 (1986): 276-280.
• Goldstein, Erica, et al. "Caffeine enhances upper body strength in resistance-trained women." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 7.1 (2010): 1.
• Haghighi, Amirhosein, Kia Ali Heshmati, and Kakhak Seyed Alireza Hosseini. "The Effect Of Caffeine and Ephedrine Supplement and Their Combination on Maximal Strength and Muscular Endurance In Male Bodybuilders." (2014): 89-107.
• Hudson, Geoffrey M., et al. "Effects of caffeine and aspirin on light resistance training performance, perceived exertion, and pain perception." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.6 (2008): 1950-1957.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., Dan Ogborn, and James W. Krieger. "Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Journal of Sports Sciences (2016): 1-10.
• Sinclair, C. J. D., and J. D. Geiger. "Caffeine use in sports: a pharmacological review." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 40.1 (2000): 71.
• Tarnopolsky, Mark, and Cynthia Cupido. "Caffeine potentiates low frequency skeletal muscle force in habitual and nonhabitual caffeine consumers." Journal of applied physiology 89.5 (2000): 1719-1724.

Pyramid-, Synergistic & Antagonistic Supersetting - How do Experienced Resistance Trainees' Brain & Brawn React?

While all subjects in the study at hand were men, there's no reason to believe that the results for women would be fundamentally different.

Ok, let's get the most significant message out right away: the study at hand will not be able to tell you which of the four regimens (the fourth being traditional training) is going to maximize your individual 2017 gains. What it will and does do, however, is to remind you that advanced training techniques like super setting, where you do exercises back to back without more rest than it takes to transit from A to B, are called "advanced": Why's that? Well, because they will certainly put and "advanced" load on your central nervous system, pushing the boundaries so much that one could argue that they could make you more prone to overtraining and its ill effects on performance, physique, thyroid, testosterone and more...

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? Yes, you cannot train to failure and with a volume of 40 sets daily - probably not even if you're doing drugs. But before we got lost in the implications, let's rather take a look at the latest study from Spain. After all, it has more to offer than a warning you all have read before:

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

"The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies. 

During four weeks, seventeen participants (23.2 ± 3.6 years), [who voluntary participated] with experience in resistance training [least two years of resistance training experience, and an 1RM in the bench press
greater than 100 kg] performed a once-a-week resistance training session, differing the methodology (traditional, pyramid, agonist supersets and reciprocal supersets)" (Sabido. 2016).

So far, so good, but now for the less impressive part of the study description. With this design, you cannot make a statement about the previously referred to strength and size gains. Why's that? Well, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding.

Table 1: Training sessions volume and intensity by methodology (Sabido. 2016).

All subjects did each of the workouts once, rested a week and then continued with another workout, the scientists describe as follows:

• Training intensity during all sets when using the traditional and the reciprocal superset methodologies was set at 70% of 1 RM, which was similar to other studies (Kelleher. 2010; Smilios. 2002). 
• For the agonist superset methodology, the intensity was 60% of 1 RM, with the goal of having the participants reach a number of repetitions close to 10 during the second exercise. 
• In the reversed pyramid methodology, the intensity decreased from 80% (first set) to 60% (last set) of 1 RM. 
• Total volume of each training session was matched to 240 repetitions, while rest intervals between sets were set at 90 s (Schoenfeld. 2014). Finally, repetition execution was performed in a cycle of 2 s for the concentric phase and 2 s for the eccentric phase in all of the exercises.

Before/after each workout, the subjects analyzed the differential responses to the different training sessions. More specifically, lactate concentration, peak velocity losses, the rating of perceived exertion, and the number of assisted repetitions were measured - with clear results:

Figure 1: Lactate and rate of perceived exertion after the four different styles of working out. Only, the reciprocal superset (antagonistic) showed sign. elevated levels over traditional training (as indicated by # | Sabido. 2016).

Both lactate concentration and rating of perceived exertion showed that the reciprocal supersets caused greater values compared with either the traditional or the pyramid methodologies.

Figure 2: Number of reps where the subjects required assistance to get up to the standardized volume of 240 reps; note: * = significant difference with traditional methodology; # = significant difference with pyramid methodology (Sabido. 2016).

This increase in RPE alone is without a doubt rather a bad thing - a bad thing that could (focus on conditional tense), as pointed out previously, have you run down your central nervous system in no time. On the other hand, the increase in RPE may well be a result of the significant increase in the individual intensity (remember the total volume was standardized) due to performing more forced reps than in the pyramid group. What exactly the implications are, is, however, questionable, because (a) the traditional training group had higher numbers of forced reps. So it may have been more taxing for the muscle (but less taxing for the CNS) compared to the classic regimen. It does thus stand to reason and can not be repeated too often that "[f]urther research is required to evaluate if these large acute fatigue effects could lead to greater muscle hypertrophy following a training intervention" (Sabido. 2016) - exactly what the scientists conclude, as well.

As Kelleher's head-to-head comparison shows, volume-equated superset training will burn sign. more energy than traditional training - on a per-minute basis.

Advanced training techniques for the central nervous system: If there's one thing that appears to be relatively non-speculative, it's the fact that the study at hand confirms many trainees experience that antagonistic supersets (here called "reciprocal supersets") are the most taxing of the four training techniques. What is interesting, though, is that the number of reps the subjects were able to perform only with help increased most during the traditional workout - practically speaking, this could mean that you don't achieve an individually higher workout intensity on the muscular level, but pay by frying your central-nervous-system unnecessarily if you're working out using antagonistic supersets. After all, the traditional training appears to allow for the same muscular fatigue and a lower load on the CNS, while the pyramid training appears (much in line with my personal experience) to have the overall least sign. impact on markers of fatigue - to make any conclusions on which of these regimen builds the most muscle is, as previously hinted at, yet simply speculative without a longitudinal study | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• 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.
• Sabido, Rafael, Marcelo Peñaranda, and Jose Luis Hernández-Davó. "Comparison of acute responses to four different hypertrophy-oriented resistance training methodologies." European Journal of Human Movement 37 (2016): 109-121.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.10 (2014): 2909-2918.
• Smilios, I. L. I. A. S., et al. "Hormonal responses after various resistance exercise protocols." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 35.4 (2003): 644-654.

Starting to Have Breakfast is Worst New Year's Resolution ... Unless You Want to Gain Weight (80% Fat, 20% Lean Mass)

Unless your breakfast looks like this, the study does not mean that you can no longer have breakfast.

If you're following the SuppVersity news, you may remember a post from Wednesday in which I outlined that it is no wonder people fail to lose the weight they intend to, because they try to achieve this weight loss by having soup or, you guessed it, finally doing what the mainstream nutrition experts' cookie-cutter approaches suggest and.. have breakfast, every day. What actually happens to those who fall for the epidemiological bullsh*t science that's trying to extrapolate causal relationships from observational (often unreliable) data has now been demonstrated by a group of US scientists. Believe it or not, Gabrielle Marie LeCheminant et al. are the first researchers to actually experimentally investigated how starting to have breakfast voluntarily will affect your energy intake and weight trajectory.

Learn more about fasting at the SuppVersity

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

"Lean Gains" Fast Works

Fasting Better W/ 1 or 3 Meals?

Fasting Works for Obese, Too!?

IF + Resistance Training = WIN

ADF Beats Ca-lorie Restriction

What? No, the other studies you may have read did not focus on the aforementioned group of people who believe they were doing themselves a favor if they started having breakfast regularly.

That's people like the forty-nine female nonhabitual breakfast-eaters who were randomized to one of two conditions: breakfast or no breakfast for 4 weeks.

• breakfast eaters ate at least 15% of their daily energy requirement before 8:30 a.m
• non-breakfast eaters did not consume any energy until after 11:30 a.m. 

Weight and body fat were assessed at baseline and after four weeks of intervention. Body fat was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants completed seven 24-hour recalls to assess dietary intake during the intervention. Physical activity was measured by accelerometry for 32 consecutive days.

Figure 1: Participant flow diagram (LeCheminant. 2017).

As you, as a SuppVersity reader, know the addition of breakfast did not magically resolve any of the medically irrelevant weight problems of the normal-weight pre-menopausal female subjects. On the opposite: On average, the participants randomized to eat breakfast consumed 266 ± 496 (F = 12.81; P < 0.01) more calories per day over the course of the study and weighed 0.7 ± 0.8 kg (F = 7.81; p < 0.01) more at the end of the intervention than their "intermittently fasting" peers.

Figure 1: Rel. change (% baseline) in energy and macronutrient intake during the study (LeCheminant. 2017).

How come? Well, as you probably also expected, there was no caloric compensation in form of reduced energy intake on subsequent meals. So let's recap:

• 

  Table 1:  Click to see energy intake for each condition by time of day.
  (LeCheminant. 2017).

  significantly increased energy intake and significant weight gain of which 83% are body fat,
• a significantly increased intake of carbohydrates (with people gravitating to cornflakes & co. much sugar),
• no change in self-reported hunger or satiety, and
• no increase in physical activity and/or decrease in sedentary time that would help compensate the increased energy intake due to having breakfast (see Table 1),
• a practically irrelevant subjective increase in energy before the lunch-break

So, practically speaking: Everything people who criticize the notion that "everyone should have breakfast" argue against this overgeneralizing bogus advice happened; and that's in total opposition to the alleged benefits the mainstream promotes, of which none was observed.

If you don't have breakfast and feel fine: Do not start 2017. Here's why!

But Dr. Oz says... Yes, you can argue that the benefits take their time to surface, but in view of the fact that this is not the first convincing study to show that you better stick to your habitual breakfast habits instead of shoveling down a (in many cases) sugary (!) breakfast when you're not hungry.

No idea, what I am talking about? Well, review my 2015 article "Latest Study on 'Breakfast Skipping' Finds: Whether Skipping Breakfast Increases Insulin, Hunger, and Blood Lipids Depends on One's Breakfast Habits" (read the full 2015 article) to learn more about the ill-health-consequences of force-feeding yourself or others in the AM.

If you're a breakfast eater, on the other hand, don't stop what you're doing and exchange your (hopefully non-cereal-junk breakfast) for a latte or cappuccino, which is - what I guess - where many of the 66.8kcal in the non-breakfast group came from (see Table 1). You may, after all, share the same problem one of the dropouts had: you could be too physically active (in your job or due to your training schedule) to skip breakfast | Do you have breakfast habitually? Let me know.!

References:

• LeCheminant, et al. "A randomized controlled trial to study the effects of breakfast on energy intake, physical activity, and body fat in women who are nonhabitual breakfast eaters." Appetite - Available online 4 January 2017, in press, accepted manuscript 

Carb Up to Burn More Fat!? True or False: High CHO Diet Allows for 64% Greater Intra-, Post- & Total Fat Oxidation

You could use this exercise to deplete your glycogen levels before "cardio".

The title alone will be considered an atrocity by Taubes' evangelists: "High-CHO diet increases post-exercise oxygen consumption after a supramaximal exercise bout" (Ferreira. 2016 | title of the paper in the Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research). I mean, more carbs = lower fat oxidation, that's what they've been told for years. And in fact, the title says "after a supramaximal exercise bout" and thus appears to leave enough room for the low-carb run to still burn significantly more total fat. Unfortunately (for Taubes and co.), though, that's not the case.

Looking for more cutting edge exercise and supplementation science?

Vitargo, Red Bull, Creatine & More | ISSN'15 #1

Pump Supps & Synephrine & X | ISSN'15 #2

High Protein, Body Comp & X | ISSN'15 #3

Keto Diet Re- search Update | ISSN'15 #4

The Misquantified Self & More | ISSN'15 #5

BCAA, Cholos-trum, Probiotics & Co | ISSN'15 #6

If you take a look at the data in Figure 1, you will notice that the rate of fatty acid oxidation was significantly higher both during (EXERCISE) and after the workout (EPOC).

Figure 1: VO2 as a marker of fatty acid oxidation during (EXERCISE) and after (EPOC = excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) in 5 physically active males in response to submaximal exercise on high- vs. low-CHO diets (Ferreira. 2016).

Accordingly, the total amount of fat the subjects burned was larger, not smaller; and the effect size of ES = 1.8 further somehow reminds me of a sentence that I haven't heard ever since the rise of low-carb dieting: 'Fat burns in the fire of carbohydrates'.

Don't be fooled - Increased fatty acid oxidation does not necessarily translate to increased fat loss! If this is not your first SuppVersity article, you probably know that already. For the occasional newcomer, however, it is vital to understand that the lipids you burn during and after your workouts (a) won't necessarily come from your belly and (b) can be easily restored after the workout even if they came from your more or less abundant adipose energy stores.

Before we get deeper into the discussion of the implications of the results, however, it is imperative to take a look at the methodology of the experiment the scientists from Vitória de Santo Antão, the Universidade de São Paulo, and the Universidade Federal de Lavras have conducted last year.

Low(er) Carb Crossfitters May be Missing Out Significantly | more

"[A]fter receiving verbal and written explanations, and signing an informed consent, 5 physically active males (age 31.0±7.7 years, height 180.2±4.3 cm, body mass 77.0±7.7 kg, body fat 13.3±2.9%, V̇O2 peak 48.6±11.5 mL·kg-1·min-1) volunteered to participate in this study [...]

In order to produce a large difference in CHO availability, pre-SE endogenous CHO stores were altered by a combination of exercise and diet" (Ferreira. 2016)

Now these "alterations" comprised (a) a glycogen-depletion exercise protocol 48 h before each experimental session. As Ferreira et al. point out, "[t]his protocol consisted of a 90-min cycling at 50% of the difference between LT1 and LT2, followed by 6×1 min exercise bouts at 125% of V̇O2 peak; 1 min recovery was allowed between effort sets" (Ferreira. 2016), and (b) different baseline diets (see light-blue box for more information about the diet - will be updated, if possible).

Figure 2: Experimental design. After the preliminary and familiarization test, and a 7-day period, participants were submitted to a glycogen-depletion exercise protocol (GDEP), followed by 48 h having either a high- or low- carbohydrate (CHO) diet. At the end of the 48-h period, participants returned to the laboratory and performed the test experiment for data collection. After a washout period of 7 days, the process was repeated with participants who had the high CHO diet previously, receiving the low CHO diet, and vice-versa (Ferrera. 2016).

After the standardized glycogen-depletion exercimse protocol, participants followed the sequentially prescribed high- or low- carbohydrate (CHO) diet for 48h. At the end of the 48-h period, participants returned to the laboratory and performed the test experiment for data collection. After a washout period of 7 days, the process was repeated with participants who had the high CHO diet previously, receiving the low CHO diet, and vice-versa (crossover design, Figure 2).

UPDATE: Exact macronutrient and energy content of the diets: Yes, it is a bummer that the exact macronutrient composition is not mentioned in the article, but I've gotten a pretty fast response from the authors who tell me that the low-CHO diet with 10% carbohydrate, 35% lipids, and 55% protein is not a high fat, but a high protein diet, while the high-CHO diet is, more or less, a low fat, low protein diet. Any conclusions about a truly ketogenic (as being in full ketosis 24/7 due to high fat, low carbohydrate and relatively low protein intakes) diet are thus unwarranted - too much protein (and likely gluconeogenesis) going on with only 35% of lipids and 55% of the energy from protein; wha is not surpring, though, is that a diet with the lion's share of energy being delivered in form of protein is rather ergolytic than ergogenic.

In the test day, participants arrived at 8:00 am in the laboratory after a 12-h overnight fast and rested on a chair during 20 min for the assessment of resting V̇O2 value (Quark b2, Cosmed, Italy). Then, they underwent a 5-min warm-up at 50 W, followed by an SE at 115% of V̇O2 peak until exhaustion, which was assumed when participants were unable to maintain the pedal cadence above 60 rpm. Immediately after the test, they sat comfortably on a chair for 60 min. The V̇O2 peak was measured continuously from the baseline to the end of the 60-min post-exercise period (Quark b2, Cosmed).

You have already seen the results of the O2 analysis (baseline values were similar for both groups) in Figure 1. So, I will stick to the results I haven't reported, yet:

• 

  Two-A-Day Training - That's Bogus, Right? No - You Will Reward Yourself w/ Increased Fat Oxidation and more

  time to exhaustion increases in the high-CHO group (4.4±0.6 vs 3.0±0.6 min, P=0.01, ES=2.4 large, power effect=0.98),
• total mechanical work was greater in the high-CHO group (76.9±16.5 vs 50.9±9.4 kJ, P=0.001, ES=2.0 large, power effect=0.91) and
• the V̇O2 measured at exhaustion was slightly higher in high- compared to low-CHO diet (48.6±11.0 and 45.2±11.0 mL·kg-1·min-1, respectively, P=0.004, ES=0.3 small, power effect=0.08)

To summarize it in the authors' words: "The high-CHO diet increased exercise duration (∼32%) and total mechanical work (∼34%) during a single SE bout. The increased tolerance further led to an increased exercise energy expenditure (i.e., ∼30% VO2 increase)" (Ferreira. 2016).

Going to raid the fridge? You better don't do this after a workout. Myth says: Going to bed glycogen depleted will boost mitochondrial biogenesis - true of false?

Things to keep in mind, when interpreting the results: Now, before you start crying "foul play", let's address a few issues that must not be overlooked when you're talking about the practical implications of the study at hand. (A) With the preceding glycogen depletion protocol, we will probably have relatively low glycogen stores in both groups. This, in turn, will have lead to an increase of AMPK in the muscle during both conditions and could thus have produced similar rates of muscular fatty acid oxidation. (B) The "fat advantage" would thus, as the authors hint at in the previously quoted part from their discussion, simply a function of the increased exercise time.

That's not bad, but it is unlike the result that's implied in the title of the paper, not in opposition to previous studies which suggest that a high carbohydrate diet will increase the respiratory ratio (RER) and thus reduce the relative amount of fat to carbohydrates subjects (energy from fat:energy from carbs) will burn during the standardized workouts.

Now, from (A) and (B) follows that, unless you're doing glycogen-depleted cardio workouts (e.g. after leg training or as described in the "Sleep Low"-study from early 2016), there's only a relatively slim chance that you'd see an effect size of the magnitude Ferreira et al. report in their paper. In view of the fact that the previously explained RER is not a determinant of exercise-induced body fat loss, however, it's still (with and without glycogen depletion) possible that the ergogenic effects of the high(er) CHO diet and its ability to increase both, the total mechanical work and the workout duration (and thus the total energy expenditure), may still allow you to burn more body fat. Whether that's indeed the case, and high-carbing alongside glycogen depletion is, as Ferreira et al. speculate "[f]rom a practical standpoint, [...] an appealing strategy for a less time-consuming training and weight loss" (Ferreira. 2016), however, requires, as usual, further research | Comment!

References:

• Ferreira, G. A., et al. "High-CHO diet increases post-exercise oxygen consumption after a supramaximal exercise bout." Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 49.11 (2016).

If 'Size' is Your Goal, 30s Rest & 20 Reps Beat 3 Min Rest & 8 Reps to Failure -- Extra 100% Biceps Gains in 8 Week Study

Do women have to complain that training makes them "bulky", because they're doing it right (high rep, low weight, short rest) while their boyfriends don't?... What? Don't worry, I am just kiddin'.

As a loyal SuppVersity readers, you will remember my 2016 article: "Not Resting Long Enough May Ruin Your Gains! 1 vs. 5 min Cut Post-Workout Increase in Protein Synthesis by 50%!" (read it). Now, back in the day I already pointed out that "the study at hand only proves what we already knew - training volume is more important than metabolic stress when it comes to hypertrophy gains" (SV. 2016) and still many people (mis-)interpreted the results in their black-and-white world as "final evidence" that you'd have to turn your workout into a coffee (or intra-workout) party to make the gains you feel you deserve. That's a mistake you should not repeat by taking the publication of a recent study from the Nippon Sport Science University as a reason to stop resting (and using heavy weights) altogether.

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!

But before we get to the implications, let's first take a look at the study itself. The corresponding experiments were conducted by Julius Fink, Naoki Kikuchi and Koichi Nakazato (Fink. 2016); and the authors did two things McEndry et al. the authors of the previously cited acute-phase study of the protein anabolic response to exercise failed to do in their study:

• Fink et al. investigated the effects of volume-matched resistance training (RT) regimen, and
• they tested both, the acute responses and long-term muscle and strength gains

McEndry et al. (2016) had stuck to the acute protein response to non-volume matched training regimen. That's not necessarily worse, but it limits the significance of the study results in a different way than the design of the more recent study by Fink et al., in which

More protein helps more?!

"[t]wenty young athletes (members of a university gymnastics club) volunteered to participate in this study [with previous] weight training [experience of >2 years] were randomly assigned to either the SL group (30-s rest, 20 RM) or the long-rest and LH group (3-min rest, 8 RM) and performed the same number of sets and exercises for the arm muscles three times per week for 8 weeks" (Fink. 2016).

Both groups performed each set to failure and used the same set of exercises: three biceps and three triceps exercises in form of

• barbell curl,
• preacher curl,
• hammer curl,

• close grip bench press,
• French press and
• dumbbell extension

Even though I doubt that this was necessary for the majority of the experienced trainees, all participants were familiarized with the exercises 2 weeks prior to the start of the experiment by qualified trainers. The same goes for the differential training styles, the authors describe as follows:

• The SL group did each exercise with a rest of 30 s between sets and exercises at 20 RM. 
• The LH group rested 3 min between sets and exercises with a training intensity of 8 RM. 
• In both groups, each set was performed to failure with a cadence of 1 s for the concentric and 2 s for the eccentric part of the movement. 
• The training sessions were performed three times per week for 8 weeks and supervised by a staff of qualified personal trainers.

Over the course of the 8-week study, the weight was increased by 10%, whenever, the participants, whose training experience of >2 years and body fat % of 10.9 and 13.3%, in the SL and LH group, respectively qualifies them as fitness enthusiasts, could perform more than 20 repetitions for the SL group or more than eight repetitions for the LH group. As previously pointed out, the volume (reps x load) was supposed to be identical and that worked out quite well - with one exception, the barbell curl, where the SL group trained at a sign. higher volume (see Table 1), of which one must, however, doubt that it alone could explain the already hinted at SL advantage.

Table 1: Total training volume, calculated as number of repetitions x training load ( SD) for three sets of each exercise; SL, short rest with the low-load protocol; LH, long rest with the high-load protocol (Fink. 2016).

The acute change in muscle thickness (MT) was assessed before and immediately after a single bout of RT via ultrasound imaging (Prosound 2; Hitachi Aloka Medical, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan | same method as in Schoenfeld et al., 2015a,b), the chronic adaptation was measured with MRI (AIRIS II; Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) 72–96 h after the last RT session (learn why this is important).

Figure 1: Acute growth hormone response to SL and LH workouts and the lack of correlation between acute GH increases and gains in terms of actual muscle circumference gains (CSA, right | Fink. 2016).

The analysis of the hormonal response to exercise (plotted in Figure 1), is unsurprising. We already knew from previous studies that the SL protocol would produce greater increases in growth hormone (GH) than the LH protocol with its long rest-times. The same must be said of the correlation (and implied effect) of these increases with the subjects' size gains which did - as in almost every previous study - not correlate with the hormonal response to the workouts (see Figure 1, right).

Should I change my workout style now? No. If you're still making progress, I would not hectically change everything. What I would do, however, is to read up on periodization (learn more) and plan to change your workouts regularly using both lower and higher weights and shorter and longer inter-set rest times periodically and for your own benefit.

Figure 2: Rel. size (top) and strength gains (bottom) over 8 weeks (Fink. 2016)

If we compare the long-term effects on the muscle cross-sectional areas (CSAs), as well as the changes in muscle strength (measured as maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the biceps) between studies, however, the differences approach statistical significance.

Whether and in which way (corollary or mechanistically) the long-term extra gains in the SL group (see Figure 2, top) are related to the observation that the muscle thickness increased significantly only after a single bout of SL training  (35 .2 +/- 16- 9%, P<0 05) (ES = 3 17), but not after a bout of LH training (13. 7 +/- 10. 8%) would warrant further investigation.

What appears to be easier to understand than the hypertrophy advantage of the SL training is the fact that the lack of heavy resistance training in the SL group (the SL group showed a non-significant decrease in strength of 5 .9 +/- 8. 6%; ES = 0 46) lead to a decrease in MVC in this group of previously resistance trained individuals (see Figure 2, bottom).

Shall you forget about long rest times? I understand that you gravitate towards simple solutions. Unfortunately, those simple solutions are the reason you are not making the gains you could make if you finally got rid of the stupid idea that there was one ideal workout routine, you'd just have to find and could then follow for the rest of your life.

Strength Plateau? Try Daily Changing Loads: To Boost 6-Week Strength Gains on All Major Lifts by ~40%.

How's that wrong? It's what the study says SL is better than LH, right? Well, the study at hand does indeed suggest that training with more reps and low(er) rest builds more muscle (note that the results could be very different for other muscles, e.g. the legs, or other trainees, i.e. rookies), while training with long(er) rest and more weight will boost strength gains. Eventually, however, the differences are (a) not statistically significant and (b) not independent of each other. Strength and size gains are not like the two sides of the same coin. They are yet also not unrelated.

Accordingly, the question is not whether you want size or strength/ power and thus train with short(er) rest and low(er) weights or long(er) rest and high(er) weights. No, making optimal gains is rather a question of balancing all three domains of "gains", i.e. size, strength and anaerobic power (Pasiakos. 2015) within a well-planned periodization regimen that would - if the volume is controlled for - favor size gains during the short rest, high rep / low weight and strength gains during the long rest, low(er) rep / high(er) weight phases | Comment!

References:

• Fink et al. "Effects of rest intervals and training loads on metabolic stress and muscle hypertrophy." Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2016) - Ahead of print.
• Pasiakos, Stefan M., Tom M. McLellan, and Harris R. Lieberman. "The effects of protein supplements on muscle mass, strength, and aerobic and anaerobic power in healthy adults: a systematic review." Sports Medicine 45.1 (2015): 111-131.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Effects of low-vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29.10 (2015a): 2954-2963.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men." Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2015b).