Polarized Concomitant Training - Will it Help You Make Max. Gains & Improvements in Body Comp. W/ Strength+Cardio?

Polarized Concomitant Training - Will it Help You Make Max. Gains & Improvements in Body Comp. W/ Strength+Cardio?

bench press build muscle cardio concomitant training gain muscle lose fat polarized training squat strength strength training training workouts

Polarized training? Find out more...

Does concurrent / concomitant training intensity distribution matter? Unless you're a first timer at the SuppVersity you will have read at least two or three previous articles of mine about studies investigating the effects of concurrent training, i.e. the combination of strength and cardio training, (i.e. concomitant training) here.

If you recall the results, you will know that previous research has demonstrated the influence of intensity distribution on strength endurance training adaptations.

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study: Over-training Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

You may also remember that no previous study has addressed the influence of "intensity distribution", i.e. the way intensity and volume are distributed across the training sessions, on the effectiveness of concurrent training (CT | see Figure 1). The goal was to prevent interference of the two types of training:

Figure 1: Training design of the experimental groups during the 8-week training period. Continuous-line and dotted-line circles represent the different training session modalities for the PT and TT groups, respectively. PT: polarized training group; TT: Traditional-based training group; BW: brisk walking; RM: repetition maximum; RNG: running; IST: intermittent sprint training (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

"Another problem which must be solved is the comparison of external training loads. Thus, our independent variable and focus was training intensity distribution with an equivalent total external load [...] of both training programs. A training group performed a combination of strength and endurance training aligned with the current ACSM recommendations of intensity distribution, while another group performed the same amount of external workload but with a polarized intensity distribution. Both ex. groups were evaluated before and after an 8-week training period (weekly training frequency of 3 days), and compared to a control group. To examine the effectiveness of the [...] training regimes, [...] physical (jump capacity, upper- and lower-body strength, running performance, and body composition), physiological (heart rate variability), and perceptual variables (rate of perceived exertion, training impulse, and feeling scale) were examined as dependent variables" (Varela-Sanz. 2016)

Thirty-one healthy sport science students (30 men, 5 women; all moderately active, but training less than 2 days per week apart from their academic activities which included a variable amount of PA on a daily basis) volunteered and were, after a 2-week familiarization phase (training thrice a week for two weeks), evaluated for resting heart rate variability (HRV), countermovement jump, bench press, half squat, and maximum aerobic speed (MAS).

I don't get it. How exactly did this "polarized training" work? Yes, the protocol was different from the one you may remember from Seiler et al. (2006) who tried to quantify training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes. More specifically, subjects trained thrice a week (i.e. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for ~120 min each on Monday and Friday, and ~60 min on Wednesday. The training sessions on Mondays and Fridays consisted of cardiorespiratory exercise training (i.e. brisk walking or running) followed by resistance exercise training; meanwhile on Wednesdays participants only performed cardiorespiratory exercise training.

Each training session started with a standardized warm-up that consisted of 5 min of calisthenics followed by 5 min of brisk walking at 30% of the MAS. Before resistance exercises, participants also performed a specific warm-up that consisted of 2 sets of 8 repetitions of the resistance circuit they performed during the familiarization period with a OMNI-Scale perception of effort of 2-3. Cooling down exercises consisted of 2-3 sets of 15 s of stretching exercises of the muscle groups involved during the session. The exercises during the actual workout were bench press and half squat. Based on the conclusions of Simão et al., whose study had revealed that you will see greater gains on those exercises you do first in your workout, the order of resistance exercises was alternated each week. In that, the TT group performed 3-5 sets of 10-12 RM with 3 min of rest between sets. The PT group performed 3-5 sets of 5 RM on Mondays, and 2-4 sets of 15 RM on Fridays. The rest between sets was always 3 min. Resistance exercise workloads were equated.

All were then randomly distributed into either a traditional-based training group (TT; n=11; 65-75% of MAS, combined with 10-12RM), polarized training group (PT; n=10; 35-40% and 120% of MAS, combined with 5RM and 15RM), or control group (CG; n=10).

Figure 2: Relative changes in heart rate, jump height, peak power, bench press (1RM) and half squat (1RM) after 8 weeks of traditional (TT), polarized (PT) training or control (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

After 8 weeks of training (3 days.week-1), TT and PT exhibited similar improvements in MAS, bench press and half squat performances. No differences were observed between TT and PT groups for perceived loads. There were no changes in heart rate variability (HRV) for any group although TT exhibited a reduction in resting HR.

Figure 3: Effect sizes corresponding to the relative values in Figure 1 (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

What is worth mentioning, though, is that, compared to other groups, the PT group maintained jump capacity with an increment in body weight and BMI without changes in body fatness, in other words: they gained muscle, but also fat (see Figure in Bottom Line | body fat measured by skinfold "only").

There's one thing we didn't discuss yet: Was the polarized training maybe less taxing or more fun? The findings of the study at hand suggest that this was the case: TT and PT reported similar perceptions of effort, sensations, and internal load levels over the 8-week training period. Briefly, RPE and TRIMPS increased progressively along the 8-week training period. These perceptual levels demonstrated an increase in external load during the 3rd microcycle compared to the 1st and 2nd microcycles of each mesocycle. Thus, "the current findings suggest that different concurrent training regimes of equated loads could be similarly perceived by participants" (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

Effects on body composition; effect sizes and rel. (%) changes (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

Bottom line: The previously outlined observations lead the scientists to conclude that their funky polarization approach to concurrent training "induced similar improvements in physical fitness of physically-active individuals", but that "PT produced a lower interference for jumping capacity despite an increment in body weight, whereas TT induced greater bradycardia" (Varela-Sanz. 2016).

The fact that there were further benefits in terms of peak power, squat and bench press performance, but that those were not statistically significant (see Figure 2), however, is something the scientists don't mention in the abstract, even though these differences could become significant in the longer (>8 weeks) term.

A mistake? No, in view of the conflicting evidence from the calculated effect sizes (see Figure 3), it is absolutely correct to say that there were no meaningful inter-group differences in the most important parameters for most trainees, i.e. the bench press, half squat and the effects on body comp (see Figure on the right) | Comment!

References:

• Seiler, K. Stephen, and Glenn Øvrevik Kjerland. "Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution?." Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 16.1 (2006): 49-56.
• Simao, Roberto, et al. "Exercise order in resistance training." Sports Medicine 42.3 (2012): 251-265.
• Varela-Sanz, Adrián; Tuimil, José L.; Abreu, Laurinda; Boullosa, Daniel A. "Does concurrent training intensity distribution matter?" Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: May 09, 2016 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001474.

Creatine: 17-20g for Loading is Bogus, 5-7g May be More Than Necessary to Maintain, Study in Gymrats Suggests

Creatine: 17-20g for Loading is Bogus, 5-7g May be More Than Necessary to Maintain, Study in Gymrats Suggests

build muscle build strength creatine gain muscle too much of a good thing

Yes, this study suggests that my previous statement that 3g of creatine per day are probably enough.... still direct comparisons of diff. doses are warranted.

You may remember that I wrote about the uselessness and possible negative effects of creatine loading on your body composition in October 2015. In the respective study, the scientists did yet not measure if there wasn't still a benefit in terms of increased skeletal muscle creatine and / or whether the creatine was excreted in the urine as creatine monohydrate (OK) or creatinine (not so good).

In a new study from the Baylor University, Andre, et al. did just that: They tested the effects of five weeks of resistance training in conjunction with a typical relative Cr dosing protocol followed by four weeks of resistance training after ceasing Cr supplementation on: 1) body composition and muscle strength, 2) whole-body Cr metabolism.

You can learn more about creatine at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

1st Benefits of Creatine-HCL

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

The scientists recruited nineteen apparently healthy, resistance-trained [regular, consistent resistance training (i.e., thrice weekly) for at least one year prior to the study], males between the ages of 18-23 completed the study. Participants were required to perform a leg press 1-RM of at least 2.5 times their body weight followed by at least 10 repetitions at 70% of their 1-RM during a familiarization session to be considered trained to participate (Coburn and Malek, 2012). Afterwards, the subjects were randomly assigned to groups using a random number generator. Supplementation involved orally ingesting packets containing

• powdered dextrose placebo [PL (AST Sports Science; Golden, CO, USA)] or 
• Cr monohydrate [CR (AST Sports Science; Golden, CO, USA)]. 

After baseline testing procedures and lean body mass determination via DEXA, participants in the CR and PL group ingested their respective supplement at a relative daily dose of 0.3 g/kg lean body mass (17-20 g/day) for one week in the loading phase and immediately following the loading phase, a relative daily dose of 0.075 g/kg lean body mass (5-7 g/day), during the four-week maintenance phase. All groups ceased supplementation on Day 36 following the four-week maintenance phase, which was then followed by a four-week washout phase without supplementation.

Table 1: Overview of the training program the subjects followed (Andre. 2016).

"Participants performed four one-repetition maximum (1-RM) tests on the angled leg press sled (Nebula, Columbus, OH, USA) at Day 0, 8, 36, 64. Participants warmed-up by completing two sets of 8-10 repetitions at approximately 50% of the estimated 1-RM, with two minutes rest in between all sets. Participants completed three to five repetitions at approximately 75% of the estimated 1-RM. The weight was increased conservatively, and the participant attempted to lift the weight for one repetition. If successful, the participant rested for two minutes before attempting the next weight increment. This was continued until the participant failed to complete the lift (Schwarz. 2015). For the 70% 1-RM evaluation during the familiarization session, participants were allowed to rest five minutes following the determination of their 1-RM" (Andre. 2016).

Participants followed a periodized 4-day/week resistance-training program split into two upper-body and two lower body workouts/week, for nine weeks (Table 1). As the authors further point out, the subjects performed "three sets of 10 repetitions with as much weight as they could lift per set (~70 – 80% of 1RM). If they could lift fewer than 10 repetitions, they were instructed to reduce the weight, and if they could lift more than 10 repetitions at a given weight, they were instructed to increase the weight" (Andre. 2016). The subjects were also instructed to rest "no longer than three minutes between exercises and no longer than two minutes between sets" (Andre. 2016); verbal confirmation of how to properly perform each exercise was given only during the familiarization session, though - still, resistance training compliance for CR and PL were 95.23 ±9.36 % and 93.74 ±8.82 %.

Figure 1: Relative changes (difference to day 1) in lean mass and leg press strength  (Andre. 2016)

That's topped only by the adherence to the supplementation protocol, which was 96.21 ±4.87 % and 94.69 ±3.98 % for CR and PL, respectively. Other relevant results not related to the creatine excretion / storage were:

• a group x time interaction for increases in total body mass Day 1 and 64 (p = 0.03) and exclusive lean mass at Day 1 and 64 (p = 0.01) favoring, as expected, the creatine group,
• significant leg strength increases in both groups without inter-group differences, even though the absolute strength gains on the leg press were almost 6kg higher (31.16 ± 26.90 vs. 25.68 ± 17.77 kg) for the creatine group,
• no significant effects on body water (in neither of the groups, by the way)
• no significant differences in food intake and / or the macronutrient composition of the diet, of which you will probably be intrigued to hear that it was between 1.1 and 1.3 g/kg, only

While selected rel. differences of the former, auxiliary findings are illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 2 is about selected aspects of the main research interest of Andre: the increases in muscle creatine and serum creatine. What I did not plot was the amount of creatine and creatinine the subjects pissed out.

Figure 2: Levels of muscle and serum creatine in the subjects over the course of the study (Andre. 2016).

The urinary creatine levels increased over 1000-fold from baseline levels (250 to 25000 µM in the first week) upon loading, and remained similarly elevated (4500 to 8200 from day 15-36) after one week of supplementation (Figure 2). As a result, a significant increase in urinary Cr was observed; however, there was no significant increase in creatinine, which is a good thing, because this is the agent that's supposed to be harsh on the kidneys. As the scientists point out...

"[t]hese findings are consistent with previous studies showing increases in urinary Cr but not in urinary Crn (Powers et al., 2003; Syrotuik and Bell, 2004). This suggests the supplementation dose of Cr was higher than the functional capacity to be metabolized, and was wasted via urinary excretion. Despite the supplementation dose based on lean mass measures to attempt to reduce this occurrence, considerable amounts of Cr were still essentially wasted" (Andre. 2016).

The increases in serum Cr concentrations, which were significant after three and seven days of Cr supplementation, and at the end of the maintenance phase, are likewise no and the lack of increase of serum creatinine good news. As the scientists point out, the increases in serum and urinary creatine in combination with the intramuscular total Cr data allow us to postulate that "the exogenous Cr supplementation apparently saturated intramuscular Cr stores given the high levels of serum and urinary Cr" (Andre. 2016).

If you haven't read it, yet I suggest you read up on my previous article about a study in Elite Footballers, where high doses of creatine actually resulted in inferior effects on body composition than lower doses. Quite an interesting result in view of the "more helps more"-mentality that's prevalent in the fitness community.

So, what's the overall verdict? Well, that should be obvious: "the overall Cr supplementation dose could be lowered given the high levels of urinary Cr" (Andre. 2016). Unfortunately, an investigation at lower relative supplementation doses of Cr in resistance-trained males, as the scientists demand it, has still to be conducted to "further clarify the dose response to elicit elevated intramuscular Cr stores with minimal excretion of Cr" (Andre. 2016).

Ah... and before I forget it: The study also observed that only one of the 11 subjects in the creatine group would be classified as nonresponder (Greenhaff et al., 1994). That individual observed an increase of only 18 mmol/kg dry weight - that's only 60% of the average 30 mmol/kg increase, and would qualify the subjects as quasi-, not non-responder, a result that could be explained by differences in the fiber comp. of his muscle (Lemon. 2002) | Comment!

References:

• Andre, Thomas L., et al. "Effects of Five Weeks of Resistance Training and Relatively-Dosed Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation on Body Composition and Muscle Strength, and Whole-Body Creatine Metabolism in Resistance-Trained Males." International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science 4.2 (2016): 27-35.
• Lemon, Peter WR. "Dietary creatine supplementation and exercise performance: why inconsistent results?." Canadian journal of applied physiology 27.6 (2002): 663-680.
• Powers, Michael E., et al. "Creatine supplementation increases total body water without altering fluid distribution." Journal of athletic training 38.1 (2003): 44.
• Schwarz, Neil A., et al. "Acute Myosin Heavy Chain Isoform mRNA Expression in Response to Two Resistance Exercise Intensities With Equal Volume Load in Resistance-Trained Men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29.8 (2015): 2326-2332. 
• Syrotuik, Daniel G., and Gordon J. Bell. "Acute Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation: Adescriptive Physiological Profile of Responders Vs. Nonresponders." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 18.3 (2004): 610-617.

High Protein Medium CHO Promotes Lean Mass Gains and Stable Metabolic Rates Compared to Two Different Macros

High Protein Medium CHO Promotes Lean Mass Gains and Stable Metabolic Rates Compared to Two Different Macros

dieting gain muscle high protein lose fat lose weight macronutrient composition macronutrients medium protein obesity weight loss

This could not be a meal from the study too few carbohydrates... even for the medium CHO group.

As a SuppVersity reader you're not going to be surprised to hear about beneficial effects of increased (dairy) protein intakes on weight loss.

What may be surprising, though, is that the statistics based conclusion of a recent study that determined the effects of 16-week high[er]-dairy-protein, variable-carbohydrate diets and exercise training on body composition in men and women with overweight/obesity says: "Compared to a healthy control diet, energy-restricted high-protein diets containing different proportions of fat and CHO confer no advantage to weight loss or change in body composition in the presence of an appropriate exercise stimulus" (Parr. 2016).

Do you have to worry about muscle loss and metabolic damage, when you're fasting?

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

Does Meal Timing Matter?

Habits Determine Effects of Fasting

Fasting Works - It Does, Right!?

Does the Break- Fast-Myth Break?

Breakfast? (Un?) Biased Review

If this is not your first visit to www.suppversity.com, you will probably be here, because you know that I never settle for a 1-2 sentence conclusion from an abstract - and guess what: If you take a look at the actual study outcomes, it turns out that there is a noteworthy difference between the three diet groups, in which the participants, one hundred and eleven participants (age 47 6 6 years, body mass 90.9 +/- 11.7 kg, BMI 33 +/- 4 kg/m², values mean +/- SD) were randomly stratified to one of the following (isocaloric) three diets:

• High dairy protein, high CHO (HDPHC; 30% protein, 55% CHO, 15% fat; 41 dairy servings/day of sweetened, low-fat products)  
• High dairy protein, moderate CHO (HDPMC; 30% protein, 40% CHO, 30% fat; 41 dairy servings/day of unsweetened/artificially sweetened, full-fat products)  
• Low dairy protein, high CHO (CON; 15% protein, 55% CHO, 30% fat: 1-2 dairy servings/day) 

All three dietary interventions were implemented as a free-living energy restricted eating plan where energy intake was based on a mild restriction (2250 kcal/day) from estimated maintenance energy
requirements (Frankenfield. 2005).

Table 1: Sample of a 1-day meal plan for each of the diets (1,600 kcal version) - aBold items correspond to a “Basket” of foods that could be consumed as a post-exercise recovery snack or added to the meal structure. For the first 8 weeks, participants consumed a prescribed meal plan consisting of a meal structure 1one “Basket” per day. From weeks 8 to 16, participants were encouraged to develop their own meal structure (using a points system to achieve a desired energy and macronutrient intake) and add one of 5-7 “Basket” combinations to the day’s intake (Parr. 2016).

Over the course of the study, the subjects got more leeway (no wonder they didn't lost that much fat during the 2nd phase of the study). While week 1-8 required the subjects to consume a prescribed menu that met the desired energy restriction and macronutrient composition, week 9-16 involved a more flexible self-chosen plan (week 9-16) that was based on a points system. The points system was yet only one of the things that was supposed to increase the subjects' adherence. In addition ...

"[...p]articipants met fortnightly with a dietitian and were provided with edu cation resources. Menus for each diet provided for three meals/day and a “Dairy/Snack Basket” (food choices that achieved most of the nutrient manipulation for each diet; Table 1). For the higher protein diets, the Baskets contained foods equivalent to four to five dairy servings (NHMRC. 2011) where two servings were to be consumed as soon as practical post-EXT. In the moderate-protein CON diet, “Baskets” provided CHO-rich choices (e.g., non-dairy) for post-EXT recovery snacks and meal additions" (Parr. 2016).

To optimize fat and minimize muscle loss, all participants had to follow the same combined resistance (REX) plus aerobic exercise (EXT) training:

• REX - 3 sessions per week (total 48 sessions in 16 weeks) of an individualized training program; a range of exercises were employed to train the same muscle groups (chest, back, legs and core) for 3-4 sets of 8-15 reps at 40-70% of 1RM. Exercise diaries kept by the study trainers were used to ensure the appropriate weight and number of sets was completed.
• EXT - 4 sessions on days without REX equating to 250 kcal/day energy expenditure; more specifically, the subjects performed exercises such as a 4 km walk, 16 km cycle or 1 km swimming, or equivalent combinations

The effects on body composition were monitored by pre-/inter-/post-DXA scans. The results, which are also the reason why I previously said that the statistics-based conclusion may be misleading are plotted in Figure 1, which shows no sign. difference in fat, but a meaningful difference in lean mass loss (in the CON group), respectively gains (in the protein groups, HDPHPC, HDMPC).

Figure 1: Effects of a 16-week diet and exercise intervention on the percentage change relative to baseline in (left) fat mass, and (right) lean mass (LM) for three different diets (Parr. 2016).

In that, the lean mass advantage of the high protein medium carbohydrate group (HDPMPC) is most meaningful in the first 8 weeks - meaningful enough to be practically relevant, albeit not statistically significant over the complete 16 week study period. Even if ...

• the body mass loss in the three groups was virtually identical (HDPMC: 27.2 +/- 3.3 kg; HDPHC: 27.0 +/- 3.3 kg; CON: 27.7 +/- 3.6 kg; P = 0.42), and 
• the loss of body fat in all groups was significant in both absolute and relative-to-baseline changes across, but not significantly different

The lean mass retention or rather increase in the high protein groups may later literally turn the scale, when the high protein, medium carbohydrate group (HDPMPC) don't experience the same weight rebound as the subjects in the CON and maybe even the HDPHPC group, where the resting energy expenditure started to plummet more steeply after 8 weeks of dieting (see Figure 2).

This is no "high protein diet" study as the ones by Jose Antonio the total protein intake in the so-called "high protein" groups averaged ~110-120g and was thus hardly more than 1.3g/kg body weight. In view of the fact that the only really tightly controlled study on the effects of protein intake on weight and fat loss shows optimal results with a similar protein intake (1.6g/kg) at albeit overall much lower total energy intakes, it is also questionable, whether the lack of significant differences in the study at hand has anything to do with the "low" protein intakes in the high protein groups.

Additional non-significant benefits of the HDPMPC diet compared to the CON diet that were reported only as supplementary data, yet not in the full-text, were:

• 

  Figure 2: Effects of the diet intervention on total energy expenditure er day (Parr. 2016).

  greater reductions in waist circumference and waist:hip ratio over the full study duration (-1.1 cm and -0.02 vs. CON),
• greater reductions in trunk fat and greater increases in trunk lean mass,
• greater reductions in leg fat and greater increases in leg lean mass, as well as
• greater reductions in glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, and total cholesterol.

Yes, none of these changes was statistically significant, and still... they occurred over only 16 weeks and the way the energy expenditure (Figure 2) develops, the advantage of the HDPMPC  (open squares) over the MDPHDC (black triangles) and the HDPMDC (black circles) diet is going to increase, not decrease over time.

Trying to keep lean? Probiotics may help even if you tend to overeat or are bulking study shows | more.

Bottom line: Yes, from a statistic perspective, there's no difference between the three diet interventions. From a common-sense perspective, however, everything points towards the high-protein, medium carbohydrate diet as the most effective way to eat during combined weight loss and exercise interventions... well, unless you want to lose weight, not fat while building muscle, that is.

Speaking of building muscle, I hope you realize that the subjects did the latter with little protein (high pro only ~1.3g/kg body weight), but high effort (7 w/outs/week). Goes to show you: You can eat yourself lean, but not lean and muscular | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Frankenfield, David, et al. "Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105.5 (2005): 775-789.
• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). A modelling system to inform the revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. In: Australian Dietary Guidelines, Dietitans Association of Australia, K. Baghurst, L Cobiac, P Baghurts and A. Magarey, eds. Chapter 3, Table 4. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011, pp 1-621.
• Parr, Evelyn B., et al. "A randomized trial of high‐dairy‐protein, variable‐carbohydrate diets and exercise on body composition in adults with obesity." Obesity (2016).