Training in Line W/ Your Genetic Potential Can Boost Your Performance Gains More Than 600%, DNAFit™ Studies Say

Training in Line W/ Your Genetic Potential Can Boost Your Performance Gains More Than 600%, DNAFit™ Studies Say

athletes build muscle elite athletes gains gainz genes genetics performance training programming training programs training protocol

While the study at hand appears to confirm that the DNAFit test can tell you if you're an endurance or strength athlete, it won't help you achieve goals you were not "made for" - it eventually you may thus have to give up your dream of being the fastest, strongest or most chiseled guy / gal on the track, field or in gym.

You probably know that: There's that guy at the gym who has been training only half as long as you and still made twice the gains, ... must be juicing that idiot, right? Well, even if we assume that you're not one of the >50% of trainees who overtrain (and undereat) that's by no means the most likely explanation for the astonishing discrepancies.

A recent study that was conducted by a consortium of European researchers is now the first to impressively demonstrate that "matching the individual’s genotype with the appropriate training modality leads to more effective resistance training" (Jones. 2016) What the scientists some of whom work for a company that offers corresponding DNA tests won't tell you, though is that their test will eventually just help you to select the right sport, not to excel in the one sport you have already chosen.

Learn more about workouts, supplements, diet and more at the SuppVersity

Vitargo, Red Bull, Creatine...

Pump Supps & Synephrine...

High Protein, Body Comp...

Keto Diet Re- search Update

The Misquantified Self & More...

BCAA, Cholos-trum, Probiotics...

Eventually, none of this should surprise you, though. Scientists and practitioners alike have suspected for centuries and known for decades that elite athletes are born, not formed in the gym. Association studies have identified dozens of genetic variants linked to training responses and sport-related traits (Table 1 provides a glimpse at the peak of a hitherto largely unknown iceberg of genetic variants that will influence your adaptation to specific training types).

Table 1: List of known genetic variants that influence your adaptation to specific (resistance) training stimuli that were analyzed with the patented DNAFit Peak Performance Algorithm™ in the study at hand (Jones. 2016).

Yes, the way and consistence with which you train will obviously have an effect on the way your physique, strength, speed, conditioning, etc. develops, but when all is said and done, you are simply lucky if you're not lapped by somebody who has trained just as intense- and persistenly who was gifted with a more appropriate gene set for the sports you love. It is thus no wonder that scientists have been pondering about ways to (a) select the right candidates for the right sports and (b) personalizing athletes' training based on their genetic profiles.

In the previously cited study, Jones et al. proposed to do just that by the means of an algorithm that would allow athletes to achieve "greater results in response to high- or low-intensity resistance training programs by predicting athlete's potential for the development of power and endurance qualities" (Jones. 2016).The DNAFit algorithm which is designed to predict the response to high- or low-intensity resistance training programs invokes the 15 performance-associated gene polymorphisms from Table 1.

Figure 1: Both studies used the same randomized, double-blinded crossover design (based on Jones. 2016).

To validate it, its designers from DNA Sports Performance Ltd. and scientists from the University of Central Lancashire, the Universitat Pompeu Fabra and the Parc Científic i Tecnològic Agroalimentari de LleidaPCiTAL performed two studies in independent cohorts of male athletes using in ...

• study 1: athletes from different sports (n=28) / 55 Caucasian male University athletes, all aged 18-20 years, volunteered for the study, and 28 of them (height 180.7 ± 1.5 cm, weight 77.0 ± 2.1 kg) successfully completed it (27 athletes had not completed all aspects of the study due to either injury or illness); each participant was a member of first or second team, actively competing in British Universities and Colleges Sports (BUCS) leagues. The athletes competed in squash (n = 1), swimming (n = 7), running (n = 1), ski/snowboard (n = 4), soccer (n = 1), lacrosse (n = 2), badminton (n = 1), motorsport (n = 1), cycling (n = 4), cricket (n = 2), volleyball (n = 1), fencing (n = 1) and rugby union (n = 2). and 
• study 2: soccer players (n=39) / 68 male soccer players, all aged 16-19 years, volunteered to participate in the study, and 39 of them (height 176.1 ± 1.0 cm, weight 68.9 ± 1.5 kg) successfully completed it (29 participants were withdrawn from the study due to non-adherence of set training volumes over the 8 weeks, or injury); each subject was a member of college soccer academy who actively competed in British Universities & Colleges Sport (BUCS) league.

In both studies athletes completed an eight-week high- or low-intensity resistance training program, which either matched or mismatched their individual genotype. In that, participants of both studies were initially randomly allocated to an eight-week high- or low-intensity resistance-training program, after undergoing performance tests for both explosive power and endurance. After another set of performance tests, they then transitioned to the respective other 8-week intervention, the results of which were then compared with the previous ones and correlated with the subjects gene types.

No, the muscle or strength gains were not assessed: I am not sure why the scientists decided against measuring the lean / fat mass gains / losses. After all, their gene set included the thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) receptor gene where polymorphisms at rs16892496 A/C that influences the secretion of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and prolactin (PRL) and has been found to modulate the amount of lean mass by Liu et al. in 2009. My best bets are that the reasons are financial ones (DXA is expensive, everything else inaccurate)strategic ones, with 8-weeks of training being unlikely to produce sufficiently inter-group differences in already trained athletes, given the small sample size(s) and range of sports that were included (esp. in study 1), or a mere consequence of the choice of protocols, which did not include a hypertrophy protocol (thus no measurement of muscle gains) and/or would obviously produce greater strength gains with the high intensity protocol (measuring those would thus be useless, too).

As the authors point out, "[t]he study was double blinded, in that all were unaware of their ‘genetic potential status’, as determined by the DNAFit Peak Performance Algorithm™" (Jones. 2016). Since this also included the lead investigator who coached the participants during the 8 weeks of resistance training, the notion that 'this is the optimal training type for me / my trainee' should not have influenced the study outcomes.

Figure 2: Intergroup comparisons of CMJ increases (%) in response to high- or low-intensity training; the %-ages over the bars indicate the difference to the mean effect (all) - It's easy to see that training 'according to your genotype' makes a 40-80% difference even if you compare the speficic to the average success; >100% for inter-group comparisons (Jones. 2016)

And still, as the data from the explosive power and aerobic fitness tests that involved countermovement jumps (CMJ) and an aerobic 3-min cycle test (Aero3) revelead, training 'according' to your genes (or rather the assessment of the DNAFit test), i.e.

• high-intensity trained with power genotype or 
• low-intensity trained with endurance genotype,

significantly increased results in CMJ (P=0.0005) and Aero3 (P=0.0004). Athletes from the mismatched group (i.e. high-intensity trained with endurance genotype or low intensity trained with power genotype), however, demonstrated non-significant improvements in CMJ (P=0.175) and less prominent results in Aero3 (P=0.0134).

Figure 3: Inter-group comparisons of Aero3 increases (%) in response to high- or low-intensity training; left axes = power and endurance genes groups, right axes = all subjects (data from both cohorts | Jones. 2016).

Similar results were observed in the 2nd study, where  soccer players from the matched groups saw significantly greater (P<0.0001) performance changes in both tests compared to the mismatched group. In that, the following facts are particularly noteworthy:

• the advantage of training 'according to your genotype' ranges from ~40% to ~80% even if you compare it to the average training response (Figure 1, "all");
• comparing training according to training in discordance with your genotype(s) yields differences that range from 55% up to 610% (the latter in the soccer players on the low intensity regimen for CMJ; Figure 1, study 2 / low intensity)

What is maybe even more important than the statistically significant differences in the mean gains is the consistency of failure, i.e. the fact that Among non- or low responders of both studies, 82% of athletes (both for CMJ and Aero3) were from the mismatched group (P<0.0001).

Remember? Your Post-Workout Testosterone Levels Can Predict Your Gains - Study Takes Novel Approach to the T ↔ Muscle Link | Learn more

Bottom line: As the (maybe biased) authors of the study point out, their well-designed and appropriately blinded trial clearly "indicate[s] that matching the individual’s genotype with the appropriate training modality [as determined with 'their' proprietary DNAFit test] leads to more effective resistance training" (Jones. 2016). It does therefore stand to reason that "[t]he developed algorithm may be used to guide individualised resistance-training interventions" (Jones. 2016). Whether that's actually useful for the average gymrat, whose goal may diverge sign. from what he was 'born to achieve', though, is another story... at least until you'll be able to home-brew / -tweak your genes with CRISPER ;-)

Another thing we shouldn't forget is that getting big and buffed, the goal of a majority of male gymgoers, wasn't even investigated in the study at hand... I bet, though, that future studies with different training regimen and study populations (e.g. untrained individuals) will assess and probably find similar results for muscle and strength gains - And you know where you will be able to read about their results, right? | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Jones, N., et al. "A genetic-based algorithm for personalized resistance training." Biol Sport 33.2 (2016): 117-126.
• Liu, Xiao-Gang, et al. "Genome-wide association and replication studies identified TRHR as an important gene for lean body mass." The American Journal of Human Genetics 84.3 (2009): 418-423.

Mo, We, Fr - Sequence of Hypertrophy, Power & Strength Will Up Your Gains on the Big Three (Squat, Bench, Deadlift)

Mo, We, Fr - Sequence of Hypertrophy, Power & Strength Will Up Your Gains on the Big Three (Squat, Bench, Deadlift)

ADP athletes bench press build strength deadlift DUP performance periodization powerlifting resistance training squat training programming training programs UDP

Squat, bench press, deadlift - All major three benefit from the right order in your daily undulating periodization program (DUP) - This is how it works...

As a SuppVersity reader you are familiar with the term "undulating periodization". In contrast to regular periodization schemes, undulating schemes will have you train in different rep ranges on a weekly or - as in the latest study by Zourdos et al. (2016), even daily (as in every workout) basis.

As Zourdos, et al. point out, the available research shows mixed results with the respect to the efficacy of regular linear vs. undulating periodization schemes. While some studies report no differences among training models (Baker. 1994; Buford. 2007; Kok. 2009), others suggest that the more frequent changes of the rep ranges in an undulating periodization scheme are more advantageous for strength development (Miranda. 2011; Monteiro. 2009; Peterson. 2008; Prestes. 2009; Rhea. 2002).

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

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

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

When you take a closer look at the data, one of the potential confounding factors that emerges is the subjects' training experience with no significantly distinct advantages in untrained or recreationally trained individuals (Baker. 1994; Buford. 2007; Herrick. 1999; Kok. 2009) and a significantly greater degree of muscular strength development when using a DUP design compared with LP (Miranda. 2011; Monteiro. 2009; Peterson. 2008; Prestes. 2009; Rhea. 2002). An alternative difference, the effects of which have not been investigated yet, are programming variations within the daily undulating periodization (DUP) framework in experienced athletes. More specifically, ...

"[i]t is reasonable to speculate that the program design and practical implementation of DUP can be further optimized. A possible area of improvement in the DUP design is the temporal configuration of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power/speedcentric sessions within a given week. Previous research demonstrating the effectiveness of DUP over LP implemented a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power-centric bouts (e.g., hypertrophy training on Monday, strength training on Wednesday, and power training on Friday) (Peterson. 2008). However, this design calls for a strength-centric bout to be performed just 48–72 hours after a hypertrophy-centric bout each week. Hypertrophy training is characterized by sessions of high volume of exercise, a condition shown to result in heightened muscle damage, and compromised neuromuscular performance for up to 48-hour postexercise (Flann. 2011; Rhea. 2002b). In the context of traditional DUP formatting, this may conceivably hinder performance (i.e., total volume [TV] performed) during the subsequent strength-centric bout, thereby precluding strength athletes from maximizing their training potential" (Zourdos. 2016).

To investigate the potential negative effects of hypertrophy training induced muscle damage on the subsequent strength training bout, Zourdos et al. (2016) compared the effects of a modified DUP format with a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric (H), power-centric (P), and strength-centric bouts (S | H-P-S) on total training volume (i.e., sets 3 reps 3 weightlifted) and muscular strength in comparison with a traditional DUP model (i.e., HSP) in resistance-trained men for 6 weeks (see Figure 1).

Table 1: Experimental training periodization - Traditional Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, strength, and then power focused bouts (HSP). Modified DUP involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength focused bouts. Each protocol spans 6 weeks and consists of three exercises: back squat, bench press, and deadlift (only performed during strength-centric bouts | Zourdos. 2016).

In order to find out what could be responsible for any potentially observable differences in their study, the authors also tested the total training volume as measured by the total poundage the subjects moved during the strength sessions, in which the subjects trained to failure, and the temporal secretion patterns of testosterone and cortisol in response to both DUP training programs.

Understanding the benefits: Since I've already received questions about how the benefits came about, let me briefly elaborate on the idea of HPS vs. HSP. The notion was that <48h of recovery, from Monday to Wednesday, after a higher volume hypertophy (H) training program would not be enough to hit personal bests on the strength day on which - and that's important - the subjects had to perform each set to full failure. If you train to failure, recovery is a crucial determinant of the number of reps you will master and thus the total volume. The latter, in turn, appears to be one of the central determinants of the strength / hypertrophy response to resistance training, which in turn makes you stronger and will allow you to lift even more weight. So, postponing the strength (S) day to Friday instead of Wednesday will have both, direct and indirect beneficial effects on your gains.

In that, Zourdos, et al. hypothesized that "HPS (i.e., modified DUP) would yield greater volume and strength gains in the 3 exercises performed during training" (Zourdos. 2016).

Figure 1: Rel. change in strength and abs. Cohen’s d effect size in HSP and HPS groups (N = 9 for both; Zourdos. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, the scientists were right, the effects of the otherwise identical training protocols, which involved 3 exercises (squats + bench presses in every, deadlifts only in the strength sessions) during training, of which the subjects did ..

• 5 sets of 8 reps at 75% 1RM during H = hypertrophy,
• 5 sets of 1 rep at 80%-90% increased every 2 weeks during P = power and
• 3 sets to failure at 85% during S = strength raining

differed significantly, with a statistical significant advantage on the bench and meaningfully higher effect sizes for all three exercises in the HPS group - an effect that could be mediated by the increased total volume and Wilk's coefficient, a measure that can be used to measure the strength of a powerlifter against other powerlifters despite the different weights of the lifters (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Rel. change in powerlifting volume and Will's coefficient + effect sizes in HSP and HPS groups (Zourdos. 2016).

An alternative explanation of which previous studies do yet not confirm that it may explain the difference is the differential cortisol / testosterone response (learn more) - in view of the fact that the difference you see in Table 2 is not statistically significant, though, it is even more unlikely that the meager difference in testosterone and cortisol the scientists observed had any effect.

Table 1: Pre- and post-training serum testosterone and cortisol level (Zourdos. 2016).

Against that background, we're back to the "usual" subject, when it comes to determinants of the degree of adaptation to resistance training: volume - the same parameter reviews and studies by Schoenfeld et al. (2010; 2011; 2014) have previously singled out as the (most important) determinant of training success.

Again: The differences in the cortisol / testosterone levels were not just statistically non-significant. At least the latter has also been shown to have no effect on your gains, anyways | more.

Bottom line: As the authors point out, "[t]hese findings demonstrate 2 important factors in accordance with the previous literature: (a). Total training volume seems to be a determinant of increased strength performance, and (b). Daily undulating periodization is an effective model to
enhance 1RM strength during short-term training protocols in well-trained men" (Zourdos. 2016).

Zourdos et al. are yet also right to point out that few training studies exist regarding various training designs. This alone warrants further "research examining further DUP configurations is necessary" - studies in less trained individuals, and studies investigating the size gains, too could after all both yield different results for the same H-S-P to H-P-S comparison | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Baker, Daniel, Greg Wilson, and Robert Carlyon. "Periodization: The Effect on Strength of Manipulating Volume and Intensity." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 8.4 (1994): 235-242.
• Buford, Thomas W., et al. "A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.4 (2007): 1245-1250.
• Flann, Kyle L., et al. "Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain?." The Journal of experimental biology 214.4 (2011): 674-679.
• Herrick, Andrew B., and William J. Stone. "The Effects of Periodization Versus Progressive Resistance Exercise on Upper and Lower Body Strength in Women." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 10.2 (1996): 72-76.
• Kok, Lian-Yee, Peter W. Hamer, and David J. Bishop. "Enhancing muscular qualities in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodization." Med Sci Sports Exerc 41.9 (2009): 1797-807.
• Miranda, Fabrício, et al. "Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.7 (2011): 1824-1830.
• Monteiro, Artur G., et al. "Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.4 (2009): 1321-1326.
• Peterson, Mark D., et al. "Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.5 (2008): 1683-1695.
• Prestes, Jonato, et al. "Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 266-274.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.2 (2002a): 250-255.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.4 (2002b): 525-529.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010): 2857-2872.
• Schoenfeld, Brad. "The use of specialized training techniques to maximize muscle hypertrophy." Strength & Conditioning Journal 33.4 (2011): 60-65.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.10 (2014): 2909-2918.

Carbohydrate Timing Boosts Training Effect: Cut Out Carbs After PM Glycogen Depleting HIT Workout ⇨ "Sleep Low" to Make Game-Changing Performance Gains in Only 3 Weeks

Carbohydrate Timing Boosts Training Effect: Cut Out Carbs After PM Glycogen Depleting HIT Workout ⇨ "Sleep Low" to Make Game-Changing Performance Gains in Only 3 Weeks

athletes carbohydrate timing CHO glycogen glycogen depletion high carbohydrate HIIT hit LISS LIT low carbohydrate performance triathlon

You are no triathlete or coach? That doesn't mean that this study isn't of interest for you. The figurative "extra wind" this training strategy can give you is relevant for almost every athlete.

In a recent study, scientists from the French National Institute of Sport investigated the effect of a chronic dietary periodization strategy in a group of twenty-one highly-trained male triathletes. Previous studies, in which "train-low" strategies, during which athletes are deliberately carbohydrate restricted over certain periods of their training cycle, have reported robust a up-regulation of selected markers of training adaptation (increased whole body fat oxidation, increased activities of oxidative enzymes) compared to training with normal glycogen stores and high CHO availability, however, the subjects experienced at best disappointing performance increases.

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

Acutely Increased Hormones Don't Grow Muscle?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

Scientists have long speculated that the disconnect between the benefits "training low" offers on the level of cellular / mitochondrial adaptation, on the one hand, and the real-world performance increases, on the other hand, could be a consequence of the necessarily reduced high intensity training intensity during the low-carb phases (Yeo. 2008; Hulston. 2010). If we simply assume that this hypothesis is correct, the solution to the problem should be obvious: Train low when carbohydrates are not necessary and use them, whenever they promote maximal performance.

Marquet et al. implemented this principle in a way I tried to illustrated in Figure 1. More specifically, they tried to maximize the subjects' performance during PM high-intensity training (HIT) by providing copious amounts of carbohydrates before the session and restricted the carbohydrate intake to close to zero after this glycogen-depleting workout.To test the efficacy of this protocol, the scientists used a 2x3 week study design in which the first 3 weeks were used to standardize the volunteers training regimen (10-15 h·wk- 1 : 40% running, 35% cycling, 25% swimming), assess subjects' compliance to the study demands and ensure they all attained similar baseline fitness measures before study commencement.

Figure 1: Overview of important aspects of the dietary / supplemental aspects of the study.

During the decisive second 3-week phase, the subjects were instructed to follow identical diets (by prescribing exact menus, the scientists achieved a high degree of standardization) in combination with either the previously described "sleep low" carbohydrate intake strategy or their usual carbohydrate intake patterns. Unlike the diet / supplementation regimen, the training program the subjects followed was identical for all of them - it ...

Figure 2: Sample weekly protocol for training and CHO intake (g/kg) to achieve different CHO avail. around training (Marquet. 2016)

"consisted of six sessions over four consecutive days, including high intensity training (HIT) sessions in the afternoon and low intensity training (LIT) sessions the next morning. [...] LIT sessions consisted in 60 min cycling at 65% MAP (218.8 ± 20.4 W - 95% CI: 227.5 and 210.7), while HIT sessions consisted alternatively in 8 x 5 min cycling at 85% MAP (286 ± 26.7 W- 95% CI: 297.5 and 274.7) or 6x5 min running at their individual 10 km intensity with 1 min recovery between sets (37). [...] One LIT session per day was prescribed for the other days of the week for a total training volume of 10-15 h" (Marquet. 2016).

All subjects used their own training equipment to record their activity, the duration and intensity of exercise and heart rate. In conjunction with the volunteers' perceived exertion records, as well as VO2max tests, maximal and submaximal performance tests and the results of a simulation of the final leg of a triathlon race, the scientists got a pretty comprehensive set of data.

The effect of "training low" largely depends on the master regulator of mitochondrial adaptation PGC-1a. The latter is activated not just by the contraction induced calcium flux and exercise stress, but also by a lack of glycogen and increased levels of the (low) energy sensing protein AMPK.

How does "training low" work? By deliberately restricting the carbohydrate intake during certain phases of your training you will be able to train in a glyocogen-depleted state and thus with clearly suboptimal fuel availability. The lack of readily available glucose that can be derived from the glycogen stores in your muscle, whenever necessary, exerts profound effects on your overall resting fuel metabolism and patterns of fuel utilization during exercise and triggers acute regulatory processes underlying enzyme and gene expression, as well as cell signaling (signaling proteins, gene expression, transcription rate of several genes, enzymes activity) which regulate the adaptive response to exercise. The results are an increased capacity to oxidize fat, a reduced reliance on glucose as a preferred substrate, etc.

Data that tells us that the authors' hypothesis that they could get the benefits of training low while avoiding the negative sides by "sleeping low" was accurate:

• 

  Figure 3: Make no mistake about it! The total amount of CHO the subjects consumed was identical it was just timed differently. No difference existed for any of the other macronutrients, either (Marquet. 2016).

  There was a significant improvement in delta efficiency during submaximal cycling , i.e. the power output per calorie, a very important measure for endurance athletes, for the "sleep low" compared to the control group (CON: +1.4 ± 9.3 %, SL: +11 ± 15 %, P<0.05).
• A similarly pronounced, albeit due to inter-individual differences, which loom large in studies with relatively few participants, only borderline significant (P = 0.06) beneficial effect was observed during the supra-maximal cycling to exhaustion trial at 150% of peak aerobic power, where the control group saw improve-ments of only 1.63 ± 12.4 %, while the "sleep low" group improved by 12.5 ± 19.0 %.
• The "sleep low" protocol also triggered significantly higher (P < 0.05) improvements in 10k running performance, where the meager -0.10 ± 2.03 % increase in the control group was topped by a -2.9 ± 2.15 % performance increase in the "sleep low" group.

In the "sleep low" group, even the effects on the body composition were significantly more pronounced compared to the control group. To be precise, the subjects who "slept low" burned a whopping 8.7 ± 7.4 % body fat literally overnight, while the control group lost a likewise measurable, but significantly lower and overall non-significant -2.6 ± 7.4% of their body fat - don't be mislead by the size of the bars in Figure 4; the fat mass is on the right axis which starts at 8kg and ends at 10kg. So there was no significant inter-group difference at baseline. No significant inter-group differences were observed for the changes in lean and total mass, either.

Figure 4: Even if you're not training for performance, the improvements in body composition, or more specifically the significant reduction in body fat without sign. changes in lean or total mass, may be of interest for you | total and lean mass on the left axis, fat mass on the right axis; all values in kilograms; sign. changes in % above bars (Marquet. 2016).

Against that background, it is by no means an exaggeration to say that even in the short-term (and that's what I consider particularly impressive here) the "periodization of dietary CHO availability around selected training sessions" can promote "significant improvements" in several highly relevant performance marker of trained athletes" (Marquet. 2016).

8x Increase in "Mitochondria Building" Protein PGC1-Alpha W/ Medium Inten-sity Exercise in Glycogen Depleted Elite(!) Cyclists | Learn more

Drop the carbs pre-bed! No, that's not because carbohydrates in the evening would make you fat. As a SuppVersity reader you know that this is bogus (learn more). The reason why you should consider dropping carbs in the PM (or rather after intense workouts) is their "anti-adaptive" effect - an effect that occurs in response to their ability to replenish your glycogen-stores and thus shut down the "we need to adapt to use more fat" signal to your mitochondria...

Ok, that's not exactly the most scientific explanation (see red box for more), but it is one that highlights one of the most important and yet commonly overlooked principles of physiological adaptations: they occur in response to a need.

If you always provide more than enough carbohydrates, there's no need to increase your ability to use fat as a fuel. If, on the other hand, you (A) fuel yourself with carbs when your body really needs them (during HIT training) to perform at the crucial i + 1 level that will trigger an adaptive response at high intensities, and (B) cut yourself off of a readily available carbohydrate supply when you don't need them (during sleep and low intensity exercise) you maximize the adaptive response to both HIT and LIT (low intensity training) and boost your overall training results | Comment!

References:

• Hulston, Carl J., et al. "Training with low muscle glycogen enhances fat metabolism in well-trained cyclists." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 42 (2010): 2046-55.
• Marquet, et al. "Enhanced Endurance Performance by Periodization of CHO Intake: “Sleep Low” Strategy." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (2015): Publish Ahead of Print.
• Yeo, Wee Kian, et al. "Skeletal muscle adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day endurance training regimens." Journal of Applied Physiology 105.5 (2008): 1462-1470.

Tribulus is Good for Something: 1.25 g/day Modulate IGF-1 Availability and Alleviate Muscle Damage While Promoting Anaerobic Performance of Intensely Trained Male Boxers

Tribulus is Good for Something: 1.25 g/day Modulate IGF-1 Availability and Alleviate Muscle Damage While Promoting Anaerobic Performance of Intensely Trained Male Boxers

athletes boxers IGF-1 IGF1 IGFBP-3 performance saponins testosterone booster tribulus tribulus terrestris

Tribulus terrestris extracts - While the boxing gloved protect a boxers fists from damage, the TT extracts may protect his muscle. Recent study yields surprising results and insights into the performance enhancing effects of TT and why it may have failed to work in previous studies.

Yes, it's (a) not a rodent study, (b) published in a peer-reviewed journal, (c) not sponsored by a supplement company (but the Chinese government), and was (d) conducted not just with untrained and mostly sedentary or "recreational trained" human beings, but even with fifteen highly trained male boxers (national second-level athletes, 2–3 years of training) who were recruited from the boxing team of Shanghai University of Sport Affiliated School of Sports in China. This alone makes the latest study from the Shanghai University of Sport newsworthy. The fact that the scientists actually observed significant and practically effects when they 'fed' their subjects 1.25g of a standardized tribulus terrestis (TT) extract (bought on the free market from Pronova Biocare, Sweden) with a saponin content of >40% per day, however, makes the study even more interesting.

If you want to build muscle forget T-booster and optimize your protein intake 

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Whey vs. Pea Protein

In contrast to previous studies that focused exclusively on testosterone and (sometimes) DHT, when it comes to identifying mechanisms for potential performance increases, the study at hand was designed to investigate the effects of Tribulus terrestris (TT) extracts on muscle mass, muscle damage, and anaerobic performances of trained male boxers and whether those may be brought about by androgen, IGF-1, and/or changes in IGF-1 or the concentration of its binding protein (IGFBP-3). To this ends, the previously mentioned fifteen male boxers were divided into an exercise group (E, n = 7) and an exercise plus TT group (E + TT, n = 8). The two groups both undertook 3-weeks of high intensity and 3-weeks of high volume training. The latter were separated by a 4-week rest period.

Table 1: Training protocol of the boxers with high intensity and high volume training (Ma. 2015) | Abbreviations: HR, heart rate; RM, repetition maximum.

"All athletes received similar 3-week high intensity training and 3-week high volume training separated by a 4-week rest. Besides special technical training, the main part of the high intensity training was strength training including maximum strength training (twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday) and speed strength training (twice a week, on Monday and Thurs day). For high volume training [see Table 1], the boxers undertook endurance training (10,000 m race every day and low to moderate intensity rope skipping twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday), and special technical training and speed strength training similar to high intensity training" (Ma. 2015).

The supplement, the aforementioned TT extracts (1,250 mg/day), was orally administered only in the E + TT group, obviously. Before the pills were handed out to the subjects, their exact compositions had been analyzed and their saponin content had been confirmed by UHPLC–Q-TOF/MS.

Not all TT extracts are created equal! If you've previously taken tribulus supplements and have seen no results, the reason could well be that they did not contain the right amount or type of saponins. As Ma et al highlight, the content of 25(R)-Spirostan-3,6,12-trione/25(R)-Spirostan-4-ene-3,12-dione and TT saponin A varies "depending on geographical region, climate23 and part of herb, which may partly explain the divergent results of TT extracts from different studies" (Ma. 2015).

The results of the pre- and post assessments of muscle mass, anaerobic performance, and blood indicators revealed no inter-group differences for testosterone, DHT, muscle mass or total IGF-1. Creatine kinase (CK), the IGF binding protein IGFBP-3 and the subjects' absolute and relative muscle power, on the other hand, increased significantly more in the supplement (E + TT) vs. control (E) group (Figure 1 shows the relative difference of the change from baseline, i.e. ΔE+TT - ΔE).

Figure 1: Differences in relative changes of IGF-BP3, the ratio of IGF/IGF-BP3, mean power, relative mean power and creatine kinase (CK) - higher values denote significant increases compared to control (E), lower values decreases in (E+TT) vs. (E) (all p < 0.05) | data calculated based on Ma. 2015

Against that background it is only logical that the scientists speculate that the performance increase and reduction in muscle damage they observed could be a result of the increased availability of IGF-1 (the total IGF-1 to IGF1BP-3 ratio is an indicator of the amount of insulin growth factor 1 that's actually floating around unbound in the blood).

Figure 2: Overview of the general role of IGF-1; focus on what is missing when it declines as we age (Berryman. 2013).

If you look at the far-reaching effects of IGF-1 on muscle (Frystyk. 2010) and its general effects on human metabolism as depicted in Figure 2 from Berryman, et al (2013), it certainly appears reasonable to assume that the significant increase in IGF-1 availability could explain the decreased muscle damage in the study at hand as well as similar results from a human study by Milasius, et al (2009) and studies in overtrained and intensely trained rodents by Zhang, et al (2010), Wang et al (2010) and Yin et al (2013), respectively.

Read this highly suggested SuppVersity Classic: Beware of falling victim to the "Brocebo Effect", Bros! Brocebo? Add 10kg to Your Bench in Days with Sugar-Based "Anabolic Steroids". Old Study Shows, Many "Natural Anabolics" Could Work Solely via Placebo Effects | learn more

What's the verdict, then? In view of the large influence the exact ratio and concentration of saponins will probably have on the effect of a given TT extract and its variability according to region, harvest and the part(s) of the plant that was/were used to prepare the extract (see red box) it is not impossible that previous studies by Antonio et al (2000) and Rogerson et al (2007) simply didn't find performance benefits in resistance-trained men and rugby players, because they used the 'wrong' extracts (or the training was not intense enough, some of the benefits in the study at hand were after all blunted performance decreases during intense training).

While it is hard to determine whether or not this hypothesis is true, there's no reason to debate the conclusion Ma et al draw based on their more recent results in trained boxers - a conclusion that reads: "Taking 1,250 mg capsules containing TT [...] alleviated muscle damage and promoted anaerobic performance of trained male boxers, which may be related to the decrease of plasma IGFBP-3 rather than androgen in plasma" (Ma. 2015) | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Antonio, et al. "The effects of Tribulus terrestris on body composition and exercise performance in resistance-trained males." International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 10 (2000): 208–215.
• Berryman, Darlene E., et al. "The GH/IGF-1 axis in obesity: pathophysiology and therapeutic considerations." Nature Reviews Endocrinology 9.6 (2013): 346-356.
• Frystyk, Jan. "Exercise and the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor axis." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 42.1 (2010): 58-66.
• Ma, Yiming, Zhicheng Guo, and Xiaohui Wang. "Tribulus Terrestris extracts alleviate muscle damage and promote anaerobic performance of trained male boxers and its mechanisms: Roles of androgen, IGF-1 and IGF binding protein-3." Journal of Sport and Health Science (2015).
• Milasius, K., R. Dadeliene, and Ju Skernevicius. "The influence of the Tribulus terrestris extract on the parameters of the functional preparedness and athletes’ organism homeostasis." Fiziol Zh 55.5 (2009): 89-96.
• Rogerson, Shane, et al. "The effect of five weeks of Tribulus terrestris supplementation on muscle strength and body composition during preseason training in elite rugby league players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.2 (2007): 348-353.
• Wang et al. "Effects of Tribulus terrestris on exercise ability, endocrine and immune functions of over-trained rats." Journal of Shanghai University of Sport 46 (2010).
• Yin, Liang, et al. "The Effects of Tribulus Terrestris on the Time of Exhaustion in Rats with High Intensity Training and Its Mechanism." Journal of Shanghai University of Sport 5 (2013).
• Zhang, Shuang, et al. "[Effect of gross saponins of Tribulus terrestris on cardiocytes impaired by adriamycin]." Yao xue xue bao= Acta pharmaceutica Sinica 45.1 (2010): 31-36.

Chains & Bands Can Double Your 1RM Strength Gains on the Bench and in the Squat Rack, Meta-Analysis Shows

Chains & Bands Can Double Your 1RM Strength Gains on the Bench and in the Squat Rack, Meta-Analysis Shows

athletes bands build strength chains performance resistance band training techniques

Dude, it won't suffice to just bring your chains to the gym to show them off, you will also have to attach them to the barbell before squatting and benching to see results... and bro, the science on the benefits of elastic bands is much more solid - even though they are not as "cool"!

I've written about the use of bands and chains in previous SuppVersity articles, but Miguel A. Soria-Gila recent paper is the first meta-analysis that aggregates the available data to answer the important question, whether the use of "variable resistance" training (VRT), as the use of bands and chains is usually referred to in the literature, is generally advisable, or if the existing positive results are nothing but outliers.

Now, from the headline of today's SuppVersity article you already know that Sotia-Gila's analysis yielded positive results, or as the authors have it: " Long-term VRT training using chains or elastic bands attached to the barbell emerged as an effective evidence-based method of improving maximal strength both in athletes with different sports backgrounds and untrained subjects."

Want to become stronger, bigger, faster and leaner? Periodize appropriately!

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

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What is particularly interesting, though, is whether the statistically significant benefits are practically relevant enough for you to consider bringing your chains and/or resistance bands to the gym.

Figure 1: Relative strength increase in bench press (BP), back squat (BSQ), leg press (LP) and squat (SQ) in response to regular and variable resistance training; if not indicated otherwise, the variable resistance training was done with bands, only the study by Ghigarelli, et al. compared bands to chains (Soria-Gila. 2015).

To answer this question we need both, the relative and absolute strength increases in both, the variable resistance training (VRT) and control groups of the four pertinent studies in the meta-analysis - data I've plotted for you in Figure 1 and 2.

Figure 2: Absolute increase in 1-RM strength (all values in kg) in the respective exercises (see Figure 1 for abbreviations) in the seven 7-week plus studies that were part of the meta-analysis (Soria-Gila. 2015).

In five of the studies (indexed with "(T)" in Figure 1) the subjects were trained individuals, in the studies by Anderson (basketball and hockey players + wrestlers), Cronin and McCurdy (baseball, Division I) the subjects actually had ~3 or even more years of training experience. The results of these studies may thus be of particular interest for the average SuppVersity reader of whom I know that he / she is not a total foreigner to gym. If we assume that they / you would see the same benfits, the extra-increases on the bench and in the squat would be:

• An extra 5% increase in 1RM and thus 2x greater strength gains on the bench.
• An extra 11% increase in 1RM and thus 2.6x greater strength gains for squats.

In relative terms the benefits you may achieve after only 10-13 weeks are thus quite impressive. But can the same be said for the absolute extra-gains? Soria-Gila et al. report an extra strength gain of 5.03 kg (95% confidence interval: 2.26–7.80 kg) for all studies and all exercises. If we, again, consider only the bench press and the squat and eliminate the studies with untrained participants, the absolute values are much smaller: 1.8 kg and 2.7 kg, respectively.

Are you looking for more ways to maximize your strength gains? Find out if training to failure or modifying your rest times can help in this SuppVersity article.

Variable resistance training for explosive gains? In relative terms, the effects are huge. Two-fold larger increases in 1-RM strength in trained subjects speak for themselves. The absolute strength gains, on the other hand, are - and that's typical for people who have been training for several years - relatively small. Accordingly, you should not expect to start gaining strength like a rookie again, when you incorporate bands (which are better researched than chains) in your training regimen. What you can expect, though, is that your progress will accelerate significantly. For the next 2-3 months this would mean that you may be able to add 4 kg to your bench instead of just 2 kg. That's not exactly earth-shatteringly much, but it's still a 100% increase in 1-RM strength and in my humble opinion worth the effort... no? | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Anderson, Corey E., Gary A. Sforzo, and John A. Sigg. "The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.2 (2008): 567-574.
• Bellar, David M., et al. "The effects of combined elastic-and free-weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum strength in the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.2 (2011): 459-463.
• Cronin, John, Peter Mcnair, and Robert Marshall. "The effects of bungy weight training on muscle function and functional performance." Journal of sports sciences 21.1 (2003): 59-71.
• Ghigiarelli, Jamie J., et al. "The effects of a 7-week heavy elastic band and weight chain program on upper-body strength and upper-body power in a sample of division 1-AA football players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.3 (2009): 756-764.
• McCurdy, Kevin, et al. "Comparison of chain-and plate-loaded bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 187-195.
• Rhea, Matthew R., Joseph G. Kenn, and Bryan M. Dermody. "Alterations in speed of squat movement and the use of accommodated resistance among college athletes training for power." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.9 (2009): 2645-2650.
• Shoepe, Todd, et al. "The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular performance of novice lifters." Journal of human kinetics 29 (2011): 93-106.
• Soria-gila, Miguel A., et al. "Effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis." Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2015): Accepted article.