Ballistics Lunge Activates Muscle to the Same Extent as 34% Lighter Standardlift, Elastic Band & DBs Target Different Muscles. Plus: 10 Arguments for Explosives & Plyometrics

Lunge with resistant bands as it was done in the study (Jakobsen. 2013)

The paper the Danish researchers Jakobsen, Sundstrup, C.H. Andersen, Aagaard and L. Andersen are about to publish in one of the forthcoming issues of Human Movement Science is not the first certainly won't be the last study on explosive training (more) and plyometrics (more) you have and still will read about, here at the SuppVersity. And while I am not sure whether you would say that it is the most exciting one, I am pretty convinced that you will be inclined to hear how different rep-speeds (ballistic=explosive vs. normal) effected the EMG activity during a full-body exercise like lunges with different loads and equipment (dumbbells vs. resistant band).

Before we start, just a brief reminder for all of you who have not read the SuppVersity EMG series as of now. If you want to know the "best" exercises to target specific muscle groups, I'd suggest you make a detour to all or just those body parts you are interested in by clicking on the respective image in the "navigation" below:

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series - Click on the desired body part to see the optimal exercises.

Apropos, lunges were (unfortunately) not among the exercises the researches tested in the study the EMG series is based on. I personally consider them extraordinary valuable for whole leg development, and have to caution you that comparing squats to lunges on EMG basis is somewhat like comparing different types of red using black and white photos, because one of the main and in my humble opinion probably the most important argument against the significance of EMG measurements is that they tend to increase with the degree of weight you can move - this puts lunges in as much into a somewhat disadvantaged position as flys as a chest exercise and could lead to the misunderstanding that it would be better to perform 10 sets of squats than 5 sets of 5 for squats and 4 sets 10 for lunges as a legworkout. Especially if your goal is skeletal muscle hypertrophy, the latter is usually (you know there are no black-and-white solutions) the far superior choice.

Same activation with less load = training economy

That being said, the results of the Jakobsen study do still have their merit. After all, they clearly show that doing explosive or ballistic movements can provide diversion and new growth stimuli especially on those "auxilliary" exercises like lunges. In that, the lower overall weight can even come very handy as it should effectively reduce the risk of injury, which is - let's be honest - a very good argument not to do max. squats in a ballistic fashion, at all.

Figure 2: Normalized EMG activity during lunges with elastic bands and dumbbells (Jakobsen. 2013)

In fact, the EMG measurements, the scientists took while their subjects, 42 subjects (18 men, 24 women; age 41/45 years, BMI 24/25m²/kg, respectively), performed unilateral lunges with their dominant / preferred leg using either elastic bands or dumbbells (see image at the top of this article) to adjust the resistance, do actually confirm that training explosively, i.e. performing the lunge movement as fast as possible (ballistic contractions) does provide an increased contractive stimulus (Desmedt. 1977; Frost. 2008; Sakamoto. 2013), which will allow you to ellicit almost identical EMG activity as during controlled reps at a rep-speed of ~3s per rep with 34% less weight. Or as Jakobsen et al. have it:

"[...] ballistic lunges performed with high speed at medium loadings showed broadly similar EMG amplitudes as that seen during slower controlled speeds with high loading." (Jakobsen. 2013)

Furthermore, the "high-speed lunges" obviously took less time and reduced the effective workout time by 23%. Now, while this could be an advantage on days where you have only a very limited time-window to train the researchers argue that this will lead to an overall reduction in time under tension and thus training volume and should - depending on your training goals (my addition) - be compensated by increasing the training volume during power training by ~23 "to  achieve the same accumulated time under tension" (e.g. doing 10 instead of just 8 reps per set).

"Wait, there is something else: What about those hilarious resistance bands?"

Actually, the benefits of explosive/ballistic training are yet only one out of two interesting findings of the study at hand, after all it's likewise interesting to see how the use of those often derided resistance bands effected the EMG activity and other training parameters. So let's see, compared to lunges done with isoinertial loading (=dumbbells)...

• lunges with elastic bands showed an overall higher EMG activity, which also resulted in a slightly but significantly higher level of perceived loading on the Borg CR10 scale
• training with resistance bands elicited higher EMG activity in knee and hip extensor muscles (vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, gluteus maximus) and during the more flexed knee joint positions (i.e., in the reversal phase)
• performing lunges with resistance bands added an non-linear element to the actual resistance, with the "training load" increasing exponentially as the trainees approached the extended knee joint position 
• doing lungs with elastic resistance resulted in higher levels of erector spinae and gluteus activity and was more posterior kinetic chain-dominant, which means that they were characterized by higher levels of hamstring, gluteus and erector spinae activity 

The reasons for these differences are actually of biomechanical nature and the outcomes will probably change, if you used the bands differently. So, yes, wrapping the bands around your back / posterior shoulders will be necessary; and yes, only if you use bands similar to the close loop elastic 41 inch bands  (Iron Woody, MT, USA) the scientists used in the study will allow for identical effects (this obviously doesn't mean that you cannot do it with whatever other band you have grabbing them with your hands, but specifically the posterior kinetic chan-dominance is probably not going to be that pronounced if you do that. Why? Because you will miss the anterior pull from the distal attachment of the band below the leading foot, from where it runs to the contralateral shoulder - a pull of which Jakobsen and his colleagues argue that it ...

"[...] creates the need for generating a high net hip extensor moment. In result [...] gluteus, erector spinae and hamstring muscle activity seemed to be elevated in lunges using elastic resistance indicating an effective targeting of the hip and spinal extensor muscles throughout the range of motion." (Jakobsen. 2013)

Done the "right" way, lunges with appropriately selected elastic exercise bands (not the ones you get bundled with Kellog's Special K, or whatever ;-) can therefore be a very effective tool for thigh, hip and back development, and can - with more flexible bands - used as "an ideal exercise modality for the rehabilitation and prophylactic prevention of musculoskeletal disorders" (Jakobson. 2013).

10 scientific pieces of evidence to built a case for explosive training

If the Jakobsen study ain't enough to convince you to spend at least a couple of minutes thinking about whether or not explosive training or plyometrics (which is basically explosive training with body weight exercises) could make a valuable adjunct to your current training regimen the following 10 studies may put you in the right way:

• How can you easily implement explosive training into your current routine? There are obviously a million of ways you can implement plyometrics and explosive exercises, but if you simply wanted to incorporate them on a strength training day, as an additional, different training stimulus, the protocol the researchers in the PGC-1 α-4 study (see The IGF-1 up- & myostatin down - regulator) looks actually as if it was worth copying. This would mean that you start out with a ballistic movement (B), head into a strength part (S) and then finish up with a hypertrophy exercise (H).
  
  For leg day this could look like this: (B) 3 sets of ballistic lunges - 10-12 reps, use 66% of 10RM; (S) 5 sets of 5 reps on the leg press or in the squat rack (I suggest the leg press because it's less injury prone with really high weights), stop 1 rep away from failure; (H) 4 sets of 10 reps of deep barbell squats a 10RM + regular calf training.
  
  Obviously, this is just one way and not the way: You can also do a plyometrics only circle training or do a couple of sets of plyos + a LISS session on a separate day, etc.
  
  Be creative! Test your ideas and see how you feel, but don't simply add them on top of an already overcrowded workout!
  You can safely combine classic resistance training with explosive lifting without hampering the performance in one or another (Brandenburg. 2005)
• The addition of explosive training and high-resistance interval training to the programs of already well-trained cyclists improve exercise efficiency and anaerobic threshold and thus produce major gains in sprint and endurance performance (Paton. 2005)
• If you want to improve your 1-RM max, doing a low volume (2 reps) set of explosive push ups, or  2 medicine-ball (3 to 5 kg) chest passes 30s before the actual lift can help (Wilcox. 2006)
• Complex training, i.e. combination of heavy lifting and explosives yields higher performance gains than heavy lifting and plyometrics, alone, across all age groups (20, 40, 60y; cf. Dodd. 2007)
• Explosive resistance training is safe and well tolerated in healthy women even in the eighth decade of life and elicits adaptive neuromuscular changes in selected physiological variables that are commonly associated with the risk of falls and disability in aged individuals (Caserotti. 2008)
• Explosive plyometrics sessions comprising maximal unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJs), calf and squat plyometric jumps, and short sprints are as effective as shuttle runs in improving maximal running speed in young elite soccer players (Buchheit. 2010)
• Pimping a regular soccer training with two plyometrics session per week makes it more effective in building general athletic performance (Chelly. 2010)
• Plyometrics are safe for young children (5-14y) and beginning at 50-60 jumps a session and increasing exercise load weekly results in the largest changes in running and jumping performance (Johnson. 2011)
• Explosive isometric contractions induce neural and mechanical adaptations leading to large increases in maximum voluntary force production esp. during the early phase of a movement (50ms, +54%; cf. Tillin. 2013)
• When adjusted to absolute force production, the evoked capacity of the knee extensors for explosive force production and the ability to utilize that capacity during explosive voluntary contractions is similar for males and females (Hannah. 2013)

Bottom line: I guess with the concluding review that obviously raises no claim to completeness it should be clear that the complementation of, yet not (necessarily) the replacement of classic strength & hypertrophy training with plyometrics or explosive lifting with relatively low weight constitutes an effective means to increase the neuronal activation and thus exponentiate subsequent strength and muscle gains.

The Jack-of-All-Traits Leg Workout from the Sáez de Villarreal study I discussed on July 15, 2013, would also be something you may want to look into if you need some inspiration for your own routine.

You should be aware, though that despite the fact that plyometrics and light load explosive lifting do not put a similar strain on your body as the standard high intensity high volume BB routines and will thus probably require less time to recuperate, their incorporation into your routine will make it necessary to cut back on the overall volume of the rest of the exercises (I assume you will up your reps on the plyos anyway, so the total time under tension wouldn't be an issue). Whether you decide to replace a HIIT or regular cardio workout with a longer full body plyometric workout, or doing one exercise less during a hypertrophy specific strength workout in order to make room for additional plyometrics (see example workout to learn how that could look like) is up to you and depends on your current goals and training status.


References:

• Buchheit M, Mendez-Villanueva A, Delhomel G, Brughelli M, Ahmaidi S. Improving repeated sprint ability in young elite soccer players: repeated shuttle sprints vs. explosive strength training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2715-22.
• Brandenburg JP. The acute effects of prior dynamic resistance exercise using different loads on subsequent upper-body explosive performance in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):427-32.
• Caserotti P, Aagaard P, Larsen JB, Puggaard L. Explosive heavy-resistance training in old and very old adults: changes in rapid muscle force, strength and power. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008 Dec;18(6):773-82.
• Chelly MS, Ghenem MA, Abid K, Hermassi S, Tabka Z, Shephard RJ. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training program on leg power, jump- and sprint performance of soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2670-6. 
• Desmedt JE, Godaux E. Ballistic contractions in man: Desmedt JE, Godaux E. Ballistic contractions in man: characteristic recruitment pattern of single motor units of the tibialis anterior muscle. J Physiol. 1977 Jan;264(3):673-93.
• Dodd DJ, Alvar BA. Analysis of acute explosive training modalities to improve lower-body power in baseball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 Nov;21(4):1177-82. 
• Frost DM, Cronin JB, Newton RU. A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Dec;104(6):937-56.
• Hannah R, Minshull C, Buckthorpe MW, Folland JP. Explosive neuromuscular performance of males versus females. Exp Physiol. 2013 May;97(5):618-29. 
• Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Andersen CH, Aagaard P, Andersen LL. Muscle activity during leg strengthening exercise using free weights and elastic resistance: Effects of ballistic vs controlled contractions. Hum Mov Sci. 2013 Dec 8.
• Johnson BA, Salzberg CL, Stevenson DA. A systematic review: plyometric training programs for young children. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Sep;25(9):2623-33.
• Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Combining explosive and high-resistance training improves performance in competitive cyclists. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):826-30. 
• Sakamoto A, Sinclair PJ. Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Mar;112(3):1015-25.
• Tillin NA, Pain MT, Folland JP. Short-term training for explosive strength causes neural and mechanical adaptations. Exp Physiol. 2013 May;97(5):630-41.
• Wilcox J, Larson R, Brochu KM, Faigenbaum AD. Acute explosive-force movements enhance bench-press performance in athletic men. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006 Sep;1(3):261-9.

5-10% Weight Reduction From Set to Set For Hypertrophy, Heavy Leg Workouts for Cyclists, Garlic For 400% Higher Test/Cortisol Ratios & Max(!) 1g Vitamin C for Muscle Gains

7% increase in breast cancer risk for every 500g above "normal" birthweight for Scandinavian women. Weight is yet not all that counts, mommy's gestational diabetes and even a large body size also precipitate to later disease.

7% per 500g that's the increase in breast cancer risk, the female offspring of Scandinavian women will have, if they are born heavier than normal. This figure is the SuppVersity Figure of the Week and comes from a study I came across a couple of days ago (Troisi. 2013). The statistics are based on birth register data of women from Norway, Sweden or Denmark who were subsequently diagnosed with primary, invasive breast cancer (n=51419) and 10 controls for each case from the birth registries matched by country and year of birth (n = 514,190).

Contrary to what you may think, the birth weight does yet not pose as much of a risk to become obese later in life as being larger than "appropriate" for your gestational age does (Eyzaguirre. 2013). If you also consider that gestational diabetes has been linked with increased risk of metabolic syndrome in the offspring (Davis. 2013) and that obesity in itself is an independent risk factor for breast cancer (Patterson. 2013), these should be more than enough good arguments not to surrender to your occasional food cravings and laziness - pregnant or not.

It's not all in your genes, but most in your hands

Although some people would love, if this was the case, because they could blame their own misery on the mistakes other  may have made, our lives and health are not fully determined by our genes and/or the mistakes our mothers may or may not have made. As Poston and Foreyt wrote in 1999, already: "Obesity is an environmental issue." And we are lucky: It is in our hands to change the environment we are exposing ourselves to and thus influence which of our genetic disposals will become active and are  promoted and which of them won't. Now that's obviously not just the case for obesity, muscular hypertrophy would be another example. Irrespective of your genetic make-up your strength and muscle gains stand and fall with the way you train, eat and supplement... and guess what, all of these points will be addressed in today's installment of On Short Notice.

• Experimentally validated: 5-10% drop in weights per set is "optimal" for hypertrophy training (Medeiros. 2013) -- Scientists from the Laboratory of Physiology and Biokinetic at the Faculty of Biological Sciences and Health on the UNIG Campus V at Itaperuna in Brazil find: The average resistance trainee - in this case a young man aged 24.0±4.5 years with a body mass of 78.3±10.2 kg and a height of 177±7 cm - can remain in the hypertrophy range (10-12 reps to failure) for most of his sets, when he reduces the weight by 5-10% after each set.
  
  Whether this will also yield optimal gains was yet not within the scope of this 5-week study. What these results do however tell you is that you are not training hard enough if you perform all your sets with the exact same weight in the exact same rep range - well, unless you don't just like to listen to Super Human Radio, but are actually related to Superman himself ;-)

• 

  Sir Chris Hoy's legs are not as hilarious as those of the German Robert Forstemann (Robert is the right guy), but I am pretty certain their size and strength played a very important part in becoming the most successful Olympic track cyclist of all times (six gold and one silver Olympic Medal + 11 times world champion)

  Heavy leg training could make the difference between victory or defeat at the end of a cycling race (Hansen. 2013) -- In a soon-to-be-published paper, Ernst A. Hansen et al. report that the addition of 12-weeks of heavy resistance training in the form of 4 lower body exercises (3 × 4–10 repetition maximum) which had to be performed twice a week enhanced the cycling performance of highly trained cyclists by 7% compared to the training outcome of the subjects in a control group who simply followed their regular endurance-only, protocols:
  

  "Performance was determined as average power output in a 5-min all-out trial performed subsequent to 185 min of submaximal cycling. The performance enhancement, which has been reported previously, was here shown to be accompanied by improved pedaling efficacy during the all-out cycling. Thus, E+S shortened the phase where negative crank torque occurs by ~16°, corresponding to ~14%, which was more than in E (P = .002)" (Hansen. 2013)

  Since the test was conducted at the end of a 3h cycling session, it should be plain obvious that those 15% increases in torque will catapult the strength trained endurance athlete to the forefront on every final sprint.

• Human dose equivalent of ~0.1g/kg garlic per day could not just boost your testosterone and lower the high protein diet induced increases in cortisol, it could also improve the way your body utilizes dietary protein (Oi. 2013)-- Actually this is not a new study, but since Maxim was not happy with things "so yesterday" as the increases in HDL and LDL the Arabian scientists observed in the garlic study I have been talking about at the end of Thursday's SuppVersity Science Round-Up on SHR, I thought others may be as happy as Maxim will hopefully be to hear that there is more to garlic than "just" its beneficial effects on your heart.
  
  

  

  Figure 1: Higher testosterone levels, an amelioration of the high protein induced increase in corticosteroids and a 40% increase in net protein balance are unquestionably impressive results given the fact that the all those differences were brought about within 28 days and by no more than 0.1g/kg (HED) of "supplemental" garlic in form of heat dried powder that was added to the chow (Oi. 2001)

  In fact, I am almost sure that the >400% increase in the testosterone to cortisol ratio you will see if you take a closer look at the data in figure 1, is probably rather what Maxim would have liked to hear me talk about. Especially in view of the fact that this endocrine effects went hand in hand with a highly significant +60% increase in protein retention (figure 1, top right). Think about it, if only part of he protein that was now no longer excreted in the urine / feces would be used for protein synthesis this would entail exactly those hypertrophy effects you don't see with your average "scientifically proven" herb-based testosterone booster.
  
  Unfortunately, the scientists did only measure the body weight and visceral fat pads, not the actual muscle mass of the rodents,. But if you go by their ratios it is obvious that the high protein + garlic group were not just the heaviest, but also the leanest.
  
  With +11 % vs. +5% in both the medium and high protein diets, the animals on the low protein did yet exhibit the most profound benefits as far as the body weight / visceral fat ratio goes. Against the background that their net protein balance remained the same, this observation does actually suggest that the pro-anabolic effects of garlic are not solely a result of a decreased protein excretion (see figure 1).

  

  Table 1: Principal sulphur compounds of garlic preparations (Hammami. 2013)

  Warning: Don't live on garlic alone! While the provision of 0.8% garlic powder did have beneficial effects on testosterone production in the study at hand, there are a couple of studies which suggest that a diet with 15-30% of crude garlic (Hammami. 2008 & 2009), as well as the administration of Diallyl trisulphide in isolation (Qian. 1986) and raw garlic juice (e.g. 600mg/kg per day for 21 days in Fehri. 1991) can compromise testosterone production and/or testicular function. In view of the difference between 0.8% garlic powder in the diet of the rodents in study at hand and 15-30% of pure garlic in the diet of the animals in the Hamami studies, it is most likely that the effects were dose-depended, but in case you are interested in health benefits of specific sulfor compounds in garlic, the data in table 1 on the left may still come handy to pick "your" preferred form of garlic.
  Rather than that, it appears as if the human equivalent of 0.1g/kg body weight of heat dried garlic powder that contained a total amount of 5.05 mg/g of total diallylsulfide (0.05 mg of monosulfide, 1.0 mg of disulfide, 3.4 mg of trisulfide, 0.6 mg tetrasulfide) had the ability to improve the incorporation of dietary protein into muscles (and other organs).

 

• Study shows: Vitamin C supplementation does reduce skeletal muscle hypertrophy in response to chronic overload (Makanae. 2013) -- Despite the fact that it has not even been published yet, the paper by Yuhei Makanae et al. actually only confirms what more and more scientists have been speculating about within the last couple of years. The provision of high does of active antioxidants, and as it seems in particular vitamin C, blunts the hypertrophy response to skeletal muscle overload.
  
  

  

  Figure 2: 14-day of 500mg/kg  (HED 0.08g/kg) supplemental vitamin C blunt skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rodents (Makanae. 2013)

  As you can see in figure 2 the effect size was relatively small, but statistically highly significant (p < 0.01) and that despite the fact that the supplementation regimen (500mg/kg body weight; HED: 0.08g/kg body weight) was not even that much higher than what some "vitamin C enthusiasts" are taking on a daily basis in the futile (and useless) effort to boost their serum vitamin C levels to a concentrations your body does - probably not without reason - try to counter by increasing renal vitamin C clearance.
  
  As the data in figure 2 shows, the same homeostatic mechanism we know from humans worked in the rodents, as well - well, at least with respect to the serum levels. In the plantaris muscle of the supplemented group, on the other hand, there was a significantly higher accumulation of vitamin C than in the placebo group. This increase went hand in hand with an attenuation of the repressive effects the chronic overload of the muscle had on the expression of the catabolic protein atrogin-1 and the increases in the pro-anabolic protein Erk1/2 (p < 0.01) in the non-supplemented animals. Based on this observations and with reference to the results of previous studies and the fact that neither the water content of the muscle, nor a significant reduction in food intake in the vitamin C group could explain the observed differences, Makanae et al. conclude "that oral vitamin C administration attenuates plantaris muscle hypertrophy induced by chronic mechanical load." (Makanae. 2013).
  
  What the study does not answer, though, is the question whether the effects would be identical in a real-world training scenario, where the temporary, yet more intense wear and tear on the muscle could in fact be sufficient to induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy human despite vitamin C supplementation. But let's be honest in view of the fact that scientific evidence for ergogenic benefits of more than 1g of supplemental vitamin C  per day (in humans) is simply non-existent, the take away message from the study at hand should actually read: Do not escalate your vitamin C beyond the 1g per day, if you don't want to risk compromising the results of all the hard work you are investing into your training.

That's is, another installment of On Short Notice and the first day of the weekend approaching it's peak. If you still have some time before whatever your plan for Saturday night may be and feel like you could use some seconds on today's short news, I suggest you head over to the SuppVersity Facebook Wall and check out the latest news on

• 

  Ever thought about what green tea, grape seed, curcumin, cranberry, and tons of other Super Food have antimicrobial effects? Considering the LPS-influx from the gut turns out to be a major contributor to all sorts of diseases, I am curious about how much of their effects are actually mediated by the gut microbiome.

  The differential role of intramuscular lipids in trained athletes and sedentary slobs and how the difference between performance enhancement and insulin resistance it all comes back to getting your as off the coach (learn more)
• Metformin 2.0? Scientists have developed a hypolipidemic, anti-atherosclerotic, anti-obesity, and glucose lowering agent called ETC-1002 (learn more)
• Confirmed: Grape seed could be the go-to neuroprotector for diabetics - GSE administration was found to be able to ameliorate most of the biochemical altered parameters in diabetic rats (read more)
• Fermenting your own dairy? Just add some catechin rich teas and the lactobacilli will strive. Makes you wonder about the 'internal' probiotic effects of green and black teas, as well. Doesn't it? (learn more)

There will be more, don't worry - so feel free to check for updates either directly on the SuppVersity Facebook Wall or simply by taking a look at the navigation in the right under "SuppVersity Facebook Wall" from time to time. Obviously, you can also simply "like" the SuppVersity on facebook to make sure you don't miss anything.

References:

• Davis JN, Gunderson EP, Gyllenhammer LE, Goran MI. Impact of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Pubertal Changes in Adiposity and Metabolic Profiles in Latino Offspring. J Pediatr. 2013 Nov 10.
• Eyzaguirre F, Bancalari R, Román R, Silva R, Youlton R, Urquidi C, García H, Mericq V. Prevalence of components of the metabolic syndrome according to birthweight among overweight and obese children and adolescents. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2013;25(1-2):51-6. 
• Fehri B, Aiache JM, Korbi S, Monkni M, Ben Said M, Memmi A, Hizaoui B, Boukef K (1991) Toxic effects induced by the repeat administration of Allium sativum L. J Pharm Belg 46:363–374.
• Hammami I, Nahdi A, Mauduit C, Benahmed M, Amri M, Ben Amar A, Zekri S, El May A, El May MV. The inhibitory effects on adult male reproductive functions of crude garlic (Allium sativum) feeding. Asian J Androl. 2008; 10:593–601.
• Hammami I, Amara S, Benahmed M, El May MV, Mauduit C. Chronic crude garlic-feeding modified adult male rat testicular markers: mechanisms of action. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009; 24:57–65.
• Hansen EA, Rønnestad BR, Vegge G, Raastad T. Cyclists Improve Pedalling Efficacy and Performance After Heavy Strength Training. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011 Dec 2. 
• Hammami I, El May MV. Impact of garlic feeding (Allium sativum) on male fertility. Andrologia. 2013 Sep 3.
• Makanae Y, Kawada S, Sasaki K, Nakazato K, Ishii N. Vitamin C administration attenuates overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy in rats. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2013 Nov 26.
• Medeiros Jr HS, Mello RS, Amorim MZ, Koch AJ, Machado M. Planned Intensity Reduction to Maintain Repetitions Within Recommended Hypertrophy Range. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2013 Nov 19. 
• Oi Y, Imafuku M, Shishido C, Kominato Y, Nishimura S, Iwai K. Garlic supplementation increases testicular testosterone and decreases plasma corticosterone in rats fed a high protein diet. J Nutr. 2001 Aug;131(8):2150-6.
• Patterson RE, Rock CL, Kerr J, Natarajan L, Marshall SJ, Pakiz B, Cadmus-Bertram LA. Metabolism and Breast Cancer Risk: Frontiers in Research and Practice. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Nov 2. doi:pii: S2212-2672(12)01426-8.
• Qian YX, Shen PJ, Xu RY, Liu GM, Yang HQ, Lu YS, Sun P, Zhang RW, Qi LM, Lu QH.  Spermicidal effect in vitro by the active principle of garlic. Contraception. 1986; 34:295–302.
• Troisi R, Grotmol T, Jacobsen J, Tretli S, Toft­Sørensen H, Gissler M, Kaaja R,Potischman N, Ekbom A, Hoover RN Stephansson O. Perinatal characteristics and breast cancer risk in daughters: a Scandinavian population­based study. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease, Available on CJO 2013.

"Just One More Set" (2/2): Three Sets of Three Exercises Three Times Per Week - High Volume Can Work. With Appropriate Rest Also to Build Strength & Power

High , not insane (!) volume training can be productive.

I hope that you have already being waiting for this post, so I'll try to cut myself short and get right to the facts. In yesterday's first part of "Just One More Rep" it turned out that a higher training volume sucks, when it comes to what is often thought would be its prerogative, i.e. using strength training to induce excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) and lean out.

In view of these results you could argue that it would be totally logical that a higher training volume cannot be ideal for muscle gains either. After all those require energy and if the RMR does not go up, this would suggest that there was little to repair and supercompensate. A recent study (Naclerio. 2013) does yet refute this already intrinsically non-stringent considerations.

High volume can work! As long as it's high, and not simply insane.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Greenwich, the College of New Jersey, the European University of Madrid and the Appalachian State University and it has one caveat I don't want to hold back to the discussion of the results at the end of this post (although it will reappear and be addressed there): Though we are dealing with college athletes (20 male soccer and 12 female volleyball college players)  none of them had previous strength training experience. This may not be exactly representative of a dumb- & barbell god like you are *rofl*, but is at least better than taking totally untrained participants, where you never know if the the higher volume was too demanding for their musculature or their overall conditioning.

Moreover, the separate analysis of upper and lower body strength gains could shed some more light on whether or not legs do in fact need some more hammering to adapt than the smaller musculature of the upper body (cf. "Three is more than one").

Who and at which intensity for how many sets and reps?

The 32 athletes (age = 23.1± 1.57 yrs, injury free) with at least 3 years of experience as regular team sports practitioner were randomly assigned to one of four groups (all performed 8 reps at 75% of their 1-RM max per set!):

• low volume(LV), 1 set per exercise and 3 sets per muscle group per session;
• moderate volume (MV), 2 sets per exercise and 6 sets per muscle group per session;   
• high volume (HV), 3 sets per exercise and 9 sets per muscle group; 

and of course, the obligatory non-exercise control group (this leaves us with only 8 subjects per group, so don't expect all too meaningful p-values). Before and after the 6 week each subject underwent a progressive resistance test aimed to determine the 1RM and the maximal average power produced from light to heavy weights on two upper body exercises (bench press (BP) and upright row (UR)) and one lower body exercise (parallel squat (SQ)). The individual tests, were structured as follows:

"After a standardized warm up, each subject started the PRT  which consisted of 8 sets of 2 repetitions performed with maximal acceleration, alternating with rest periods between 2 min for the light load, 3 to 4 min for the moderate load and 5 minutes for the higher load. The 1st and 2nd sets were performed with a light weight (~25 to 45% of estimated 1RM), the 3rd and 4th sets with a medium weight (~50% to 65% of estimated 1RM), the 5th and 6th sets with a medium to heavy weight (~ 70% to 80% of estimated 1RM), and the 7th and 8th sets with a maximum or near maximum weight (~85% to 100% of estimated 1RM)." (Naclerio. 2013)

For the subsequent analysis the scientists picked those sets and reps, on which the subjects had lifted with the greatest average power (no sure whether this was the best idea, but alas).

The workouts - chest, shoulders, biceps + legs, back, triceps

It stands to reason that the exercises that were part of the testing procedure, i.e. bench presses (BP) and upright rows (UR), which were performed using Olympic bars and plates, as well as the classic back squat (till thighs were parallel to the floor, SQ), which was performed on a Smith machine, "in order to standardize exercise", were also the core exercises of the  actual workouts, the participants performed during the 6-week training phase.

Day 1 (chest, shoulders, biceps)	Day 2 (legs, back, triceps)
Bench press Incline Bench press Dumbbell Fly Upright Row Lateral Raise Posterior Lateral Raise Barbell Biceps Curl Dumbbell Biceps Curl Machine Biceps Curl	Smith Machine Parallel Squat Leg Press Knee Extension Lat Pull down Seated Row 1 Arm Dumbbell Row Machine Triceps Extension Standing Triceps Pushdown 1 Arm Triceps Extension
Table 1: Workout schedule, for set and rep scheme see text above .

Overall each subject took part in 18 training session, i.e. 3 per week. The training sessions were scheduled on non-consecutive days in a day 1 v.s day 2 fashion, with day 1 being 'chest + shoulder + biceps day ' and day 2 being 'legs + back  + triceps day'. Given the aforementioned volume prescriptions you see that the actual routines were actually more or less representative of what you will see the relatively sane part of the trainees actually do at the gym.

Figure 1: Relative change (in % of baseline) in 1RM and maximal average power during the 6-week intervention period (Naclerio. 2013)

If you take into account that these were the first real lifting sessions for most of the study participants, the same can be said of the strength gains I plotted relative to the respective baseline levels in figure 1. In fact, the multivariate analysis the scientists conducted showed that all training protocols yielded statistically significant increases in strength.

When gains are the goal: Volume (or stimulus?) does count!

In contrast to the EPOC values, of which we have learned yesterday that they do by no means benefit from increases in total workout volume, Naclerio et al. did actually observe a clear trend toward greater improvement in strength and power with the high vs. the low and even the medium volume protocol (at a similar overall volume, though with different exercises in a classic split routine). Thte most evident downsides to the lower volume programs, were

• no significant increases in the 1-RM squat in both the low and medium volume group, and
• no significant increases in the average power during the bench press,

where both, the medium (MV) and high volume (HV) protocols achieved significant before vs. after differences of 10% and 16%, respectively.

If you look at the overall pattern in figure 1 once more, there is still no clearcut picture emerging. While it does in fact appear as if the high volume routine appears to be in front in the majority of 1-to-1 comparisons, this is mainly based on an analysis of the improvements in maximum strength. With respect to the average power measurements, on the other hand, the authors are (partly) right to point out that you could argue in favor of both the low and medium volume protocols as being "better strategies for enhancing lower body or upper body average power performance." (Naclerio. 2013)

So is high volume the way to go - or no?

For the subjects who participated in this study (and maybe some of you), the last mentioned equivalence, if not superiority of the low(er) volume routines (1-2 sets per exercise) the low and medium volume training do in fact appear to be superior to support their regular sports specific training program. After all, mere strength is not so much of an issue in either soccer or volleyball; and given the fact that at least for soccer the lower limb power is what really counts, a low volume strength training approach would, aside from obviously being highly economic, also yield the most pronounced sport specific performance increases.

It stands to reason: If neither brute strength nor tons of muscle are your goal and strength training is just an adjunct to your sports-specific training, high volume sucks!

Whether the surprising superiority of the low volume routine as a 'average strength builder'  for soccer and volleyball players does mean that legs need less, rather than more work than the chest, which appears to like the constant hammering, is however highly questionable. In fact, this is where the bias of previous training comes into play. For both volleyball and soccer players, the latter does obviously include a hell lot of 'leg work' and while you do push-ups in soccer (and I guess volleyball as well), there is no training component that would correspond to the sprinting and HIIT exercises that involve the legs only. Now, of the latter you know that they can in fact have 'anabolic' effects on skeletal muscle. These may not be so immediate as they would be for someone doing a BB-like hypertrophy training, but they accumulate over time; and with three years of more or less 'professional' training in their respective sports, we may savely assume that all participants had their share of muscular hypertrophy in the quads, glutes and hams.

Moroever, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains require a certain degree of overload. Allegedly, when the training induced or the overall stress becomes too much, your training won't yield the desired results either. For someone whose main goals are skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, and who does not compete in any other sports that requires separate training,  the data from the study at hand would yet still support Arnold's way of doing "just one more set " - as long, as this is done in conjunction with adequate rest not just in-between sets, but in-between workouts, as well!

I can however guarantee you that doing 27 sets today and another 27 tomorrow, just to follow that up by some HIIT on day 3, in order to have a "day off" without a guilty conscience and to be "recovered" to do chest shoulders and biceps, your day 1 on day 4 again (thus starting another "cycle"), will yield neither muscle, nor strength gains. It will simply burn you out and pave your way right into the Athletes' Triad.

References:

• Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, Perez-Bibao T, Kang J, Ratamess NA, Triplett NT. Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes: a pilot study. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct 5.

Cardio & Weights - Mutual Exclusives or Synergists? Two New Studies Suggest: Cardio "Before" and After Workouts Offers More Benefits Than Downsides for Strength & Mass

Could "cardio" really be more than just a necessary evil on your way to a physique like this?

Yesterday testosterone booster (see "Capsaicin or 28-OB...") and today already the next "bro favorite": The never ending debate about "cardio and weights" (or should I rather write "cardio vs. weights"). If you are no newcomer to the SuppVersity you will be aware that this is not the first time, we are tackling this issue (e.g. "Cardio Before or After Weights?" or "Before, After or In-Between"). While most of the previous posts did however deal with the question of "How do I do the least damage to my resistance training, if I want to do cardio, as well". The two studies, I have in stock for you, today, would suggest that this question in and out of itself is quite nonsensical and that the "correct", or at least way more productive question must be: "How can I use cardio to promote my strength and mass gains?"

Curious? All right, let's take a look at what Tufano, Lundberg and their respective coworkers have in stock for you (Tufano. 2013; Lundberg. 2013)

• The Tufano study confirms that doing cardio after an intense leg workout facilitates recovery- A question yet remains: What are the long term consequences? At least as long as you stick to doing just 20 minutes of cardio at 70% of your maximal heart rate, some cycling after a an eccentric leg workout (6 sets of 10 reps of eccentric leg extensions, specifically designed to induce maximal DOMS).
  
  

  

  Figure 1: Isometric strength after eccentric leg extensions in no, low and mean intensity cycling group expressed relative to pre values (Tufano. 2013).

  In the most recent study from the Department of Kinesiology at the Center for Sport Performance of the California State University the 10 women in the medium intensity cycling arm, who had cycled for 20 minutes at 70% of their individual heart rate recovered faster the muscle damaging workout than the women who went home without a "heavy cool down". What's actually even more astonishingly, though is that they also recovered faster than a third group of women who performed the 20min workout at only 30% of their VO2max.
  
  While there were no differences in pain scale or dynamic strength during the 4-day recovery phase, the isometric strength of the women in the 20min @ 70%VO2max arm of the study showed significant super-compensation effects on day 3 and day 4, so that Tufano et al. conclude:
  

  "Enhanced blood perfusion during moderate-intensity aerobic recovery, in conjunction with a short-term training effect, may enhance isometric strength after DOMS. Therefore, moderate intensity aerobic activity is suggested as a recovery method after multiple eccentric muscular actions." (my emphasis in Tufano. 2013)

  That certainly sounds as if another bro-scientific myth was tumbling and about to fall. Still, Tufano et al. are also right to point in the discussion of their results, that we need further research into the chronic effects of moderate-intensity aerobic 'recovery exercise' after resistance training - I mean, who guarantees that doing this after every workout week after week, month after month won't eventally turn against you?

What? You are not interested in recovery, anyway? All you want is grow and you doubt that the small increase is indicative of earlier supercompensation and that strength and grows would be two different pairs of shoes, anyway? Well, in that case here is another pro-cardio study:

• 

  The first important question this study answers is: How do you cycle with just one leg. You see the answer in the small inset of the image above.

  Aerobic before resistance training leads to minor increase in mTOR response and does not seem to hinder muscle gains! This one certainly flies in the face of what you may have been told by credible and less credible experts for your whole life. I mean, if anything, cardio was supposed to keep the gains lean. While the consensus is that it will diminish your gains -- right? Well, according to the latest study from the Mid Sweden University and the venerable Karolinska Institute and University Hospital in Stockholm this could turn out to be just another counterproductive bro-scientific myth: Skipping cardio altogether is not simply bad for your overall health an conditioning, as it would seem, it could even be beneficial for your gains, as well.
  
  To probe the effects of aerobic training on a whole host of hypetrophy and performance related factors, Tommy R. Lundberg and his colleagues recruited 9 physically active men (23+/-1 yr, 18+/-6 cm, and 75+/-6 kg) who "had been involved in recreational aerobic exercise two to three times per
  week and/or habitual RE one to two times per week for more than a year" (Lundberg. 2013) and had them perform a 45-min one-legged cycle ergometry exercise
  

  "The target load was 70% of the Wmax (cadence = 60 rpm). After 40 min, workload was in-creased by +20 W, and subjects were requested to continue until failure to maintain the prescribed cranking cadence, which typically occurred within 1–4 min (2 min 43 s)" (Lundberg. 2013)

  that was followed by 14 maximal concentric–eccentric knee extensions for each leg 6 h later (2 sets, 7 reps, 90s rest; starting with the AE+RE leg).
  

  "Thus, one limb was subjected to aerobic and resistance exercise (AE+RE), and the contralateral limb to resistance exercise (RE) only." (Lundberg. 2013)

  Before, as well as 15 and 180min minutes after the subjects underwent this training sessen, biopsies were taken and the glycogen content, the mRNA levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (EGF), peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor--gamma-coactivator-1 (PPAR-gamma), muscle RING-finger protein-1, atrogin-1 and myostatin, as well as the phosphorylated proteins mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), p70S6 kinase, ribosomal protein S6 and eukaryotic elongation factor were  measured. To ensure that no dietary factors would interfere with the results meals had been fully standardized on the day of the testing:
  

  "A standardized meal (pasta, tomato sauce, and juice) consisting of 2.21 g CHO/kg body weight, 22 g protein/kg bw, and 0.04 g fat/kg bw was provided at 8:00 p.m. the night before the experimental day. Subjects also had a standardized breakfast (1.01 g CHO/kg bw, 0.31 g protein / kg bw, and 0.24 g fat / kg bw) 1 h before the aerobic exercise session and lunch (2.02 g CHO/kg bw, 0.62 g protein/kg bw, and 0.49 g fat /kg bw) consumed 3 h before RE. These meals consisted of commercial energy drinks (Ensure Plus; Abbott Laboratories BV, Zwolle, The Netherlands). Water was allowed ad libitum at any time during the intervention." (Lundberg. 2013)

  As nice as it is to see a tightly controlled study, investigating a relevant topic and with trained healthy participant like this, I am really not a fan of these 'compare the left to the right leg' studies. And still, the fact that I am happy about any study into the whereabouts of different training modalities is neverthelsess not the only reason I am not going to beat a dead horse here.

  

  Figure 2: Unilateral peak concentric (CON) and eccentric (ECC) power (W) in knee extension and leg press during the experimental bout; data expressed relative to group baseline (Lundberg. 2013)

  The other and probably more relevant reason is that the data you see in figure 2 as surprising at it may seem  -- I mean who would have thought that the resistance training (RT) only leg would see a greater decline in force production during the experimental bout compared to baseline -- does not look like it had been skewed into this surprising direction by carry-over effect from one leg to the other or systemic factors such as central nervous system fatigue or the depletion of liver glycogen levels.
  
  In particular, we don't see anything of the expected drop in resistance training performance in the AE + RE leg due to the previous cardio workout. Even if it was only small, maybe statistically non-significant, common wisdom would dictate that it should be present! What we are seeing instead, however is a beneficial instead of a detrimental pre-conditioned effect in the 'cardio leg', of which you can hardly argue that it speaks in favor of the hypothesis that doing cardio must necessarily hamper your gains, if you allow enough time and food in between the morning and the evening workouts.
  
  It certainly looks as if the myth of the strength busting effects of any aerobic activity was about to fall and the corresponding protein expressions, the scientists measured before, 15min and 180min after the trial onyl support this notion.
  
  The image that emerges, when you take a closer look at the data in figure 3 is actually quite clear. At "pre" already, i.e. immediately before the resistance training part begins, the 'cardio leg' has and edge over the previously rested leg it won't lose in the course of subsequent hours. After all, despite the fact that at T = 180min some of the values have returned to baseline and/or the levels in the resistance training only leg have caught up, there is never a significant advantage of the resistance training only, over the aerobic + resistance training leg in the whole 3h period (respectively at the three intervals at which the biopsies were conducted).

  

  Figure 3: Selected markers of mitochondrial biogenesis and protein synthesis before during and 15, respectively 180min after the resistance training bout in the AE + RE and the RE only leg (a.u.; data adapted from Lundberg. 2013)

  Personally, I would still not consider these observations conclusive evidence of the superiority of aerobic + strength training in terms of its potential as a muscle builder (that it is a mitochondrial builder stands out of question). What is however undebatable (at least in this particular case), is that doing aerobics earlier in the day and lifting weight later in the day will not have a negative impact on either the performance or the measured markers of the exercise induced growth stimulus the resistance training session will have. It is rather, as the scientists point out that ...
  

  "[...] concurrent exercise elicited greater mTOR and p70S6K phosphorylation compared with RE. Although these differences were modest, if anything, they indicate that translational capacity was reinforced rather than compromisedby the AE + RE intervention. In parallel, myostatin was suppressed for longer time in AE + RE, with no obvious sign of exacerbated protein degradation. Thus, in contrast to the posted hypothesis, it seems that concurrent AE + RE may enhance skeletal muscle anabolic environment." (my emphasis in Lundberg. 2013)

  I guess, there is actually little to add to that, despite the important warning that you must keep an eye on your overall training volume, in case you want to follow this approach. In the end this means that you are switching to a two-times-a-day regimen, which can take its toll not just on the ability of your muscles to adapt and recover, but more importantly on the ability of your central nervous system to cope with this additional stressor. 
  

Can I do HIIT instead? For the first study, the answer probably is no. It makes no sense to use HIIT training as a regenerative means after a workout. For the second study I would guess the answer is yes. After all, the aerobic morning workout was pretty strenuous and glycogen depleting, so I don't see any reason why a brief HIIT training in the 10-20min range would not yield the same if not even better priming effects (cf. "The Anabolic Effects of HIIT" )

Bottom line: I would not say that any of these studies gives you, who are hopefully interested to build muscle and maintain optimal health a free ticket to do as much cardio, whenever you want. What this compilation does yet do, is debunk the myth that you have to become a sedentary slob and discard the cardiovascular and obvious fat loss benefits the implementation of moderate amounts of aerobic training into your regimen will yield just because aerobics will necessarily comprimise your gains, let alone burn away your muscles.

Timed appropriately and used in moderate, instead of excessive amounts, some 'cardio' could in fact offer an overlooked means to provide a greater growth stimulus and promote faster recovery - and that next to all the health- and conditioning related benefits, I guess even the hardcore-bros won't doubt.

References:

• Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Gustafsson T, Tesch PA. Aerobic exercise alters skeletal muscle molecular responses to resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Sep;44(9):1680-8.
• Tufano JJ, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Tsang KK, Cazas VL, Laporta JW. Effect of aerobic recovery intensity on delayed-onset muscle soreness and strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct;26(10):2777-82.

When Rodents Squat, Scientists Gain Insights into How Muscles Grow. IGF-1 Response to Exercise Does Matter - Locally, not Systemically, of Course!

You want to build big wheels? Look no further get yourself the "Squat T-Bar" with integrated 15mA electrical 'motivator' (Aguiar. 2013)

"A rodent study investigating strength workouts?" Yeah, I know it does not sound like that would be in any ways news-worthy, but if you take a look at the image on the right, you will immediately realize: This study is different! Instead of using a treadmill or simply stitching down (or rather up) one of the hindlimbs of the rodents to induce a chronic overload on the other one (don't laugh, many rodent studies have done just that), the study at hand (Aguiar. 2013), which is going to be published in the next issue of the International Journal of Sports Medicine, used a not innovative, but unfortunately largely forgotten (or overlooked?) torturing device that has been developed by Japanese researchers roughly 20 years a ago (Tamaki. 2013).

The rodent torture... ah pardon squat rack ;-)

After being fitted with a canvas jacket in a way that would enable the researchers to limit the twisting and flexion of their torsos (no, that was not a weight lifting belt ;-), the 32 male Wistar rats (80 days old, 250–300 g) were suspended in a standard position on their hind limbs and "encouraged" to exercise by "electrical stimulation [...] that was applied to the rat’s tail through a surface electrode"  (Aguiar. 2013).

Using their neat little toy, the eight researchers from the University Estadual Paulista, in Botucatu, Brazil, were able to submit the rats to a relatively realistic progressive resistance training regimen for either 8 or 12 weeks. Three times per week each rodent had to do 4 sets  of squats for 10-12 repetitions at 65-75% of its individual 1-RM (maximal weight the rodent could handle). During the study period, Aguiar et al. adjusted the weights twice a week to ensure the same training intensity throughout the experiment (something I would highly recommend to anyone of you, as well; try to pack on 1.25lbs - 2.5lbs at least every other week).

Figure 1: Body weight, muscle weight (plantaris, only) and food intake relative to body weight of the control (C8, C12) and trained (T8, T12) rats before and after the 8-week (C8, T8) and 12-week (C12, T12) intervention (data adapted from Aguiar. 2013)

As you can see in figure 1, this minimalist approach to leg training lead to an increase in both body weight and muscle weight that may initially look as if it was strongly linear. You do yet have to be careful about statements like that, because (a) the rodents did gain weight irrespective of whether they were training or not (80 day old rats are still growing!), so comparing the four bars next to each other and saying "yep, linear!" is not feasible, because this would mean linear as in not training for eight weeks < training for 8 weeks < not training for 12 weeks < training for 12 weeks, which is obviously nonsensical. That being said, there is simply (b) insufficient data to say anything about the linearity -- after all, we do have only three data points per group.

"All groups started the experiment with similar body weight. There was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the body weight of the 4 groups in the resistance training program (C8: 35.5 %; T8: 27.7 %; C12: 46.9 %; and T12: 40.1 %) and final body weights were not significantly (p > 0.05) different between groups. Furthermore, no significant (p > 0.05) differences in the weekly food intakes were observed between the groups."(Aguiar. 2013)

What does yet stick out, is that the obviously age-dependent weight gain in the control groups C8 and C12 did not increase the weight of the plantaris muscle to a weight anywhere near to the muscle weight, the rats in the trained groups achieved.

Muscle gains and strength gains went hand in hand

In the rats who were subject to the three-times-per-week exercise regimen, on the other hand, those increases in muscle size went hand in hand with highly significant improvements in 1-RM squat power; While all groups had begun the training protocol with similar absolute 1-RMs of ~450g (that's about 130% body weight, pre) ...

"[...] training for 8 and 12 weeks promoted a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the RM/BW ratio in the T8 (pre- vs. post-training: 35.7 % increase, p < 0.05) and T12 (pre- vs. post-training: 57.1 % increase, p < 0.05) groups, while no statistical (p > 0.05) difference was observed in their respective control groups." (Aguiar. 2013)

Consequently, the ratio of 1-RM to body weight was 36.1 % and 57.7 % higher in the groups who had been training fot the last 8 or 12 weeks than in the lazy controls and the time-effect yielded another +22% increase in strength in those rodents who trained for 12 and not just 8 weeks.

Figure 2: Strength gains (left) and increases in cross sectional area, as well as intramuscular IGF1, myogenin and myoD expression (data adapted from Aguiar. 2013)

Now you may have heard all that before, what really makes this study stand out, however, is the observation of statistically highly significant correlations of intra-muscular IGF1, myogenin and myoD  mRNA expression, which speaks in favor of my previous hypothesis (read up on that in the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle) that muscle growth is triggered, driven and maintained almost exclusively at a local level.

What are myogenin and myoD? Both are myogenic regulation factors with myogenin actually being part of the myoD family of transcription factors that will make stem cells develop into myocytes (myo D is highest in recently activated satellite cells).

So, when you are looking for "hormonal" (or other pro-anabolic) ghosts (Phillips. 2013), it is imperative to look for them right where the spook, or, in this case, the muscle building magic happens. If you do just that (see figure 2) and correlate the intra-muscular mRNA expression of IGF-1, myogenin and myoD, you will find the "ghostly" explanation for strength and size gains, as well as the confounding structural changes in the architecture of the muscle, with corresponding correlations between the increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of r = 0.85 (p = 0.0001), r = 0.87 (p = 0.0001) and r = 0.88 (p = 0.0001) for myoD, myogenin and IGF-1, respectively.

Fiber type changes take their time and occur only within the type II spectrum

A neat side-finding, which is actually no news, though, pertains to the fiber-type conversions that took place in response to the exercise regimen. Firstly, the scientists confirmed the notion that these changes occur exclusively within a certain fiber type. In other words, while Aguiar et al. observed conversions from the metabollically more flexible type IIX/D to the highly glycolytic (power) IIA type, no conversions of the highly oxidative type I to type II fibers were observed. And though the results would generally suggest that fiber IIX/D-to-IIA type conversion, as they 

"[...] also appear to occur during endurance training in humans, so that it would [be] reasonable to think that any exercise stimulus (e. g., endurance or strength) that is sufficient in duration and/or intensity can potentially induce conversions within the fast fiber population from type IIX/D to type IIA" (Aguiar. 2013),

the time-frame in the course of which these changes took place -- namely 12 weeks -- would confirm that the common fear of strength and endurance athletes could provoke negative structral adaptations from doing a "cardio" or "strength" workout from time actually is actually unwarranted. Neither will the former turn a powerlifter into a weakling, nor will the latter make a marathon runner "bulky". Both powerlifter and marathoner are on the contrary going to benefit from the conditioning effect and increase in strength, respectively -- not to mention the important effects on overall health both and not as mainstream stupidity will tell you only the powerlifter can derive from, figuratively speaking, "killing some game in the other's territory"

Bottom line: More food for intermittent thoughts on building muscle ;-)

Figure 3: Correlations between acute GH (A), free testosterone (B), IGF-1 (C)  and cortisol (D) responses (area under the curve—AUC) and gains in type II fibre CSA (Burd. 2013).

Eventually, this study is an excellent example of a way to design a rodent study in a way that will render its results actually meaningful. And what's more, in this particularly case these results are not just meaningful, but can also help us to make some sense of a couple of things we have not fully understood / appreciated, as of yet.

What I am particularly thinking about here, is the contrast between the in-vitro effects of IGF-1 and the (more or less absent) real-world effects of the IGF-1 response to exercise (=systemic increase), as it was observed by West and Phillips in a 2013 study. In their well-powered longitudinal study, neither the acute increase in systemic testosterone, nor the exercise induced increases in systemic IGF-1 showed significant correlations with the gains in type II CSA in a cohort (n = 56) of young men in response to 12 weeks of resistance training (West. 2013; see figure 3).

Another interesting finding of the West study was that, contrary to the circulating testosterone and IGF-1 levels, GH and cortisol did show direct correlations with increased muscle cross sectional areas in type II fibers.

And while the former correlation may be explained by the influence of growth hormone (GH) on the local expression of IGF-1 (Hameed . 2004), there is another open question left: How does cortisol actually figure in here? I mean, the chronic elevation / exogenous adminstration of cortisol, has been show to do the exact opposite, i.e. it decreases the local IGF-1 mRNA expression (Inder. 2010).

Figure 4: Graphical summary of what you should have learned Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle ... you didn't 'cause you are new to the SuppVersity or simply forgot about it? No problem read the preliminary summary and browse the individual chapters here!

What was missing in the Inder study, however, was the exercise component: Working out does not just exert protective effects against the negative side effects of the provision of exogenous "cortisol" (in this case Dexamethason), as they were observed in the afore referenced study by Inder et al., exercise will also lead to profound increases in local IGF-1 mRNA expression (e.g. +60% in Bamann. 2001), despite the fact that it will also increase the release of the falsely vilified anti-inflammatory glucocorticoid, cortisol... acute vs. chronic, local vs. system, peak values and amplitudes vs. plateaus and AUC values - you got to keep all these contrastive, yet complementary pairs in mind, when you are thinking about the endocrine and intracrine (within the cell) mediators of skeletal muscle hypertrophy.... what? Sounds familiar? Well, you must have been following the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle, then ;-)

References:

• Aguiar AF, Vechetti-Júnior IJ, Alves de Souza RW, Castan EP, Milanezi-Aguiar RC, Padovani CR, Carvalho RF, Silva MD. Myogenin, MyoD and IGF-I Regulate Muscle Mass but not Fiber-type Conversion during Resistance Training in Rats. Int J Sports Med. 2013 Oct 11.
• Bamman MM, Shipp JR, Jiang J, Gower BA, Hunter GR, Goodman A, McLafferty CL Jr, Urban RJ. Mechanical load increases muscle IGF-I and androgen receptor mRNA concentrations in humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001.
• Ding H, Gao XL, Hirschberg R, Vadgama JV, Kopple JD. Impaired actions of insulin-like growth factor 1 on protein Synthesis and degradation in skeletal muscle of rats with chronic renal failure. Evidence for a postreceptor defect. J Clin Invest. 1996 Feb 15;97(4):1064-75. 
• Inder WJ, Jang C, Obeyesekere VR, Alford FP. Dexamethasone administration inhibits skeletal muscle expression of the androgen receptor and IGF-1--implications for steroid-induced myopathy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2010 Jul;73(1):126-32.
• Phillips SM. Strength and hypertrophy with resistance training: chasing a hormonal ghost. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 May;112(5):1981-3-
• Sculthorpe N, Solomon AM, Sinanan AC, Bouloux PM, Grace F, Lewis MP. Androgens affect myogenesis in vitro and increase local IGF-1 expression. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Apr;44(4):610-5.
• Tamaki T, Uchiyama S, Nakano S. A weight-lifting exercise model for inducing hypertrophy in the hindlimb muscles of rats. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992 Aug;24(8):881-6.
• West DW, Phillips SM. Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Jul;112(7):2693-702. 

"Stretching Before Workouts Makes You Weak!" Mostly True, But Your Workout Volume Will Decline Even More. Plus: Stretching vs. Doms & Stretching for Couch Potatoes

Image 1:Avoid performing stretches before your workout; if you don't do them at all, things like this are out of reach and for the avg. 'no stretcher', 'all bencher', the hunched over look is just right around the corner.

Stretching is one of those topics most trainees are not really interested in. In that most of you are probably happy that most researchers agree that passive stretches, as they may have been prescribed 50 years ago, are counter-indicated before workouts. And though the experts still disagree on whether or not certain active stretching regimen may be useful, most trainees read the headline "Stretching Before Your Workout Reduces Your Strength" once and gave up the in their eyes bothersome, unnecessary ("I've never hurt myself, although I never stretch, bro!") and with the said headline "officially" detrimental pre-workout routine and spend the they otherwise have invested in a couple of stretches either guzzling a caffeine-laden pre-workout product (which is by the way to be consumed 30-45min before a workout) or doing another three to five sets of bench presses, biceps curls and crunches, before, during or after their workout. Even if we discard the fact that neither of those practices will be largely beneficial, this does still raise the question...

Is stretching actually detrimental? And if so, how detrimental is it?

When Renato Barosso and his colleagues from from the Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Strength Training at the School of Physical Education and Sport of the University of Sao Paulo recruited the 12 young strength-trained men (20.4 years, 67.9, 173.3cm), they probably had a very similar question on their minds.

Figure 1: Graphical outline of the time-course of the 2 x 4 (1RM or maximal repetition) testing sessions (Barosso. 2013)

As you can see in figure 1 this was a trial in which all participants ,who had been familiarized with the respective protocols on 3 familiarization sessions on separate days, underwent every of the three stretching sessions which consisted of three sets of the supine knee flex, side quadriceps stretch, the sitting toe touch which were performed in the form of

• static stretches (SS) This is probably what you would call "the classic stretch", where you hold each stretch for 30s, make a 30s pause and continue
• proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) You perform a passive stretch and hold the stretching position for approximately 5 seconds; then, you perform a 5s near-maximal isometric contraction (Sheard . 2010), relax and passively hold the stretching position for another 20s
• ballistic-stretching (BS) Same procedures as in the static stretch session, but instead of holding the stretching positions for 30 seconds, the subjects had to bob in 1:1-second cycles for 1 minute

and the non-stretched control workouts with subsequent 1RM or maximal number of repetition tests. With the 3 + 1 conditions and the two measuring outcomes being tested on different occasions, this sums up to a total of 8 testing sessions of either 1-RM max leg presses or 80%RM leg presses to failure.

Figure 2: Absolute changes in ROM during the "sit and reach test" (in cm) and rel. changes compared to no-stretching condition in 1-RM strength and maximal number of reps during 80%RM leg presses (data based on Barroso. 2013)

As you can see in figure 2 this is not one of the many SuppVersity posts that's going to bust a myth. Stretches, no matter how you perform them, will negatively effect your strength on the subsequent workout; only the PNF protocol with its short bursts of maximal contractions, however, lead to statistically significant, yet still relatively small (-5.4%) reductions in 1RM strength. What will suffer much more than your strength, though, is your ability to endure longer workouts, or I should say, longer sets: With reductions of

• -8.2 reps (-23%) after the "classic" static stretching routine
• -7.5 reps (-21%) subsequent to the PMF stretching routine, and
• -6.4 reps (-18%) in the maximal rep test after the ballistic stretch

it seems counter-indicated to perform any of these before your training session (the mean number of reps in the control condition was 36).

But doesn't stretching help against soreness? No! Neither pre- nor post-workout stretching offer a significant protection against muscle soreness, a Cochraine Review by Herbert et al. from July 2011 found "improvements" of 0.5 or 1pt, respectively, on a 1-100pts soreness scale after reviewing 12 relevant randomized controlled studies, of which one had more than 2,000 subjects (Herbert. 2011).

So, aside from preventing shortening of the muscles and increasing flexibility is there another reason to stretch? Yes! One surprising finding is that if you are a total couch-potato and don't train at all,  40min of stretching performed 3x / week over the course of 10-weeks will not just increase your flexibility (18.1%), they will also bump your standing long jump (2.3%), vertical jump (6.7%), 20-m sprint (1.3%), knee flexion 1RM (15.3%), knee extension 1RM (32.4%), knee flexion endurance (30.4%) and knee extension endurance (28.5%) performance... what? You are no couch-potato? Great, but these results do still tell you that part of the detrimental effects of stretching on your training performance may well be mitigated by the "training effect" - it's a stressin mini "workout" for your muscles and you would not do 100 body weight squats before your 80% 1RM max-rep test, either - would you?

Despite the fact that the most-heard science based argument against stretching before a workout does in fact involve its well-established negative effects on maximal strength performance, Nelson et al., Franco et al. and Marques et al. reported similar results for knee flexor exercises performed with 40, 50 and 60% of the body weight (Nelson. 2005), 1-3 sets of 20 reps of bench presses (Franco; 2009) and rep-max tests at 40, 60 and 80% knee extensions and bench presses on non-trained individuals (Marques. 2011) as Barroso et al. in the study at hand. The real "news" is thus...

"[...] that not only SS and PNF but also BS impaired the number of repetitions and the total volume (i.e., number of repetitions x external load) performed after stretching when compared with NS [and] that in strength-trained individuals, only the PNF stretching mode impaired the maximal strength production." (Barroso. 2013)

In a more general context, the latter finding, i.e. the influence of the exercise status on the strength declines subsequent to static stretches before a workout, is probably of even greater significance than the notion that you will hamper your strength endurance (note: I stick to this term here, although I am aware that most of you won't think of training at a 80% RM as "strength endurance" training): the questionable significance of data that was generated in an experiment with strength training rookies for the average physical culturist.

In the case of the effects of classic static stretching and ballistic stretches before a workout on the performance during a subsequent 1-RM max strength test, it is now clear that the results from rookies, whose performance drops compared to the no stretch condition, regardless of the protocol, the rookie data is of little to no value for anyone with a coupe of months, let alone years of weight lifting experience.

Bottom line: Irrespective of the last-mentioned problems, the take home message from this and previous studies would be the same for all strength athletes who don't just walk into the gym, crank out a single max set and head home again - Refrain from performing any kind of quasi-static stretching protocol before your workout - and don't forget to look at the study population the next time you see one of the rare studies on resistance training ;-)

References:

• Franco BL, Signorelli GR, Trajano GS, de Oliveira CG. Acute effects of different stretching exercises on muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1832-7. 
• Herbert RD, de Noronha M, Kamper SJ. Stretching to prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;(7):CD004577.
• Marques MC, Costa PB, da Silva Novaes J. Acute effects of two different stretching methods on local muscular endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Mar;25(3):745-52. 
• Nelson AG, Kokkonen J, Arnall DA. Acute muscle stretching inhibits muscle strength endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):338-43.
• Sheard PW, Paine TJ. Optimal contraction intensity during proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for maximal increase of range of motion. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Feb;24(2):416-21.