Download Fitness Tools

At the moment it is by no means clear which type of athlete / gymrat would benefit from milk fat globule membrane supplementation and which wouldn't. It's after all well possible that the effects Soga et al. observed in rookies wouldn't occur in adv. trainees or professional athletes.

After the study on nucleotide supplements the Satako Soga's latest paper on the dietary supplementation with milk fat globule membrane is #2 on the list of studies with promising new ergogenics in less than a month. In view of the fact that the last year has been devoid of any true innovations, this is a welcome diversion from writing about whey (or other protein powders), creatine, beta alanine and baking soda, as well as the occasional study on HMB for me.

In spite of the fact that this is a follow up on previous rodent studies from the same researchers, I must warn you not to to expect too much of MFGMs, yet. More data and studies with more realistic resistance training + supplementation protocols from independent labs are warranted before MFGMs may eventually appear next to the previously mentioned top dogs on a list of "waredownloadsoft Recommended Supplements".
But hey, let's keep the skepticism for the bottom line and take a look at what the scientists from the Kao Corporation did with their fourteen Japanese subjects. The men, who were aged 31–48 years and did not participate in regular strength training before the study, took 1 g of the  structural membranes of milk which are usually covering the triglyceride globules that are dispersed as emulsified bodies in milk or 1g of an identically looking whole milk powder as a placebo in tablet form for 4-weeks (composition see Table 1).

Table 1: Composition of MFGM and whole milk powder (Soga. 2015)

"On the exercise training enforcement days [i.e. the days on which the subjects were required to train], the subjects were instructed to take the tablet within 1 h before training. On the other days, the subjects were instructed to consume the tablet at the time of their choice during their daily routines.

The MFGM was prepared from buttermilk by filtering and centrifugation. The MFGM and whole milk powder compositions were analyzed at Japan Food Research Laboratories (Tokyo, Japan)" (Soga. 2015).

The exercise routine the subjects from both groups had to follow consisted of two workouts per week. The workouts had to be performed on nonconsecutive days for 4 weeks using StrengthErgo 240 stationary cycling exercise machines (Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). On these machines, the subjects completed 3 sets of 15 % maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) cycle exercises for 60 s and 7 sets of 20 % MVC cycle exercises for 40 s at 50 rpm.
Physical function tests and surface electromyography (EMG) were conducted at baseline and at the end of the study period. In addition, some hemotological parameters were tested of which - surprise - the data in Figure 1 tells you that MFGMs have a small, but statistically significant "EPO-effect" and are thus capable of raising both the red blood cell and hemoglobin content - an effect that has been observed in rodents too (Haramizu. 2014b) and may be ascribed to the incorporation of MFGM phospholipids into red blood cells which would in turn be less vulnerable to exercise-related or other stressors. Whatever the reason for these changes may be, they are certainly in line with the previously mentioned (see red box) increase in fatty acid oxidation during endurance exercise that may be facilitated by an RBC and hemoglogin related increase in oxygen transport.

Figure 1: The significant increase in red blood cell and hemoglogin content could explain the previously observed increases in endurance performance and fatty acid oxidation in Haramizu et al. (2014a). The buffered decrease in white blood cell may not be statistically significant, but may still indicate beneficial effects on the immune system (Soga. 2015).

Both the increase in RBC and hemoglobin, as well as the buffering of the albeit non-significant decline in white blood cells in the placebo group, which may be a response to the exercise-induced stress and evidence of an immune-boosting effect of MFGM supplementation during any potentially exercise induced immune suppression, do yet need further investigation before they can be explained mechanistically.

No further research is needed, though, to state that all other blood markers. These included AST + ALT (liver health), glucose and triglycerides + cholesterol, neither of which was affected by the supplement. The latter cannot be said of the increase in leg extension strength before and after the intervention and the EMG activity which showed highly significant inter-group differences.
In fact, the differences in Figure 2 are pronounced enough to ask the question: Were they induced by the supplementation alone or did the pathetic training regimen have an effect here, as well? As I am going to point out in the bottom line one paragraph below, we will need studies with more realistic training programs to answer this question in a way that's relevant for trainees like you and me. In the mean time, however, there is no debating "that the daily intake of 1 g MFGM combined with regular, twice weekly exercise improved skeletal muscle strength (leg extension) in middle-aged adults, despite a lack of change in muscle mass" (Soga. 2015).

Figure 2: The MFGM supplementation lead to significant increases in leg extension strength, of which the increase in EMG activity (likewise sign.) suggests that they were mediated by neuronal changes (Soga. 2015).

The same goes for the increase in RMS of surface EMG, which indicates that the dietary provision of MFGM increased the average (RMS = root mean square) motor unit activity during muscle contraction and may thus mechanistically explain why the subjects got stronger even though they didn't make substantial gains in muscle mass: The supplement helped them to "make the most" of the muscle they had. This hypothesis is in line with results from rodent studies which

"[...] revealed that dietary MFGM combined with regular exercise improved muscle strength in adult mice primarily by stimulating the pathway involving “nervous system development” in the skeletal muscle (Haramizu. 2014b). This pathway includes functional annotations such as formation of synapses, growth of neurites, or development of NMJ. Dietary MFGM combined with exercise increased skeletal muscle expression of docking protein-7 (Dok-7) and muscle-specific receptor tyrosine kinase in mice, both of which play a critical role in NMJ [neuromuscular junction] formation. Defects in NMJ function causes muscle weakness in neuromuscular disorders, and Dok-7 gene therapy improves NMJ formation and rescues the motor activity" (Soga. 2015).

And still, even at the risk that I may sound like a broken record, I have to repeat that without future research it is impossible to tell (a) whether the assumptions we've made about the increase in red blood cell count are accurate and, maybe even more importantly, (b) who, i.e. which type of athlete, will benefit most from using MFGM supplements.
References:

• Cano-Ruiz, M. E., and R. L. Richter. "Effect of homogenization pressure on the milk fat globule membrane proteins." Journal of Dairy Science 80.11 (1997): 2732-2739.
• Haramizu, Satoshi, et al. "Dietary milk fat globule membrane improves endurance capacity in mice." American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 307.8 (2014): R1009-R1017.
• Haramizu, Satoshi, et al. "Habitual exercise plus dietary supplementation with milk fat globule membrane improves muscle function deficits via neuromuscular development in senescence-accelerated mice." SpringerPlus 3 (2014): 339.
• Kim, Hunkyung, et al. "Effects of Exercise and Milk Fat Globule Membrane (MFGM) Supplementation on Body Composition, Physical Function, and Hematological Parameters in Community-Dwelling Frail Japanese Women: A Randomized Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Follow-Up Trial." PloS one 6.10.2 (2015): e0116256.
• Lemonnier, Lori A., et al. "Sphingomyelin in the suppression of colon tumors: prevention versus intervention." Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 419.2 (2003): 129-138.
• Riccio, Paolo. "The proteins of the milk fat globule membrane in the balance." Trends in food science & technology 15.9 (2004): 458-461.
• Singh, Harjinder. "The milk fat globule membrane—A biophysical system for food applications." Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 11.2 (2006): 154-163.
• Snow, D. R., et al. "Membrane-rich milk fat diet provides protection against gastrointestinal leakiness in mice treated with lipopolysaccharide." Journal of dairy science 94.5 (2011): 2201-2212.
• Soga, Satoko, Noriyasu Ota, and Akira Shimotoyodome. "Dietary milk fat globule membrane supplementation combined with regular exercise improves skeletal muscle strength in healthy adults: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial." Nutrition Journal 14.1 (2015): 85.
• Spitsberg, V. L. "Invited review: Bovine milk fat globule membrane as a potential nutraceutical." Journal of dairy science 88.7 (2005): 2289-2294.
• Timby, Niklas, et al. "Neurodevelopment, nutrition, and growth until 12 mo of age in infants fed a low-energy, low-protein formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes: a randomized controlled trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 99.4 (2014a): 860-868.
• Timby, Niklas, et al. "Cardiovascular risk markers until 12 mo of age in infants fed a formula supplemented with bovine milk fat globule membranes." Pediatric research 76.4 (2014b): 394-400.

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to be at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know from the (very different things) I've heard from (ex-)girl friends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.
According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.
"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).

Resting long enough to maximize your training volume could be the key to success, i.e. strength and size gains.

If you have been following the various affords to ascribe differences in strength and, even more so, size-increases to a specific training variable, you will remember that the only promising parameters that appear to be supported by more than the literal "outlier study" are training load and volume.

Of these, the former is pretty much uncontested. The latter, however, is still questioned by a camp of inconvincible skep- tics, who simply ignore the fact that there's ample evidence that "[h]igher-volume, multiple-set protocols have consistent- ly proven superior over single set protocols with respect to increased muscle hypertrophy" (Schoenfeld. 2010).
What still isn't clear, though, is the role of other training parameters, such as the time you take to recover between multiple sets and exercises aka the "rest intervals". As Schoenfeld et al. point out in the introduction to their most recent study, "several studies have investigated the effects of varying rest interval length on muscular adaptations," (Schoenfeld. 2015) albeit with contradictory results: While Ahtiainen et al (2005) were unable to find a significant inter-group size or strength difference in well-trained subjects (6.6 +/- 2.8 years of continuous strength training) who rested 2 minutes compared to those who rested only 5 minute in response to their 21-week training intervention, Buresh et al (2005) reported more recently that significantly greater size increases of the arms and a trend for greater muscle hypertrophy in the legs in young, albeit untrained subjects who rested for 2.5 minutes instead of just one.

Figure 1: Previous studies found "conflicting" evidence. While Ahtiainen et al. found no effects of 2 vs. 5 minutes in trained, Buresh et al. found effects of 2 vs. 1 minutes rest in untrained subjects. With different subjects, different workouts and most importantly different rest times that were compared it is yet not exactly right to say that the studies contradict each other.

Now, obviously, the ostensible "contradiction" I alluded to in the previous paragraph does eventually not exist. With trained vs. untrained subjects, different workout protocols and most importantly different rest intervals (1 vs. 2 minutes and 2 vs. 5 minutes) the studies by Ahtiainen and Buresh cannot really contradict each other. The same must be said of an even more recent study by Villanueva et al. (2014) the surprising findings of which, i.e. "longer rest periods compromise the gains of older trainees", I've discussed last year, already.Eventually, however, this does not change that there is, as Schoenfeld et al. write that "a need for more research to provide greater clarity on the topic" (Schoenfeld. 2015). A "clarity" Schoenfeld et al. sought to find with a study that "used current rest interval recommendations for hypertrophy and strength of 1 versus 3 minutes, respectively, and employed validated measures to directly assess site-specific changes in muscle thickness" (ibid). In that, the researchers speculated that ...

"[c]onsistent with generally accepted guidelines on the topic (Willardson. 2006), we hypothesized that short rest intervals would produce greater increases in muscle growth and local muscle endurance while long rest intervals would result in superior strength increases" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

As you will know if you didn't miss the headline of this waredownloadsoft article, this hypothesis was only partly validated. The data in Figure 2 confirms that the subjects, "experienced lifters (defined as consistently lifting weights for a minimum of 6 months and a back squat / body weight ratio ≥ 1.0)" (Schoenfeld. 2015), gained significantly more strength, when they rested 3 versus just 1 minute between the 3 sets of their three weekly workouts (Figure 2 does also tell you that the strength endurance increases were identical in both groups).

Figure 2: Changes in markers of strength and strength endurance; * denotes significant pre- vs. post difference, # denotes significant inter-group difference (here in favor of long(er) rest periods | Schoenfeld. 2015).

What was Schoenfeld et al. did not find, however, were increased size gains in the short-rest period group whose 24 workouts that were performed on non-consecutive days over the course of the 8-week study period, were otherwise identical with those of the long-rest period group and comprised a total of 7 exercises for all major body parts, namely...

• three leg exercises, i.e. barbell back squats, plate-loaded leg presses, and plate-loaded leg extensions), 
• two exercises for the anterior torso muscles, i.e. flat barbell presses and seated barbell military presses, and 
• two exercises for the posterior torso muscles, i.e. wide-grip plate-loaded lateral pulldowns, and plate-loaded seated cable rows

This is a highly significant result even for you who is - according to an older waredownloadsoft Poll - probably training according to a split regimen, albeit most likely with very similar exercises. What may be different from the some, but obviously *smile* not your workout though, is that the supervision by members of the research team ensured that the subjects stuck to the prescribed cadence of 1 second for the concentric and "approximately 2 seconds" (ibid.) for the eccentric part of every the exercise. This as well as the imperative progression to higher weights, whence the prescribed number of 8-12 reps per set could be performed is unfortunately overlooked by many recreational trainees - with disappointing consequences in the form of inferior or even no size and strength gains, by the way... but I am digressing, let's rather take a look at the already mentioned, unexpectedly superior strength size gains in the long(er) rest interval group (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Changes in muscle thickness and corresponding effect sizes; * denotes significant pre- vs. post-changes, # denotes significant inter-group differences; overall it is obvious that there's a long(er) rest advantage (Schoenfeld. 2015).

As the single "#" in Figure 3 tells you, the inter-group differences and thus the advantage of the long(er) rest intervals was statistically significant only for the quads, though. If we also take into account the lack of statistically significant effects on the sleeve sizes (biceps and triceps) in the short rest interval group, as well as the obvious differences in effect sizes (Figure 3, right), there's yet little doubt that the hypothesis that shorter rest intervals yield greater size increases must be considered falsified - at least under the given experimental conditions (trained subjects, three full-body workouts per week, standard hypertrophy set and rep-ranges, etc.).
References:

• Ahtiainen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• Buresh, Robert, Kris Berg, and Jeffrey French. "The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 62-71.
• Henselmans, Menno, and Brad J. Schoenfeld. "The Effect of Inter-Set Rest Intervals on Resistance Exercise-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy." Sports Medicine 44.12 (2014): 1635-1643.
• 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, et al. "Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance trained men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2015): Publish Ahead of Print.
• Villanueva, Matthew G., Christianne Joy Lane, and E. Todd Schroeder. "Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-14.
• Willardson, Jeffrey M. "A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.4 (2006): 978-984.

You can't expect wonders from protein supplements... no matter, when you take them, by the way. But I wouldn't mark them down as useless - even for rookies - based on the study at hand.

When I look at the 14 year old kids who need an written permission from their mum to train at the gym buying protein tons o powders and dozens of bars from the vending machines at the gym, even I have to shake my head. Not necessarily, because they're buying those products, but rather about what they tell each other about the effects: "Yo,... recently I ate this protein bar right after my workout and I felt swole for day..."

Now, you know that I am into supplement psychology and have no doubt about the fact that said kiddo felt swole all day, but we all know that protein is in no way a supplement the muscle-building and strength advantages of which will show within hours. And with that, I have a perfect transition to today's topic: The recent study from University of Central Florida in Orlando (Boone. 2015).
You will probably remember the most striking result of this study in which Carleigh H. Boone and colleagues "examine[d] the short-term effect of resistance training with and without protein supplementation on changes in muscle morphology and strength in untrained young men" (Boone. 2015).

Some of you may now be wondering: Why on earth do they even test that? We have ample evidence that protein supplements are powerful muscle builders! And you are right, but as it is the case for (almost) every research question in exercise science, even the highly acclaimed benefits of pre- or post-workout protein supplementation are somewhat contested. There's the evidence that supports the benefits of peri-workout protein supplementation on exercise induced muscle gains. Unfortunately, many of these studies may have been over-interpreted. Why?

FSR ≠ more muscle. Just because the post-exercise fractional protein synthesis increases this does not mean that you will gain more muscle in the long term. Check out this SV Classic to learn why!

Well, many of the often-cited studies in rookies, like Biolo et al. (1995), Phillips et al. (1997), or Tipton et al. (1999), measured increases in acute muscle protein synthesis and markers of anabolism. Due to their short design, however, increased long-term gains could only be predict, but not detect. In my 2014 article "Study Confirms: Acute Post-Exercise Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Is Not Correlated with Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy in Young Men" (read more) you have learned, though, that the assumption that significant increases in post-workout muscle protein synthesis will necessary lead to significant augmented increases in muscle size in the long run is logical. but futile.

There are studies where this is the case, e.g. Coburn et al. (2006); Hulmi et al. (2010); Walker et al. (2009); Willoughby et al. (2007) - in both, trained and untrained individuals, but as Boone et al. rightly point out, there are also studies by Antonio et al. (2000) or Hoffman et al. (2009) in which protein or amino acid supplements had no beneficial effects on muscle or strength gains in either or trained and untrained individuals. The randomized, double-blinded study Boone et al. (2015) conducted is thus by no means superfluous. It is yet no perfect either, because with a length of only our week, the scientists picked exactly the time-frame in which things, or I should say "gains" happen faster than you can measure them. Furthermore, the use o a lower body unilateral resistance training makes it very difficult to infer the effects of protein supplementation on (a) muscle morphology [cross-sectional area, muscle thickness, pennation angle], (b) lower body power output, (c) maximal dynamic strength, and (d) maximal isometric strength in other muscle groups and in response to an overall metabolically more demanding workout.

15 min in the AM, 15 in the PM = Win? For many of you that may sound laughable, but according to a recent study from the University of Copenhagen it is at least as effective as three "mammoth" workouts-sessions per week.

What kind of trainee are you? Do you hit the gym thrice a week, spend two hours there and crawl out of the gymdoors totally exhausted? Yeah... Well that means you're not the fitness model guy, who trains twice a day for 15-20 minutes only and swears that this is the only way to do it?

After all these questions you're probably asking yourself if the answers you gave in your mind were good or bad for ya? Right? Well, eventually, both forms of training can be equally effective. If we take a closer look at the non-significant study outcomes in a recent paper by scientists from the University of Copenhagen (Kilen. 2015), though body composition and strength may in fact benefit more if you train more frequently - even if the total workout volume is the same.
Workout volume? Yes, that's the number of sets and reps. So, let's say you do three 45-minute training sessions weekly, including 1 strength on Monday, 1 high intensity cardiovascular (HIIT) session on Wednesday, and 1 muscle endurance session on Thursday, then those 3x45 minutes + warm-up exercise are your total workout volume.

In case that's what you're doing on a regular basis, you're training just like those of the 21 study subjects (10 men, 11 women; 25 +/- 3 years) with some previous training experience who were randomly assigned to the "classical" training program in the previously mentioned study by Kilen, et al. (2015). If you're rather the fitness model type, you may recognize your own training in what the other subjects did, i.e. a "micro training" program with a total of nine 15-minute training sessions weekly that were divided equally between strength training, high-intensity cardiovascular training, and muscle endurance training and performed in the AM and PM from Monday to Friday (there was no PM training on Friday, though, and cardio and strength were rotated | see caption of Table 1).

Table 1: Description of the two different training regimen (Kilen. 2015) | *To minimize the potential negative effect of concurrent cardio + strength training, MI performed 2 days of strength (Mon and + Tue) and 1 day of cardio training (Wed) in odd weeks, and 1 day of strength (Mon) and 2 days of cardio training (Tue + Wed) in even weeks.

Unlike the training frequency and rest between workouts, the strength training, HIIT and muscular endurance training sessions, themselves, were identical in both groups:

• Strength training consisted of leg exercises (deadlifts, lunges, step-ups, and 1 leg squats), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 8RM, and upper-body exercises (pullups, dips, weighted push-ups, and 1 arm rows), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 5RM. For progression, the exercises were adjusted using extra loading (sandbags in 1-kg steps) if the subjects were able to accomplish more repetitions than prescribed. If the subjects were not able to perform the number of repetitions prescribed, they performed as many as they could in proper form and finished the set conducting only the eccentric phase of the exercise. 
• High-intensity cardiovascular training (HIIT) consisted of running for 2 and 4 minutes at an average speed of 15.1 and 14.5 km/h, respectively, which elicited ;90% maximal heart rate during exercise. Micro training performed two 4-minute run intervals in the morning with 3 minutes of rest in between and four 2-minute run intervals in the afternoon with 1 minute of rest in between. Classical training performed three 4-minute and six 2-minute run intervals in the same training session with the same rest as MI in between. The training volume was evaluated and the only significant difference was running distance during 2-minute and 4-minute intervals, where MI ran significantly further than CL in each interval. 
• Muscle endurance training consisted of three 5-minute exercise sessions involving 5 different exercises performed continuously for 30 seconds with 30-second rest periods. Micro training conducted 3 sessions; the first was “easy,” the second “hard,” and the third “very hard.” Classical training conducted 9 sessions in the same order, starting over with “easy” on the fourth and seventh sessions. The exercises were weighted lunges (with a 20-kg sandbag); push-ups; shuttle runs; abdominal exercises ([a] regular sit-ups from a supine position with knees bent at 908, fists in contact with the ears and the lumbar arch supported by a folded towel, and [b] diagonal sit-ups from a horizontal supine position, outstretched hand to opposite raised foot, alternating); and back exercises ([a] back extensions on an incline bench and [b] kettlebell swings in a standing position). 

As Kilen et al. point out, "[a]ll training sessions were supervised by scientific staff, and subject attendance" as well as "[h]eart rate [...] during high-intensity cardiovascular training and muscle endurance training for the last 5 weeks of the training intervention" (Kilen. 2015) were recorded.

Figure 1: Relative pre- vs. post changes in all measures performance markers (calculated based on Kilen. 2015).

After the 8-weeks on the respective training regiment, a comparison of the pre- vs. post-training data yielded the following results:

• Increases in shuttle run performance were observed in both group, albeit with a higher significance as far as the pre- vs. post-difference is concerned in the classical training (CL) vs. micro training (MI) group (MI: 1,373 +/- 133 m vs. 1,498 +/- 126 m, p < 0.05; CL: 1,074 6 213 m vs. 1,451 6 202 m, p , 0.001).
• Significant improvements in peak oxygen uptake (3,744 6 +/- 615 mL/min vs. 3,963 +/- 753 mL/min | p < 0.05), maximal voluntary isometric (MVC) force of the knee extensors (646 +/- 135 N vs. 659 +/- 209 N | p < 0.001), MVC of the finger flexors (408 +/- 109 N vs. 441 +/- 131 N, p < 0.05), and the maximal number of lunges performed in 2 minutes (65 +/- 3 vs. 73 +/- 2, p , 0.001), however, were seen only in the micro = high frequency training group.

The question you may be asking yourselves now is: Why does the headline say that there were no significant differences? Well, the lack of statistical significance of the improvements in the classical training group does not suffice for a statistically significant between difference to the micro training group. Statistical significant inter-group differences did not exist either before or after the study. The scientists conclusion that

"similar training adaptations can be obtained with short, frequent exercise sessions or longer, less frequent sessions where the total volume of weekly training performed is the same" (Kilen. 2015)

is thus absolutely correct. The fact that statistical significance for the aforementioned study outcomes was achieved in the micro, yet not in the classical training group does still suggest that the high(er) frequency training regimen may have an adaptive edge... albeit in terms of study outcomes not everyone will deem practically relevant.
References:

• Kilen, Anders, et al. "Adaptations to Short, Frequent Sessions of Endurance and Strength Training Are Similar to Longer, Less Frequent Exercise Sessions When the Total Volume Is the Same." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29 (2015): S46-S51.