Rest-Pause Yields 36% Greater Gains in Thigh Size in 6-Week Study With Trained Subjects - Awesome!? Well...

Yet another study, where reading only the abstract - let alone the conclusion - may be utterly misleading. Always ask for effect sizes and absolute changes.

Not even hot off the press, but still weeks before its official publication is the latest paper by Jonato Prestes and colleagues from the Catholic University of Brasilia, the Rocky Mountain College in the USA and the Faculty Estacio of Vitoria in Brazil (Prestes 2017). The corresponding study was designed to eventually fill the research gap that exists with respect to the longitudinal effects of the rest-pause method on muscle strength and hypertrophy; or, as the authors write, "the purpose of the present study was to compare the longitudinal effects of six weeks of rest-pause versus a traditional multiple-set RT on muscle strength, hypertrophy, localized muscular endurance, and body composition in trained subjects" (Prestes 2017).

Are you trying to optimize your training for gains? Find inspiration in these articles:

What's the Latest on Failure?

Drop-Sets: Vol-ume ↑, Gains ↕

Pyramid- and/or Drop-Setting!?

Training to Failure = Extra Gains?

Super-Setting - Yes, but How?

Eccentrics For Excellent Gains?

In that, Prestes et al. started with the "initial hypothesis [...] that RT with the rest-pause method would increase muscle mass and strength to a greater extent versus traditional multiple-set training, with no differences between protocols in altering body composition.

Figure 1: Overview of the exercises. Overall the subjects performed four weekly sessions. Routine A was performed 2 days per week (Monday and Wednesday) and routine B was performed 2 days per week (Tuesday and Thursday).

If you scrutinize the data in Figure 2 you will see that the effects of the two resistance training programs (A/B routines done on Monday and Wednesday | see Table 1) on the subjects' body composition was only marginal, anyway.

Figure 1: Neither of the two protocols yielded significant changes in body composition (lean or fat mass); this is not surprising in the absence of diet and in view of the fact that the subjects were trained, already (Prestes 2017).

And that war irrespective of the training program they'd followed and thus notwithstanding the exercise duration (57 and 35 minutes for the traditional and rest-pause methods, respectively) and the way in which the prescribed 18 repetitions at 80% of 1 RM for each exercise were performed:

• rest-pause group: an initial set with 80% of 1-RM was performed until failure with subsequent sets performed with a 20 sec inter-set rest interval until a total of 18 repetitions were completed; 2-3 min of rest between exercises.
• traditional multi-set group: exercises were performed for three sets of 6 repetitions with 80% of 1-RM; 2-3 min of rest between sets and exercises.

All training sessions were carefully supervised by a certified strength and conditioning professional, and adherence to the training program was ~90% for both groups. Also, during microcycles, no reduction in training intensity or assistance was provided for the rest-pause group as recommend by Marshall et al (2012), because that could have messed with the results.

Just in case you haven't seen it, yet: Another very recent study shows that cluster-training, which differs from rest-pause because it prescribes when you stop your set (here: 3x2 reps vs. rest-pause e.g. 3 reps, 2 reps 1 rep) builds power and explosiveness, but no extra size (learn more in the SuppVersity Faceboook News)

To which extent the last-mentioned principle reduced the observed superiority of the rest-pause regimen in terms of its effect on localized muscular endurance during the leg press (not shown; 27 ± 8% for rest-pause versus 8 ± 2% for traditional training) and muscle hypertrophy of the thigh (see Figure 3) isn't clear. What is clear, however, is that it's probably no coincidence that both the muscle endurance and the size of the thigh muscle (rest-pause: 11 ± 14% versus traditional 15 multiple-set: 1 ± 7%) significantly increased.

Figure 3: Relative changes (%) in muscle circumference with the two training protocols; all calculated effect sizes are "trivial", again; p < 0.05 for the inter-group difference in the increase in thigh muscle thickness (Prestes 2017).

The observation that 'the legs' benefit most, may be disappointing for the average gym bro who feels that he doesn't have to train legs, because his legs would be too big already, for the advanced trainer and trainee, on the other hand, it is convincing evidence that the rest-pause method may or should be used muscle specific and in order to turn the overall "trivial" gains of experienced strength trainees, like the ones who volunteered for the study at hand, from an almost too small to see 1.3 cm increase to a similarly trivial 1.9 cm increase in thigh size ;-)

Related - SuppVersity Related Classic: Building Extra-Strength With Cluster Training (6x1 With 25s Rest) - Works, but Don't Make the Mistake to Underestimate the Efficacy of Classic Strength Training, Bro! | learn more

Bottom line: If you'd read only the scientists conclusion that their study would suggest that "the rest-pause method resulted in greater gains in localized muscular endurance and hypertrophy for the thigh musculature," (Prestes 2017) you'd probably expect more than a 0.9% additional improvement in thigh circumference, standard deviations that exceed the inter-group differences and effect sizes that are still "trivial" in both, the technical and literal sense of the word, right? Unfortunately, that's exactly what the scientists found in this small scale study: small absolute differences, a high inter-subject variability, and "trivial" effect sizes, which highlight that the likelihood that your legs will grow like crazy when you incorporate the rest-pause technique into your training routine is "trivial", as well.

Does this mean that using rest-pause is a waste of time and effort? Well, take another look at the figures and let me repeat my concluding remark that the study would provide "convincing evidence that the rest-pause method may or should be used muscle specific and in order to turn the overall "trivial" gains of experienced strength trainees [...] from an almost too small to see 1.3 cm increase to a similarly trivial 1.9 cm increase in thigh size". I guess by now you will realize that the rest-pause technique may not deliver the steroid-like gains some people expect whenever they read about "greater gains" in the conclusions of scientific papers. This doesn't mean, however, that it couldn't, provide the extra growth stimulus experienced athletes and their trainers need to make those, often trivial extra gains that make the difference between victory and defeat | Comment! 

References:

• Marshall, Paul WM, et al. "Acute neuromuscular and fatigue responses to the rest-pause method." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 15.2 (2012): 153-158.
• Prestes J., et al. "Strength and muscular adaptations following 6 weeks of rest pause versus traditional multiple-sets resistance training in trained subjects". Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Published Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001923.

Elevation Masks are STILL a Useless Torture Tool & Fashion Accessory for Gymrats, But Some Athletes May Benefit

The masks are no alternative for altitude training - that's quite certain.

It is more than one year ago that I've highlighted the results of Warren's study in the International Journal of Exercise Science in the SuppVersity Facebook News. In view of the fact that I still see people being confused by the producers of respective fashion gadgets (yes, that's what it is: it's cool to look like Bane, when you're training, but it's not effective), I do yet think that it's worth writing a short article about the myth that a mask that does nothing, but obstruct your breath would yield a training effect that was even remotely comparable to the effects of real hypoxia training, where you can breathe freely but don't get enough oxygen from the air you breathe from a tank or at high altitudes.

Read about more or less exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

Alcohol, Microbes & International Chest Day

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

THC, Basketball Shoes + Gainz & Brain Health

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

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

The Latest Fiber & Microbiome Research

In the aforementioned study, the researchers from Texas A&M tried to figure out whether so-called "elevation training masks" (ETMs) would boost the VO2max of male Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) cadets. For this purpose, Warren et al. recruited fourteen male ROTC cadets (age 20.00 ± 1.8 yrs, height 174.35 cm ± 3.1 cm, weight 76.75 kg ± 11.09 kg, body fat 13.88% ± 4.62%) who were then randomly assigned to either the control or experimental group, respectively. All participants did the standard ROTC program, the authors describe as follows:

"In conjunction with each training session, there was a warm-up and cool-down period. The first training session consisted of one moderate-distance run that was approximately 2 miles and was performed in an interval style with 60 seconds of slow jogging followed by a 10 second sprint. The second day had participants rotate through an 8-station body weight circuit. The longest run was always on the third training day, which required the cadets to run approximately 4 miles at a steady pace" (Warren. 2017).

The training period of the study was seven weeks. Each subject participating 3 days per week. Over the course of the seven-week training sequence, the breathing resistance on the "elevation mask" was increased from a resistance that was meant to simulate 3,000 feet above sea level in 3,000 feet intervals. Accordingly, the resistance at the beginning of week 4, after which no further increases were undertaken, was set to what the producers of the masks claim would simulate training at 12,000 feet (for Europeans: that's 3657.6 meters) above sea level.

Figure 1: Changes in VO2Max (left) for each subject and abs. VO2Max pre- vs. post data for all subjects (Warren 2017).

As Warren et al. point out, "[t]his specific progression was chosen due to its linear fashion over time" (Warren 2017). In theory, choosing a different progression regimen (e.g. progress by only 1,000 feet per week or in two 6,000 feet steps) could thus yield different training outcomes.

Figure 2: In a small-scale study by Laurel et al. the use of an elevation training mask did not augment the pre-post-test time-trial performance (not shown) and it messed with the subjects' resting heart rate, which improved in the control and deteriorated (albeit not significantly) in the experimental condition (Lauren 2015).

In view of the fact that a study from the University of Texas at Arlington in 18-35 year-old volunteers saw detrimental, not beneficial effects on their resting heart rate and thus one of the measured indices of adaptation when they used an Elevation Training Mask 2.0 to simulate high altitude train from the ranges of 3000 feet to 18,000 feet above sea level, either, I do yet have my doubts that the null result in Warren's study is a consequence of a suboptimal progression strategy.

If there's a chance that the masks are more than a fashion gimmick, ...

this has to be a 'side effect' of a potential training effect the masks could have on your inspiratory muscle (learn more about inspiratory muscle training aka "IMT"). Even though, the evidence that the musculature you use to suck in the air is a bottleneck for athletic performance is ambiguous and studies such as William et al. (2002) or Inbar et al. who had their well-trained endurance athletes use a special threshold inspiratory muscle trainer for 0.5 h x d(-1) six times a week for 10 weeks found no performance increases, in spite of significant increases in inspiratory muscle performance, there are also studies that suggest beneficial effects on exercise performance in noobs and pro-athletes:

• Chatham, et al. who report reduced levels of breathlessness, and increase in predicted (not measured) VO2 max in healthy, but untrained subjects after 10 weeks and 30 Tests of Incremental Respiratory Endurance (TIRE) set at 80% of peak.
• Volianitis et al. 2001 who found an increase in the distance those of the 14 female competitive rowers who had been randomly assigned to the active treatment covered in a 5 min all-out rowing test, as well as an increase in time-trial performance after 11 weeks of twice daily inspiratory muscle training on a specifically designed device.
• Romer et al. 2002 who observed that inspiratory muscle training attenuates the perceptual response to maximal incremental exercise and a marginally higher increase in 20 and 40km time-trial performance in 16 healthy trained male road cyclists.
• Enright et al. 2006 who observed non-specified (full text not available) increases "exercise capacity in people who are healthy", but previously untrained in response to an 8-week program of IMT set at 80% of maximal effort. 

Even though these studies would suggest that inspiratory muscle training could yield performance increments, it is by no means clear if these effects could be triggered by the use of an "elevation masks". The resistance of these devices is, after all, much lower than the one you'd experience with one of the specifically designed IMT devices. Moreover, if this 'side effect' of the failed alternative to altitude training existed, we should have seen some effects in the previously cited studies by Warren and Lauren, too. Personally, I would thus not put too much faith in a conceivable cross-over effect of wearing an "elevation mask" even the producers of such devices apparently haven't thought about yet.

Related SuppVersity Classic: Inspiratory Muscle Training, HIIT or RT for Your Kids? Cold Water Immersion & Altitude Training - Who Benefits, When? Learn more!

Bottom line: There are two things you should remember about "elevation masks". (A) There's no evidence that they work the way the people who sell them advertise them. And let's be honest: eventually, it is only logical that something that does nothing but obstruct your airways won't trigger the same adaptational response as breathing oxygen-deprived air in a pressure reduced environment as you would do in an altitude training camp or in a hypoxic hypobaric chamber is only logical, isn't it? In one condition, namely with the "elevation mask" your body gets the signal that your mechanical ability to breath needs an upgrade. In the other condition, it gets the signal that your ability to extract, use and transport oxygen has to improve.

This leaves us with the second thing to remember: (B) If anything beneficial effects on exercise performance of simple "elevation masks" could be triggered by their ability to train your inspiratory muscles. That these 'side effects' are statistically significant, let alone practically relevant, however, appears unlikely. If such an effect existed, the studies by Warren and Lauren should have detected at least some benefits of wearing an elevation mask. The fact that no benefits were observed does, therefore, suggest that "elevation masks" are neat and maybe trendy sports fashion accessory for the bro who likes to look "hardcore", but certainly not a must (or should) have for the average gymrat | Leave a comment on the SuppVersity Facebook Page!

References:

• Chatham, K., et al. "Inspiratory muscle training improves shuttle run performance in healthy subjects." Physiotherapy 85.12 (1999): 676-683.
• Enright, Stephanie J., et al. "Effect of high-intensity inspiratory muscle training on lung volumes, diaphragm thickness, and exercise capacity in subjects who are healthy." Physical therapy 86.3 (2006): 345.
• Inbar, Omri, et al. "Specific inspiratory muscle training in well-trained endurance athletes." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32.7 (2000): 1233-1237.
• Lauren, Bryan, et al. "Physiological Change Through Aerobic Exercise Under Hypoxic Conditions With An Elevation Mask." (2015).
• Romer, Lee M., Alison K. McConnell, and David A. Jones. "Effects of inspiratory muscle training on time-trial performance in trained cyclists." Journal of sports sciences 20.7 (2002): 547-590.
• Volianitis, Stefanos, et al. "Inspiratory muscle training improves rowing performance." (2001).
• Warren, Brian G., Frank Spaniol, and Randy Bonnette. "The effects of an elevation training mask on VO2Max of male reserve officers training corps cadets." International Journal of Exercise Science 10.1 (2017): 4.
• Williams, James S., et al. "Inspiratory muscle training fails to improve endurance capacity in athletes." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 34.7 (2002): 1194-1198.

Morning vs. Afternoon Cardio: Early Birds DO Have a Fat Loss Advantage, Authors of New Human Study Conclude

I know, this may be disappointing, but the study at hand won't settle the debate once and for all.

Even though Brad Schoenfeld's often-cited "fasted cardio" study suggests that the long-standing myth that "cardio", i.e. aerobic training at moderate intensities, would burn more body fat if you do it in a fasted state in the AM didn't yield the results proponents of "fasted cardio" hoped for, the myth that there's something to doing your cardio training in the AM is still unrefuted.

In their latest study, scientists from the Sports Medicine Research Center and the Department of Sports and Exercise Medicine at the Teheran University of Medical Science did now try to get to the bottom of the "early is better"-myth.

Based on the observation that exercise can significantly affect your appetite, wich almost 16% of the interventional trials that evaluated the correlation between physical activity and food intake showing that volunteers’ appetite decreases after exercise, and the majority indicating that it remained unchanged, they speculated that the often-cited mechanism, i.e. an increase in fatty acid oxidation with AM training (done in the fasted state) could be irrelevant compared to the effects of early exercise on (obese) subjects' appetite and thus food intake within a given 24h period.

Learn more about using cardio to lose body fat and if timing matters:

AM vs. PM Cardio - Fat Oxid. in Athletes

Breakin' the Fast, Cardio & Your Brain

Greater Gains With Cardio B4 Weights in the PM

AM Cardio Burns 50% More Fat over 24h, But...

How Much Cardio Messes W/ Your Strength Training?

Fasted Cardio While Dieting ≠ Greater Fat Loss

As Alizadeh, et al. point out in the corresponding paper in Clinical Obesity (Alizadeh 2017), "there are few studies that consider the effect of a single session of exercise at different times of day on appetite or food consumption". In view of the "lack of time, as is a common barrier in modern life," the authors do yet believe that "exercise should be undertaken at the best time of day in order to obtain maximal appetite suppression and greater weight loss" (ibid.). To figure out, whether this time is in the morning or the evening they conducted a 6-week study to compare the effect of 6 weeks of morning or evening aerobic exercise on appetite and anthropometric indices in N=48 20–45-year-old female participants with body mass index (BMI) of between 25 and 29.9 kg/m². Inactive patients were chosen "to eliminate the effects of other types of exercise on outcomes" (ibid.) and "to decrease the risk of musculoskeletal injuries during exercise testing and prescribed aerobic exercise" (ibid.).

A total of 25 patients participated in the morning aerobic exercise (ME) as group 1 and scheduled to perform their supervised training sessions within 8–10 AM, while the other subjects had to report at the lab between 2–4 PM. All exercise session included 30 min treadmill running in the VT heart rate (this is when you can no longer talk to someone without breathing heavily).

Figure 1: Baseline demographics, anthropometric measurements and physical characteristics of the study participants; data are expressed as mean ± SD unless otherwise stated. (Alizadeh 2017).

The subjects' rate or perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded in the peak of the exercise session at baseline and in the third and the sixth week of the trial. All participants were asked to complete food record forms 24 h before and after exercise sessions and to fill out an appetite visual analogue scale in order to estimate the level of prospective food consumption; fullness; hunger; satiety; and the desire to eat savoury, sweet, salty and fatty foods before the exercise session and 15 min after at baseline and in the third and the sixth week of the trial. In addition, body analysis and anthropometric measurements were taken at three time-points that have been mentioned before.

Figure 1: Changes in anthropometric variables over the course of the 6-week study (Alizadeh 2017).

As you can see in Figure 1 there was a "weighty" advantage for the AM group. The latter is in line with the scientists' observations that ...

• 

  Table 2: Summary of 24-h food records over time in the morning and evening exercise groups (Alizadeh 2017).

  even though subjects in both groups burned the same amount of energy during their workouts [the patterns of change of RPE, speed and estimated mean heart rate during the exercise session were similar over time between the two groups] and didn't have different post-workout appetite scores,
• the effects on the subjects' energy intakes differed significantly [the subjects in the AM group consumed -17% less energy; most of the reduction came from carbs | Table 2]

Now, all that sounds great, what's not so great, however, is the fact that the scientists didn't find significant changes in body composition. Since they used a pretty unreliable Impedance Analyzer (AVIS33 body composition analyzer, Jawon Medical Co. Ltd, South Korea) to generate the lean mass and fat mass data in Figure 1, it does yet make more sense to focus on the skinfold data to assess the body fat reduction. Here we can see a surprisingly significant inter-group difference (see Figure 1, right), with...

• an increased reduction in abdominal skinfold thickness in the AM (add. 3.8%), and
• an increased reduction in suprailiac skinfold thickness in the PM (add. 5.6%) group,

which (the inter-group difference) is hard, if not impossible to explain. This leaves us with an increased loss of body weight, of which we cannot tell for sure where it was lost - not exactly what I would call convincing evidence in favor of AM cardio.

New "Fasted Cardio"-Study Falsifies the Myth of Superior Fat Loss on a Moderate Energy Deficit | more.

Calories count and cardio doesn't make you hungry: No, the short duration the scientists emphasize time-and-again is certainly not the most important weakness of the study (that's the way the body composition was assessed) - and still: There's one thing we may take away from the study that can help you (or your clients) lose weight: The energy you spend during cardio is not fully compensated later in the day; and that goes for both, not just the AM group.

AM cardio, on the other hand, appears to have the added bonus that it actually reduces the food intake and will thus result in an overall greater reduction in body weight.

I would still say that we need further studies to confirm the consistency of this effect and assess more relevant outcome values, such as the effect on blood glucose management and DXA-confirmed body composition changes in both, couch potatoes as in the study at hand, and more athletic individuals, to say with confidence that it "appears that moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise in the morning could be considered a more effective program than evening exercise on appetite control, calorie intake and weight loss" (Alizadeh 2017). | Comment!

References:

• Alizadeh, Z., Younespour, S., Rajabian Tabesh, M. and Haghravan, S. (2017), Comparison between the effect of 6 weeks of morning or evening aerobic exercise on appetite and anthropometric indices: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Obesity. doi: 10.1111/cob.12187

Cannabis, Basketball Shoes With Cushioning and the Brain-Building Effect(s) of Your Beloved Hypertrophy Workouts

Cannabis is bad for athletes,... well, unless they're asthmatics; and in that case they'd better use beta-agonists, which have welcome previously discussed ergogenic "side effects".

It's April and time for another installment of the SuppVersity Short News about sports medicine and related topics. In articles like the one at hand, I discuss a selection of recent studies - usually from a single journal like, in this case, the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport and often, as in this case, based on papers that have been accepted for publication, already but haven't been published, yet.

In today's installment we'll deal with cannabis, shoe cushings and the brain building (BDNF boosting effects) of hypertrophy-oriented resistance training... and, not to forget, the fallacy of taking into account only exercise-induced stressors, when you periodize your training.

Read about more or less exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

Alcohol, Microbes & International Chest Day

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

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

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

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

The Latest Fiber & Microbiome Research

• Cannabis, how bad is it for athletes? (Kennedy 2017) -- While most serious athletes would probably never even think about smoking dope, many wanna-be fitness athletes don't want to or can no longer stay away from cannabis. For this group of people, in which some even claim their physical performance would benefit from THC abuse, it is quite unfortunate that there are only 15 published studies have investigated the effects of THC in association with exercise protocols.
  

  

  Figure 1: Don't lie to yourself, that pot you're smoking ain't ergogenic, bro.

  Unsurprisingly, none of the studies showed any improvement in aerobic performance. What is intriguing, though, is that exercise-induced asthma was shown to be inhibited in one and the marihuana precipitated angina lead to at a lower workload (100% of subjects) and probably reduced strength in all studies.
  
  Moreover, the review by Kennedy highlights that some subjects could not complete an exercise protocol because of adverse reactions (e.g. palpitations, or sudden weakness) to cannabis. Rather than to take cannabis, athletes who have become addicted to cannabis should and could use exercise to reduce their cannabis cravings; after all, Baily et al. (2012) were able to show that cannabis cravings decrease sign. with moderate exercise.
• Shoe cushioning injury-protective only during unexpected movements (Fu 2017) -- Even though the sneaker industry tries to generate the opposite impression, to date, few rigorous scientific studies have been conducted to understand the impact mechanics and muscle activation characteristics of different landing tasks and the influence of shoe properties.
  
  

  

  Barefoot or Shod? A Question of Faith & Science: Science Says It's Safe and Economic, Practitioners Say "It's Making Me Faster & Helped Me Get Rid of Nagging Injuries!" | more

  In a recent study, scientists from the Shanghai University of Sport tried to add to this evidence by examining the effects of shoe cushioning on impact biomechanics and muscular responses during drop landings.
  
  As already hinted at in the bolded lead to this bullet-point, the beneficial effects of an extra cushioning were observed in the male collegiate basketball players, who performed bipedal landings from self-initiated and unexpected drops (SIDL and UDL) from a 60-cm height wearing highly cushioned basketball shoes (Bball) and less cushioned control shoes (CC) in the study at hand, were observed only in the unexpected condition.
  
  More specifically, both peak vertical ground reaction forces (GRF) and heel acceleration were significantly lower in Bball compared to CC. Furthermore, the EMGRMS of TA, RF, VL, and BF muscles showed a significant decrease in Bball compared to CC within the 50 ms after contact.
• Hypertrophy training ain't making you dumb, but smart (Marston 2017) -- Previously, the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF | promotes the survival of nerve cells (neurons) by playing a role in the growth, maturation (differentiation), and maintenance of these cells) has been shown to increase in an intensity-dependent manner in response to aerobic exercise. In the absence of evidence from resistance training studies, however, you would often read that this increase in the "brain building hormone" was exclusive to aerobic training. That this is by no means the case has just been shown in a recent study in eleven untrained to intermediately trained males (age: 25.0 ± 1.3 yr) and five untrained females (age: 23.2 ± 1.1 yr).
  
  All subjects undertook the same two bouts of resistance exercise: strength (five sets of five repetitions, 180 s recovery) and hypertrophy (three sets of ten repetitions, 60 s recovery), both implemented to fatigue to examine the effect on serum BDNF and blood lactate levels immediately post-, and 30 min post-exercise.
  

  

  Figure 2: Absolute (left) and changes in BDNF level (right) in the two study groups (Marston 2017).

  As you can see in Figure 2, there was a clear interaction (p < 0.01; ES = 0.52) with BDNF for both types of exercise, but the hypertrophy regimen resulted in significantly greater BDNF levels when compared with strength exercise.
  
  The fact that the levels declined non-significantly after 30 minutes should not scare you, by the way, similar effects have been observed for the allegedly healthier "cardio" (=aerobic) training in the past, as well.

Take Control of Your Cortisol Levels - Use These 5x Stress-Modulating Diet, Lifestyle & Supplementation Rules Wisely | learn more

That's it? Not exactly... In a recent paper Buckner et al. (2017) point out that the often-heard application of Hans Selye's "General Adaptation Syndrome" theory to resistance training is at least highly questionable. While the original application of GAS to resistance exercise was to avoid overtraining, trainers and trainees extend its validity to another domain when they use it as the guiding principle in their periodized training programs: As Buckner et al point out, "periodization has [yet] become the gold standard of programming, taking on an identity outside its original purpose of managing 'adaptation energy' and avoiding overtraining", which does not take into account stress from everyday life and stress from supplemental exercise.

"This is important", as the authors point out, because "periodized resistance training should be training that attempts to account for the totality of stress in an individual’s life" (my emphasis in Buckner 2017) - and that's valid for pro-athletes and, even more so, hobby athletes like you and me who have a regular full-time job and a private life that's not always stress-free, either | Comment!

References:

• Bailey, Stephen P., Evan Adler, and Laura Hamilton. "Impact Of Aerobic Exercise Of Varying Intensities On Craving In Cannabis-dependent Adults." Medicine in Sciene and Sports and Exercise. Vol. 44, 2012.
• Buckner, et al. "The General Adaptation Syndrome: Potential misapplications to resistance exercise." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Available online 21 March 2017.
• Fu, et al. "Shoe Cushioning Reduces Impact and Muscle Activation during Landings from Unexpected, but not Self-initiated, Drops." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Available online 21 March 2017.
• Kennedy, et al. "Cannabis: exercise performance and sport. A systematic review." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Available online 21 March 2017. 
• Marston, et al. "Intense resistance exercise increases peripheral brain-derived neurotrophic factor." Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. Available online 21 March 2017.

Is 'Meat' Bad for us, or Rather the Products we Call 'Meat' - A Mix of Preservatives + Colorings That's Killing Us Slowly?

Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce: the worst offenders in the "meat" category. Foods that owe their color, their taste, their shelf-life and their tolerable bacterial count to an amount of food additives that makes me question whether these food products are still "meats".

You will probably remember from previous SuppVersity articles that the association between meat, cancer, diabetes and other ailments of the Western Diabesity Society often vanish when studies successfully adjust the odds ratios for developing one of multiple of these diseases for fresh (=unprocessed) vs. processed meat intake.

One reason for this observation unquestionably is oxidative damage to the protein and fat content of meat product during processing. Unlike these factors and the oxidation of fats that you add when you prepare the meat, there's yet another potential reason for the bad effects of processed meats on our health: many of them are only par meat, part additive.

Meat is an essential part of the "paleo diet" | Learn more about meat at the SuppVersity

You May Eat Pork, too!

You Eat What You Feed!

Meat & Prostate Cancer?

Meat - Is cooking the problem

Meat Packaging = Problem?

Grass-Fed Pork? Is it Worth it?

I know that's confusing. So let me explain: As Marco Iammarino, Rosaria Marino and Marzia Albenzio point out in their latest review, "meat products may be compromised by several admitted and not admitted procedures (i.e. addition of food additives and/or foreign proteins)" (Iammarino 2017) - to decide whether it's the meat, as in everything you get from the healthy, naturally reared animal, or the additives which are making you sick is thus impossible and accordingly beyond the scope of this article. What is within its scope, on the other hand, is to provide an overview of what exactly you may be eating on a daily basis and advise on how to reduce your exposure to pseudo-meat, significantly.

Figure 1: Colorectal cancer risk increase w/ 100g and 25g higher intake of total red meat (incl. processed meat) or all processed meats (incl. white meats), respectively (calculated in a meta-analysis by Sandhu et al. 2001), per day.

Now, it would be unfair to say that all meat producers and processors were focusing exclusively on profit maximization. While this is, as we are about to see in this review, clearly the case, battling pathogens, reducing the growth of inert, but still unwanted bacteria and tailoring to our own demand for unperishable goods are actually the primary reasons why producers and processors use food additives such as...

• colors (cochineal, carminic acid, carmines, allura red AG and caramels),
• preservatives (sulfites, acetates),
• acidity regulators (ascorbates, lactates, citrates, and phosphates),
• polyphosphates and nitrates (sulfites, nitrites, nitrates, etc.)

Many of these ingredients are considered "GRASS" (=generally regarded safe) when consumed on their own and in small quantities. When they get together for an additive-party in the sausages you bought for tomorrow's barbecue, however, they may form a sickening cocktail of which we already know that it will, at least, increase the formation of unwanted compounds such as nitrosamines in your meats (sulphites, nitrites, and nitrates are responsible for this effect).

"For these reasons, the topic ‘food additives in meat and meat products’ has become an
emerging issue in food safety" (Iammarino 2017).

Even if we take a look only at the long list of potentially health relevant (ill) health effects of single food additives, we will find all sorts of ailments - from an allergic reaction to cancer.

• Sulphiting agents are used in the sulfuring treatment of fresh meat (but also bottled soft drinks, juice, fruit bars, dried foods, salads and fruit salads, or gelatin and coconut, as well as medications and cosmetics) and meant to avoid bacterial contamination and browning of the foods. Unfortunately, they have been implicated in asthma and other allergies (Vally 2009) and the USDA food safety documents list symptoms including chest tightness, hives, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and breathing problems (USDA^a) - according to a 1995 paper by M.R. Lester only < .05% of the population are affected, though (Lester 1995).
  

  

  Figure 1: There are also naturally sulphated foods, a greater health threat, however, seems to come w/ added sodium or potassium metabisulfite, bisulfite, sodium bisulfite/-sulfite in "meat" products (Lester 1996).

  Even though the USDA requires labeling of sulphating agents if their concentration in the finished meat or poultry food product is 10 ppm or higher, they say that "[o]verall, there is insufficient information available to set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level [often short "URTI"] for sulfate" (USDA^b). 

• 

  Table 1: Nitrate concentrations in selected meat products according to a 2009 study by Menard et al. based on representative data from 138 and 109 food items, respectively, and coming from French monitoring programs between 2000 and 2006 (Menard 2009)

  Nitrates and even more so their cousins, the nitrites, are used in meat curing due to their preservative activity have long been considered harmful food additives for humans because they may interact with secondary amines in the stomach and produce N-nitroso compounds, which are associated with gastric cancer - worst of all, the chronic (ab-)use of nitrate-/nitrite-compounds in agricultural has already raised the "natural" nitrate level to up to 40mg/kg meat, which is still less than the USDA upper limit of ~365mg/kg for nitrate from sodium nitrate and 135mg/kg for nitrite from sodium nitrite, but worrisome, nonetheless.
  
  With respect to studies investigating the de facto nitrate + nitrite content of meat products, it is interesting to note that the level of nitrate and nitrite in sausages, salami and co. is at least 2-fold higher in Australian vs. US studies (each done with products from local supermarkets) - with Australian salami reaching the USDA limit and US sausages being 50% below that limit.
  
  As data from Menard et al. (see Table 1) indicates the exact type of meat and, in that, the way it is produced does yet make so much of a difference that it doesn't make sense to compare the Frankfurter's from an Australian study fo breakfast sausages from a US study. Rather than avoiding regional products, it would thus make sense to avoid certain types of processed meat, such as coppa, in which the level of nitrate is ~400 mg/kg and thus higher than the generous USDA limit.
• Food colorings are used to make foods look the way we expect them to look - including meats; and since the latter are usually deep red, food colorings like cochineal, carminic acid, carmines (E120), Ponceau 4R, cochineal red A (E124) and allura red AG (E129) are used and mixed to achieve the same healthy pink to red tint we expect the perfect chicken breast or stake to have.
  
  

  

  Minced beef and pork are favorite targets for the abuse of food coloring.

  While the former are the only legal food colorings for meat products on the European market, the US FDA still tolerates Red Dye No.3 - a product the cousins of which, i.e. Red Dye No.1 (Ponceau 3R), Red Dye No.2 (Amaranth) and Red Dye No.4 (Scarlet GN), were banned between 1961 and 1976 due to their proven toxic effects on rats, and an agent of which many scientists highlighted its potential toxic effects that this food colouring may exhibit (significant increases in the incidence of thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy, hyperplasia and adenomas in rats | Haschek 1998).
  
  Another coloring from the same family, Ponceau 4R, on the other hand, is suspected to trigger hyperactivity in kids, prohibited in the US and still allowed in the European Union, where it is used to give chorizo sausage/salchichon and sobrasada their characteristic color - and it is difficult to tell exactly how much has been used. After all, "a complete analytical technique able to identify and simultaneously quantify all of the most important red food colorings (banned and not banned) in meat products is" as Immarino et al. point out "still not available" (Iammarino 2016).

Paleo Goes "Real Science" - First Meta-Analysis of Available RCTs Shows Improvements in Health + Body Composition - Paleo is not just effective, it also allows for a broad range of foods to be consumed - not exclusively fresh meats | more

So what's the take-home message, then? While it is too early to make specific recommendations in form of "avoid" salami from the US and chorizo sausages from Spain, it is quite clear that the best way for meat eaters to make it past their own "best before date" is to avoid processed meats altogether. This will limit your the exposure to added nitrates and sulphites, of which Immarino et al. write in their previously referenced review that they are often used at high concentrations in meats [and may thus] represents a food safety risk" (Immarino 2016), and it will reduce the risk that you consume high amounts of potentially carcinogenic and/or ADHD promoting food colorings from processed meats (note: all these agents can also be used in "fresh" meat that's actually not fresh at all to make it look as if it came right from the butcher) | Comment!

References:

• González, Carlos A., et al. "Meat intake and risk of stomach and esophageal adenocarcinoma within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98.5 (2006): 345-354.
• Haschek, Wanda M., Colin G. Rousseaux, and Matthew A. Wallig, eds. Fundamentals of toxicologic pathology. Academic Press, 2009.
• Iammarino, Marco, Rosaria Marino, and Marzia Albenzio. "How meaty? Detection and quantification of adulterants, foreign proteins and food additives in meat products." International Journal of Food Science & Technology 52.4 (2017): 851-863.
• Lester, Mitchell R. "Sulfite sensitivity: significance in human health." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 14.3 (1995): 229-232.
• Menard, Céline, et al. "Assessment of dietary exposure of nitrate and nitrite in France." Food Additives and Contaminants 25.8 (2008): 971-988.
• Sandhu, Manjinder S., Ian R. White, and Klim McPherson. "Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies on meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk." Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers 10.5 (2001): 439-446.
• Vally, Hassan, Neil LA Misso, and V. Madan. "Clinical effects of sulphite additives." Clinical & Experimental Allergy 39.11 (2009): 1643-1651.