Download Fitness Tools

If you are doing any sport that requires high intensity sprints, bicarbonate supplementation can help you beat your competition on the track, field or wherever.

Ok, I know I may sound like a broken record, but in view of the fact that the supplement industry is only promoting expensive bogus, I won't stop promoting sodium bicarbonate, which is neither expensive nor bogus, as another recently published study just confirmed.

In the corresponding experiment, thirteen men aged 23 ± 1 year (height: 180 ± 2 cm, weight: 78 ± 3 kg; VO2max: 61.3 ± 3.3 mlO2 · kg−1 · min−1; means ± SEM) performed the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery level 2 test (Yo-Yo IR2) on two separate occasions in randomized order with (SBC) and without (CON) prior intake of sodium bicarbonate (0.4 g · kg−1 body weight).
Before we will be discussing the results, I would like to briefly explain what the YoYo Test (Level 2, which is aimed at  well trained and elite athletes) actually looks like... so here's what you'd do as a trainer / athlete:

"Use cones to mark out three lines as per the diagram above; 20 meters and 2.5 (endurance test) or 5 meters (recovery test) apart. The subject starts on or behind the middle line, and begins running 20 m when instructed by the cd. This subject turns and returns to the starting point when signaled by the recorded beep. There is a active recovery period (5 and 10 seconds respectively for the endurance and recovery versions of the test) interjected between every 20 meter (out and back) shuttle, during which the subject must walk or jog around the other cone and return to the starting point. A warning is given when the subject does not complete a successful out and back shuttle in the allocated time, the subject is removed the next time they do not complete a successful shuttle (see video example)" (topendsports.com)

As previously hinted at, there are two levels for each of the recovery and endurance intermittent tests: Level 1 designed for lesser trained individuals and level 2 aimed at well trained and elite athletes and starting at a faster speed. Both test variations have increasing speeds throughout the test.
Now that you've got an idea of what the highly trained young men who were competing in intense sports (middle-distance running, team sports and triathlon) and trained 5–7 times per week for at least 4 years when they were recruited for the study, had to do, you may be able to really appreciate the performance boost they got from nothing, but a single administration of 0.4g/kg body weight sodium bicarbonate (~31g | use the same protocol as in the study at hand, i.e. take it in ~25 gelatin capsules, with one fifth taken at 90, 80, 70, 60 and 50 min prior to exercise, or avoid the high dosage altogether by serial loading).

Figure 1: Blood pH (left) and YoYo IR2 performance (distance covered) in the control (= no supplement) and sodium bicarbonate group (Krustrup. 2015).

If you take a closer look at the individual performance benefits from the pH increase in Figure 1 (right) it is obvious that not all subjects benefited to the same extent. While one subject covered almost twice the distance when they used bicarbonate before the workout, the distance one of the subjects covered was even non-significantly reduced. Whether that's a result of gastrointestinal distress is not mentioned in the study (maybe because there was no distress with the previously described graded ingestion of sodium bicarbonate capsules).
References:

• Krustrup et al. "Sodium bicarbonate intake improves high-intensity intermittent exercise
• performance in trained young men." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition Sample 12 (2015):25.
• Saunders, Bryan, et al. "beta-alanine supplementation improves YoYo intermittent recovery test performance." J Int Soc Sports Nutr 9.1 (2012): 39.

Even though, the study at hand confirms that NaHCO3 doesn't work for everyone previous studies show it's worth trying.

You will probably have asked yourselves, whether I had already forgotten about sodium bicarbonate and the performance enhancing effects of pH buffers, right? No, I didn't, but unfortunately, many researchers have... well, many, but not all researchers. Gabriela Froio de Araujo Dias and her colleagues from the University of Sao Paulo, for example, have just released a paper in which they describe the intriguing results of the first bicarbonate study that was specifically designed to (a) determine within- and (b) inter-individual variation that could potentially compromise the magnitude of an effect that's determined based on averages (e.g. if you use bicarb three times and have performance increases of 0.4%, 5% and 0.3% it will look less effective).
In the corresponding experiment, the scientists had 15 physically active males (age 25±4 y; body mass 76.0±7.3 kg; height 1.77±0.05 m) complete six cycling capacity tests at 110% of maximum power output (CCT110%) following ingestion of either

• 0.3 g/kg body mass of sodium bicarbonate (SB | 4 trials) or
• alcium carbonate placebo (PL, 2 trials).

Just in case you're wondering: Calcium carbonate has no reasonable buffering effect as it will not, as you can see in Figure 1 affect the pH, bicarbonate levels of base excess of the blood in the way bicarbonate does. It is thus the standard choice in corresponding experiments.

Figure 1: Line graphs for blood measurements (mean ± 1SD) at Baseline, Pre-exercise, Post-exercise and 5-min post-exercise. Panel A displays pH; Panel B displays bicarbonate; Panel C displays base excess; Panel D displays lactate. PL trials are represented by dashed lines and SB trials are represented by solid lines (de Araujo Dias. 2015).

As you may already know from previous waredownloadsoft articles on bicarbonate, the increases in blood pH, bicarbonate, base excess and lactate you see in Figure 1 are important to tell what exactly triggers the net effect of using baking soda as a pH buffer. What every athletes will yet be more interested in, though is whether the buffer allowed the recreationally active men who participated in the study saw statistically significant increases in the total work done (TWD) during the 110% high-intensity cycling capacity test, or not.
As you can see in Figure 2, the average subject saw the highest improvement in the last of the four trials (7%); an improvement of which statistics tell us that it says that there's 93% chance of general substantial improvement - with lower values for the other trials.

Figure 2: Rel increase (%) in total work (figures over the bars indicate likelihood of relevant benefits and relative increase, e.g. for bar 4: "It's 93% likely that the 7% increase displays a real-world relevant performance increase) - left; Total work done during SB trial as function of total work done during PLA trial - right (de Araujo Dias. 201).

Apropos "other trials", when the scientists removed the subjects who reported sick during trial 1 and trial 3, the results of trial 1 suggest a "likely" benefit (81%) and those of trial 3 a "possible" (50%) benefit. The notion that whether you benefit or not can / will depend on how well you tolerate the bicarbonate solution would also be confirmed by the data in Figure 2, right. The latter is a plot of the ratio of total work done in the sodium bicarbonate trial #4 vs. the control trial; a plot that easily tells us who saw benefits and who didn't because all "winners" are above, while all "losers" are below the transverse line. And since the distance to said line is a marker of the performance increase, you can also see that even among those who did benefit, the benefits ranged from hardly measurable as in subject #7 to a whopping 30% increase in total work done during the high-intensity cycling capacity test in subjects #12.
References:

BodyPump is a fast paced workout with barbells. Light(er) weights, high reps, loud music and a drill instructor... if you know one, you'll know all of these group based "resistance training" workouts.

Sunday and time for a brief review of the latest exercise-related publications. Today, I picked two studies that took a closer look at something I would never suggest you'd consider a primary measure of the quality of your training: The energy expenditure during and after your workouts.

While exercise and the exercise-induced increase in energy-expenditure is an important pillar of diet (+ exercise) induced weight loss. The dietary component is what makes you lose weight, while the exercise component is meant to (a) maximize the retention of lean muscle tissue and (b) improve your overall fitness and health. If you're just "working out to burn energy" you're destined to fail; not least because you will never be able to tell exactly how many kcals you've "left in the gym". And beware: Especially while dieting, it's usually much less than you think ;-)

• People overestimate the energetic demands of "intense" exercise (Berthiaume. 2015) - In view of the fact that everyone knows the (inaccurate) rule of thumb that says that the amount of energy (in kcal) you expend when you're jogging is roughly your body weight times 10 (it's actually rather body weight times 7, unless you're running really fast, by the way), it's not surprising that Berthiaume et al.'s latest study shows that their subjects, 40 healthy men and women (age: 31.7±5.8 years, body mass index [BMI]: 24±2.6 kg/m²), significantly overestimated the amount of energy they expended during a (perceived) "intense" BodyPump(TM) workout.
  

  Figure 1: Young, healthy BodyPump practitioners overestimate the energetic demands of this kind of equipment based group workouts by over 36% (Berthiaume. 2015).

  Instead of the 394.1±116 kcal, the subjects thought they'd burned, the scientists measurements yielded an average energy expenditure of only 250.3±67.8 kcal during the 60 minute workout. Now, that's not really a problem if do BodyPump, because you like group workouts like these. In view of the fact that the typical clientele of programs like these tends to charge the energy they expend during workouts against the energy from extra food they'd like to eat (BIG mistake, learn why), this may be problematic.
  

  Figure 2: Just a reminder: The energy expenditure (kcal per kg of body weight per hour) due to body weight exercises calculated based on oxygen uptake during the exercises (traditional) or during the rest periods has been shown to be rather under- than overestimated (Vezina. 2014 | read more)

  Now, you may remember the results of Vezina's 2014 study (see Figure 2 and previous article). In said paper they used a much more precise method to arrive at the actual energy expenditure. In Berthiaume's study, a simple SenseWear armband was used. That's not the "traditional calc." in Figure 2 that proved to be so unreliable in Vezina's study, but it may still suffer from the same shortcomings when it comes to measuring anaerobic vs. aerobic energy expenditure. It would thus be prudent to be at least somewhat skeptical of the exactness of Berthiaume's results.
• Exercise type and post-workout supplementation influence post-exercise resting energy expenditure and respiratory exchange ratio (Wingfield. 2015) - I know, I have written about EPOC, which is actually nothing else than the total post-exercise energy expenditure in relation to the respiratory exchange ratio, repeatedly. There is a reason, though, that the latest study from the University of North Carolina still made it into the waredownloadsoft news: It compared six exercise sessions, consisting of three exercise modalities and two acute nutritional interventions - that's extraordinary, for sure.
  • AEE - aerobic endurance exercise - 30-min on the treadmill at 45% to 55% of the heart rate reserve), high-intensity interval running 
  • HIIT - ten rounds of a 60-s treadmill run at 85% to 95% HRR with a 60-s passive rest period), and 
  • HIRT - high-intensity resistance training consisting of leg presses and bench presses, lunges, shoulder presses, biceps curls, and triceps extensions using free weights for three sets of 6RM to 8RM followed by a 20- to 30-s rest for each set of a given exercise and 2.5 min between each exercise 
  • CHO and PRO (25 g of CHO (maltodextrin) or PRO (whey isolate) mixed with 6 oz of water in an opaque bottle. 
  With its s randomized, crossover, double-blind design, the study is also pretty well-powered, even though it had only twenty female, recreationally active participants (mean ± SD; age 24.6 ± 3.9 years; height 164.4 ± 6.6 cm; weight 62.7 ± 6.6 kg).
  

  Figure 3: Overview of the study design (Wingfield. 2015).

  Next to the post-exercise resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory rate (RER), which were analyzed via indirect calorimetry at baseline, immediately post (IP), 30 minutes (30 min) post, and 60 minutes (60 min) post exercise, the scientists obtained salivary samples, as well (both didn't change sign.). The latter were used to determine estradiol-β-17 and cortisol levels before the workouts. To exclude any influence of dietary changes, the subjects were asked to eat diets similar to those they had consumed when they wrote their 3-day food logs at the beginning of the study. Practically speaking, this meant that, on average, subjects ingested 2,078.7 ± 679.9 kcal, 253.7 ± 97.6 g CHO (approximately 48.8% CHO), 84.3 ± 29.9 g PRO (approximately 16.2% PRO), and 80.9 ± 36.7 g of fat (approximately 35.0% fat) per day.
  

  Figure 4: Only the HIIT modality yielded sign. inter-group differences as far as the resting energy expenditure is concerned. Even those were very transient, though, and disappeared 30 min after the workout (Wingfield. 2015).

  Interestingly, a statistical significant effect for the resting energy expenditure (REE) was observed only in the HIIT, yet not in the HIRT trial (Figure 4, A). This is a result you may not have expected based on the assumption that any form of intense activity (like resistance training in this case) should have some sort of "afterburn" effect.

• What is less surprising is the relatively small, but "significant" (statistically, only!) increase in REE in response to protein vs. carbohydrate (Figure 4, B). So, protein is thermogenic even after a workout. Unfortunately, the increase in energy expenditure and the increase in fatty oxidation as signified by the reduced respiratory exchange ratio in Figure 5 B are way too small to be of any practical relevance.
  

  Figure 5: Effect of exercise modality and CHO vs. PRO supplement on the respiratory exchange ratio (RER); lower values indicate greater fat and lower carbohydrate oxidation (Wingfield. 2015).

  Eventually, the same can be said of the decrease in RER (=increase in fatty oxidation) in response to the HIIT and the increase in RER (=decrease in fatty acid oxidation) in response to the HIRT regimen. Both are statistically significant and look large enough to be relevant. When all is said and done, it does yet not really matter if you burn fat directly or glucose first. Whether you lose or gain body fat is after all a matter of the total energy balance over days and weeks, and not the fatty acid oxidation during and 60 minutes after your workouts.

Deadlifts w/ bands as they were done in the Galpin study (original photo from Galpin's 2015 study | see below).

Time for a news-quickie with the latest science to use at the gym - either for your workouts or just to impress the bros with your knowledge. I mean, who else reads and understands all the latest papers in the #1 strength and conditional journal on earth? Well, you do... ok, you read my laymen summaries, but your bros don't have to know that, do they?

Ok, that's enough of the pseudo-comedian warm-up, let's deadlift the first scientific paper... oh,yeah: Actually the paper is about deadlifting, deadlifting with resistance bands as it is shown in the photo on the right, where a subject performs the deadlift on a force plate.

• Deadlift with bands for power and speed - Galpin et al. (2015) investigated how using bands while deadlifting at different loads, namely 60 and 85% of one's individual 1RM, i.e. the maximal weight you can lift for exactly one perfect rep, would influence the power and velocity at which twelve trained men (age: 24.08 ± 2.35 years, height: 175.94 ± 5.38 cm, mass: 85.58 ± 12.49 kg) with deadlift 1 repetition maxima (1RM) of 188.64 ± 16.13 kg pulled the weight off the floor.
  
  The results of the study show that there were significant peak (yet not relative) power changes irrespective of whether only 15% of the total resistance (group B1) or 35% of the total resistance (group B1) came from the bands (vs. the actual weight).
  

  Figure 1: Relative changes in power and bar velocity (compared to training w/out bands = control); * denotes sign. difference to control, ** denotes significant difference to control and light bands (Galpin. 2015)

  The effect became even more pronounced and extended from peak to average power, when the subjects used the heavier (85% 1RM) weights. In this condition using bands lead to greater peak and relative power production and lowered the velocity significantly compared to the control condition in which the subjects lifted at the same total level of resistance, albeit without bands (all values in Figure 1 are relative differences).
  
  For trainees the data in Figure 1 could be highly relevant, because it indicates that heavy bands should be used, when "prescribing the deadlift for speed or power, but not maximal force" (Galpin. 2015). If that's not you, i.e. you're not training for speed and power, but e.g. for size, future long(er)-term studies will have to show whether using bands makes a difference with respect to this study training goal.
• Interval length, can you really pick whichever suits your best? Even though a recent study by Wesley Tucker et al. (2015) shows that the rate of perceived exertion, as well as the mean heart rate of 14 recreationally active and thus not exactly jacked males who participated in their latest study were identical on 4x4 and 16x1 high intensity interval protocols (i.e. 4 intervals à 4 minutes vs. 16 intervals a 1 minute | see Figure 2), seasoned waredownloadsoft readers will probably remember that previous studies showed highly relevant differences in the long(er) term effects which obviously cannot be measured in an acute phase study like the one at hand.
  

  Figure 2: Illustration of the two HIIT protocols, incl. warm-up and cool down on cycle ergometers. White boxes are intervals during which the subjects were supposed to exercise at 90% of their peak heart rate (during the 16x1 protocol this was not achieved by all study participants in the latter intervals, though | Tucker. 2015).

  To be more specific, previous studies on high intensity interval training suggested that athletes who want to increase their VO2 max benefit more from fewer longer intervals, while "Mr. and Mrs. Average" could be better off improving their body composition and metabolic rate with a higher number of short intervals (even as short as 15 seconds in the Tabata protocol). Against that background and in order to explain or contradict the previous findings, it may be worth to consider other study outcomes in Tucker et al. (2015). Study outcomes which did differ. The total energy expenditure, for example, was 19% higher during the 16x1 protocol (p < 0.001) which is in line with the previously referenced recommendation of short intervals for people who are trying to lose weight.
  

  Figure 3: VO2, heart rate, and energy expenditure during the two HIIT protocols (watch the units! I converted them to be able to put all data into the same graph | Tucker. 2015).

  The VO2 uptake, as well as the maximal heart rates, which could be of interest for endurance athletes, on the other hand, were higher in the 4x4 protocol - a finding that would likewise support the previously voiced recommendation that (endurance) athletes should torture themselves with long(er) intervals to trigger further adaptations in VO2max and heart rate at a given power output.
  
  Overall, the study at hand will thus not revolutionize your training, but if you haven't read the previous waredownloadsoft articles, you may still have gotten some new insights into how you may want to adapt your HIIT training in the future.
• Kettlebell or cycle ergometer? Which do you chose for your HIIT sessions? I've written about kettlebell swings as muscle builders before and I've also hinted at the possibility of using the "bells" for your HIIT workouts. Now, a recent study by Williams and Kraemer shows that

  "[kettlebell high intensity interval training aka] KB-HIIT may [even] be more attractive and sustainable than [sprint interval cycling aka] SIC and can be effective in stimulating cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses that could improve health and aerobic performance" (Williams. 2015).

  The purpose of the study was - you probably already guessed it - to determine the effectiveness of a novel exercise protocol we developed for kettlebell high-intensity interval training (KB-HIIT) in comparison to the classic, standard sprint interval cycling (SIC) exercise protocol most people associate with equipment-based HIIT sessions. To this ends, the researchers from the Southeastern Louisiana University had eight "very active" young men (mean age 21.5 years; body fat 18.52 +/-3.04%, fat free mass 67.44 kg of a total weight of 82.95 kg) complete two 12-minute sessions of KB-HIIT and SIC in a counterbalanced fashion.

  Figure 4: Overview of the KB-HIIT workout (my illustration).

  "In the KB-HITT session [exercises see Figure 4, mean weight depending on exercise and subject 10-22 kg], 3 circuits of 4 exercises were performed using a Tabata regimen.

  
  

  In the SIC session, three 30-second sprints were performed, with 4 minutes of recovery in between the first 2 sprints and 2.5 minutes of recovery after the last sprint" (Williams. 2015)

  The study's within-subjects' design over multiple time points allowed Williams and Kraemer to compare the oxygen consumption, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER, a marker of the ratio of fat to carbohydrates that is used as fuel during the workout), the tidal volume (TV, the volume of air that is inspired or expired in a single breath during regular breathing), the breathing frequency (f), the subject's minute ventilation (VE), caloric expenditure rate (kcal/min), and their heart rate (HR) on an individual basis between the exercise protocols. In conjunction with the total caloric expenditure which was likewise measured / calculated and compared. The total amount of data the authors collected was thus quite large.
  

  Figure 5: Mean total energy expenditure in kcal during the KB and SIC sessions (Williams. 2015)

  Significant inter-group differences were found for VO2, RER, TV and total energy expenditure, with VO2 and total energy expenditure being higher and TV and RER being lower in the KB-HIIT compared with the cycle ergometer HIIT protocol. For f, VE, the energy expenditure per minute and the heart rate, there were no general inter-group differences, but "only" significant group × time interactions. Practically speaking, this means that they changed differently over the course of the whole protocol and are thus maybe relevant for certain athletes, yet not for the general public.
  
  Overall, the William's and Kraemer's study does therefore support the notion that doing kettlebell HIIT workouts is probably at least on par with the classic cycling HIIT sessions. In view of the increased total caloric expenditure and the lower RER, which signifies a significantly higher fat oxidation during the workout, it is even possible that KB-HIIT would be the better choice for dieters than doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. Since there is no direct link between fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure during workouts and fat loss, however, long(er)-term studies are necessary to find out whether doing KB-HIIT is in fact more than a equivalent and for many of you maybe funnier alternative to doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. 

While tire (or sled) pulling can be effective and motivating, I would suggest you start with the basics. Good running shoes and a soft surface like grass or a tartan track are all it takes to do 4x4 or 16x1 sprints. If you get bored or feel that you don't make further progress you can still start to pull tires, sleds or tractors ;-)

Wesley J. Tucker, Brandon J. Sawyer Catherine L. Jarrett, Dharini M. Bhammar, and Glenn A. Gaesser from the Arizona State and Point Loma Nazarene Universities, the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center Dallas have recently conducted an experiment to compare the VO2, HR, and blood lactate responses during two commonly used HIIT protocols - the 4x4, or “Norwegian” HIE protocol, which consists of four, 4-minute intervals at 90-95% of peak heart rate (HRpeak), interspersed and its "quick fix" alternative with ten, 1-minute high-intensity intervals at 95% of the HRmax with 60-75 seconds of active recovery.

In order to equate the two protocols for total amount of active interval duration, Tucker et al. used a 16x1 protocol to compare with the 4x4 protocol. Secondarily, we also assessed ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and enjoyment of each protocol with the physical activity enjoyment scale.
In that, the researchers hypothesized that the two protocols would elicit similar VO2 and blood lactate responses, and similar values for RPE and PACES, because they used the same target HR range (90-95% HRpeak) for each protocol, and adjusted power output continuously in order maintain HR in the desired range.

Figure 1: Graphical overview of the exercise protocol (Tucker. 2015).

On separate days, 14 recreationally active males performed the previously mentioned 4x4 (four, 4-minute intervals at 90-95% HRpeak, separated by 3 minutes recovery at 50 W), and 16x1 (16, 1-minute intervals at 90-95% HRpeak, separated by 1 minute recovery at 50 W) protocol on a cycle ergometer.
As the data in Figure 2 indicates, the 4x4 protocol elicited a higher mean VO2 (2.44 ± 0.4 vs. 2.36 ± 0.4 L·min-1) and “peak” VO2 (90-99% vs. 76-85% VO2peak) and HR (95-98% HRpeak vs. 81-95% HRpeak) during the high-intensity intervals. Average power maintained was higher for the 16x1 (241 ± 45 vs. 204 ± 37 W), and recovery interval VO2 and HR were higher during the 16x1.

Figure 2: Comparison of the relevant parameters | values expressed relative to inter-group means (Tucker. 2015)

In contrast, no differences were observed for blood lactate concentrations at the midpoint (12.1 ± 2.2 vs. 10.8 ± 3.1 mmol·L-1) and end (10.6 ± 1.5 vs. 10.6 ± 2.4 mmol·L-1) of the protocols, or ratings of perceived exertion (RPE; 7.0 ± 1.6 vs. 7.0 ± 1.4) and physical activity enjoyment scale scores (PACES: 91 ± 15 vs. 93 ± 12). Furthermore, the mean HR during each protocol was the same, and both protocols were rated similarly for perceived exertion and enjoyment, despite the 4-fold difference in interval duration that produced greater between-interval transitions in VO2 and HR, and slightly higher mean VO2 during the 4x4.
References:

• Tucker, et al. "Physiological Responses to High-Intensity Interval Exercise Differing in Interval Duration." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015): Publish Ahead of Print.