Download Fitness Tools

I can almost guarantee that the results of this study are not sex-specific. Ladies, pick up the weights fater you hit the treadmill, stairmaster, elliptical or other torture instrument you like to use!

It has been a while since the last study on exercise order (cardio or weights first) has been published. Now, scientists from the University of Kurdistan have conducted another study to investigate the effects of intrasession sequencing of concurrent resistance and endurance training on the serum leptin, testosterone, cortisol responses and body composition in obese men.

And don't worry, we are not talking about useless acute-phase data that shows no correlation with either strength or muscle gains, or fat loss (West. 2012). Sheikholeslami-Vatani and colleagues conducted an eight-week study on thirty obese young male students without continuous exercise history (age: 23.2±1.4 year, BMI: 31.8±1.6 kg/m²).
The subjects were randomly divided into three groups: concurrent resistance-endurance (CRE, n = 10) group, concurrent endurance-resistance (CER, n = 10) group and control (C, n = 10) group (no training program). The concurrent training groups (CER and CRE) trained three times a week on alternate days for 8 weeks. The training itself consisted of which consisted of ...

"running with 70—75% of maximal heart rate (HRmax) for 10 minutes which gradually increased to 80% HRmax for 21.5 minutes [plus] resistance training consisted of 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in 5 resistance exercises (leg extensions, lying leg curl, triceps pushdown, bench press and lateral pull down)" (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015). 

In-between the endurance and resistance (or vice versa) training parts of the workouts, the subjects rested for 5 minutes. Blood sampling and skin-fold measurements to asses the body composition was conducted 48 hours before the start of the course and again 48 hours after the last training session (learn why waiting longer for the body comp test may have been better, but no study does that).

Figure 1: Relative changes in hormone levels (left) and absolute and relative changes in body fat fat free mass and body fat % (right) after 8 weeks of doing nothing (C) or doing cardio (CER) or weights (CRE) first (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015).

I've plotted the most important results in Figure 1a & b. So, let's take a look: The first thing that everyone should see is that both workout regimen had relevant health and physique effects:

• Similar gains w/ weights vs. cardio first in trained men | more.

  normalization of leptin levels (health)
• slight increases in testosterone (health)
• increases in cortisol (which are benign | learn why)
• significant reductions in body fat (health + physique)
• increases in fat free mass (health and physique)

References:

• Sheikholeslami-Vatani, D., et al. "The effect of concurrent training order on hormonal responses and body composition in obese men." Science & Sports (2015).
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

You will find dozens of ginger + lemon water recipes on the internet - all of them can pimp your peri-workout drinks and make your tummies "exercise proof".

As a regular here at the waredownloadsoft you know about the beneficial health effects of ginger. It has potent anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects without the usual side-effects of COX-inhibitors (Mashhadi. 2013), has been shown to have anti-cancer effect on it's own (Kim. 2005), as well as to be a perfect adjunct for conventional cancer therapy (Sontakke. 2003).

Ginger has also been shown to exert cardioprotective effects (Ghayur. 2005; Singletary. 2010), strengthens the immune system (Butt. 2011) and significant beneficial effects on the health of the digestive system - including the make-up of your microbiome (Sutherland. 2009).
Now, it is out of question almost all of these effects would be beneficial to athletes, too. The one I want to focus on, today, though, is directly related to the last-mentioned effect: the beneficial effect on the gut. It is well-known that athletes, in general, and endurance athletes, in particular, are having a hard time keeping their tummy from "leaking" (learn more about the link between exercise and leaky gut). With ginger - that's at least what a recent study from the School of Life Sciences at the Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh suggests. The scientists went from the observations that

1. the frequency of upper and lower gastrointestinal disturbance as a function of exercise is reported to be between 30 and 70%
2. the severity of symptoms ranging from mild stomach discomfort to severe diarrhoea and 
3. the consumption of beverages either before or during exercise may increase the incidence rate by over 25%

to the hypothesis that spiking said beverages with an agent that has previously been shown to reduce the symptoms of nausea and vomiting could be of great benefit for athletes.
In the present study, this agent was ginger that was added to an isotonic beverage 40 recreational athletes (23 male, 17 female) who had volunteered to participate in the study consumed on one out of three test drinks containing 450 ml of either water or beverage A or beverage B in two 225ml servings before and after their workout:

• Study Underlines Real World Benefits of 2g/day of Ginger for Type II Diabetics - Effects Almost on Par W/ Metformin | more

  Beverage A contained 7·5% glucose, 10 mM NaCl, citric acid, K sorbate and 62·5 ml of ginger root extract per 1 L.
• Beverage B was identical to beverage A but the ginger was replaced with 62·5 ml of carrot extract. 
• The control drink contained nothing but plain water.

"Section 1 addressed upper abdominal problems (reflux / heartburn, belching, bloating, stomach cramps/pain, nausea, vomiting); section 2 addressed lower abdominal problems (intestinal/lower abdominal cramps, flatulence, urge to defecate, side ache/stitch, loose stool, diarrhea, intestinal bleeding); and section 3 addressed systemic problems (dizziness, headache, muscle cramp, urge to urinate)" (Pfeiffer. 2012). 

References:

• Ball, D., G. Ashley, and H. Stradling. "Exercise-induced gastrointestinal disturbances: potential amelioration with a ginger containing beverage." Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74.OCE3 (2015): E186.
• Boppel, B. "[Lead-and cadmium-content of foodstuffs 1. Lead-and Cadmium-content of spices and table salt (author's transl)]." Zeitschrift Fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung Und-Forschung 160.3 (1975): 299-302.
• Butt, Masood Sadiq, and M. Tauseef Sultan. "Ginger and its health claims: molecular aspects." Critical reviews in food science and nutrition 51.5 (2011): 383-393.
• Ghayur, Muhammad Nabeel, and Anwarul Hassan Gilani. "Ginger lowers blood pressure through blockade of voltage-dependent calcium channels." Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology 45.1 (2005): 74-80.
• Kim, Eok-Cheon, et al. "[6]-Gingerol, a pungent ingredient of ginger, inhibits angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo." Biochemical and biophysical research communications 335.2 (2005): 300-308.
• Mashhadi, Nafiseh Shokri, et al. "Anti-oxidative and anti-inflammatory effects of ginger in health and physical activity: review of current evidence." International journal of preventive medicine 4.Suppl 1 (2013): S36.
• Singletary, Keith. "Ginger: An Overview of health benefits." Nutrition Today 45.4 (2010): 171-183.
• Sontakke, S., V. Thawani, and M. S. Naik. "Ginger as an antiemetic in nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy: a randomized, cross-over, double blind study." Indian journal of pharmacology 35.1 (2003): 32-36.
• Srivastava, L. P., Roli Budhwar, and R. B. Raizada. "Organochlorine pesticide residues in Indian spices." Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 67.6 (2001): 856-862.
• Sullivan, James H. "Pesticide residues in imported spices. A survey for chlorinated hydrocarbons." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 28.5 (1980): 1031-1034.

No rest(-day) allowed - at least during the short (!) overreaching phase you will be training through the pain & fatigue if you are determined to succeed.

You've read about the difference between the catabolic, anti-adaptive effects of overtraining and overreaching before, but do you actually know what it takes to overreach not train? In a recent study from the Ritsumeikan University you may find some clues that may help us answer these questions, but before we do so, let's take a brief look at the study design and outcomes, the authors give away in the title already: "Planned Overreaching and Subsequent Short-term Detraining Enhance Cycle Sprint Performance" (Hasegawa. 2015) - A study designed to investigate the effects of a training program consisting of planned overreaching and subsequent short-term detraining on sprint performance.
Over the course of the three-week (*) study, 24 physically active men (age, height, and body weight (BW) were 21.7 ±1.4 years, 175.2±4.3cm, and 75.0± 14.6kg, respectively) participated in an 18-day sprint-training program. None of the subjects was participating in a regular training program (*) at the start of the study, when they were randomly allocated to one out of two training groups:

• the overreaching-detraining (OR-DT), in which the subjects performed maximal cycle sprint training on 12 consecutive days, followed by 6 days of detraining (=no exhausting physical activity at all | like 12xA - 6xR) and 
• the control (CON) group, in which a complete day of rest was provided after every 2 successive training days (like A-A-R-A-A-R- [...])

Figure 3: Cortisol levels in the Hasegawa study (2015) in the pre- and post-test (left); maximal endurance (T in min) in Katia Collomp's 2008 investigation into the effects of acute glucocorticoid administration on cycling endurance (right).

References:

• Collomp, Katia, et al. "Short-term glucocorticoid intake combined with intense training on performance and hormonal responses." British journal of sports medicine 42.12 (2008): 983-988.
• Fry, Andrew C., et al. "Endocrine responses to overreaching before and after 1 year of weightlifting." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 19.4 (1994): 400-410.
• Gleeson, Michael. "Biochemical and immunological markers of over-training." Journal of sports science & medicine 1.2 (2002): 31.
• Halson, SHONA L., et al. "Immunological responses to overreaching in cyclists." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 35.5 (2003): 854-861.
• Hasegawa, Y., et al. "Planned Overreaching and Subsequent Short-term Detraining Enhance Cycle Sprint Performance." International journal of sports medicine (2015).
• Mackinnon, L. T., and S. L. Hooper. "Overtraining and overreaching: Causes, effects and prevention." (2000): 487-498.
• Matos, Nuno F., Richard J. Winsley, and Craig A. Williams. "Prevalence of nonfunctional overreaching/overtraining in young English athletes." Med Sci Sports Exerc 43.7 (2011): 1287-94.
• Parra, J., et al. "The distribution of rest periods affects performance and adaptations of energy metabolism induced by high‐intensity training in human muscle." Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 169.2 (2000): 157-165.
• Ratamess, Nicholas A., et al. "The effects of amino acid supplementation on muscular performance during resistance training overreaching." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 17.2 (2003): 250-258.
• Volek, Jeff S., et al. "The effects of creatine supplementation on muscular performance and body composition responses to short-term resistance training overreaching." European journal of applied physiology 91.5-6 (2004): 628-637.

While this picture shows loaded cardio in its most beautiful form, the study investigated loaded cardio on the treadmill and compared it (for questionable reasons) to non-loaded cardio on a stationary bike and guess what: Both burn the same amount of muscle - NET: Zero!

Carrying a (heavy) load during cardio? Sounds dumb? Well, that's however, how the real world looks like. Not just soldiers who are carrying armor and a heavy backpack in the field, but also hikers will attest to the fact that doing "cardio" with a weight on your shoulders or elsewhere is more natural than running around in the park with your mobile and ear-plugs as the only load you're carrying on top of your ultra-light runners clothing.

With that being said, it is actually quite astonishing that Stefan M. Pasiakos and colleagues from the Military Nutrition Division at the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick are the first to take a look at the muscle anabolic and catabolic effects of regular (unloaded) and loaded cardio training in 40 free-living healthy, physically fit (peak oxygen uptake, VO2peak 40/60 mL/ kg/ min), adults (37 males and 3 females), normal weight men and women between the ages of 18–39 years.
In said study, the volunteers were then randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups, each
of whom performed a single 90 min exercise bout.

• Two groups performed CE and the other two performed LC. 
• One of each of the exercise groups received EAA drinks to consume during exercise, and the other groups received control (CON) drinks. 

To determine the effects on skeletal muscle, the subjects' individual muscle protein synthesism (MPS) was assessed during exercise and recovery and whole protein turnover was determined in recovery only. What may be a bit surprising in this context is the fact that a resting MPS measure was not included in the study. The authors, however, have a good argument to neglect this, when they say that (a) the MPS responses to endurance-type exercise (i.e.,as they relate to resting MPS) are well established and that (b) their ...

"[...] intent was not to determine temporal changes in MPS within an exercise mode (with or without EAA), but to examine MPS responses between LC and CE during exercise and recovery independently" (Pasiakos. 2015).

Another thing that was just like in any other study, though, was the standardization of diet and physical activity, the scientists describe as follows:

"Volunteers completed 3 d diet and activity records at baseline, and similar to our previous work (Pasiakos. 2011), these records were used to individually prescribe 7 d lead-in diets to maintain body weight and to limit the potential confounding effect of diet on outcome measures. Compliance was confirmed by 24 h dietary recalls conducted every two days during the lead-in phase (Food Processor SQL1, version 10, ESHA Research, Salem, OR) (Table 1). Volunteers were also instructed to maintain activity levels reported at baseline for the first five days of the lead-in phase. All resistive and endurance-type activity was prohibited 48 h before data collection to minimize any potential residual effects of previous exercise on protein turnover" (Pasiakos. 2015).

The actual news is however not the dietary standardization what you are (rightly) interested in is probably the exercise protocol which is - and I will get to that in the bottom line - not ideal: While the LC, i.e. the load carriage training, was performed by walking on a treadmill while wearing a weighted vest equivalent to 30% of baseline body mass, the CE, i.e. the control endurance exercise, was non-weight bearing and performed on a cycle ergometer (Lode, BV, Netherlands), of which the scientists say that they used it to "allow for comparisons with our previous studies" (Pasiakos. 2015).

Illustration 1: Graphical overview of the study design (Pasiakos. 2015) | EAA = 10g of EAAs, CON = non-nutritious control drink; LC = load carrying cardio on a treadmill, CE = control endurance exercise on a stationary bike.

What's unquestionable a strength of the study, though, was the fact that the baseline VO2peak and associated heart rates at maximal and submaximal levels were used to establish target exercise intensities for the LC and CE trials. In addition, speed and grade for LC and power (watts) for CE were adjusted to match the absolute exercise intensity (intended oxygen uptake was 2.4 L /m) and
to elicit a similar energy cost (intended energy expenditure was 1050 kcal /90 min) between
LC and CE. Lastly, ...

"[m]atching the intensity and energy cost was done to isolate the effects of the possible differences in mechanical force and contractile properties of LC and CE from the relative intensity and energy cost of the exercise bout [and a] familiarization trial was conducted to ensure the accuracy of the exercise prescription and the ability of the volunteer to complete the prescribed exercise bout" (Pasiakos. 2015).

As previously alluded to, the intra-workout beverage the subjects consumed was either a high EAA drink (10 g EAA: 0.7 g histidine, 0.7 g isoleucine, 3.6 g leucine, 1.2 g lysine, 0.3 g methionine, 1.4 g phenylalanine, 1.0 g threonine, and 1 g valine) or an identically looking placebo drink (non-nutritive).

Figure 1: Overview of protein fluxes (synthesis vs. breakdown and oxidation) and subsequent net protein balance in the four treatment groups, i.e. loaded and control cardio with and with out EAA (Pasiakos. 2015)

Interestingly enough, the latter, i.e. the 10 grams of EAA drink that was consumed in four small doses (i.e., 350 mg of phenylalanine and 900 mg of leucine per serving), over 90 min to minimize "any isotopic dilution that may have occurred if the EAA drink was consumed as a bolus" (Pasiakos. 2015) was the only treatment that made a difference to the protein flux parameters illustrated in Figure 1. In that it is worth mentioning the tthe difference in protein oxidation alone does not fully explain the conservation of skeletal muscle protein even if we assume that all the amino acids that were oxidized during the EAA supplementation trial came from the EAA supplement. This is curious in view of the lack of effect of BCAAs on exercise (learn more) induced protein breakdown and points with a finger to other EAAs as potential motors of this effect.

Figure 1: Protein synthesis. Mixed-muscle (A), myofibrillar (B), and sarcoplasmic (C) muscle protein synthesis (MPS) during exercise and mixed-muscle (D), myofibrillar (E), and sarcoplasmic (F) MPS in recovery from a 90 min, metabolically matched load carriage (LC) or conventional endurance (CE) exercise bout, with and without (control, CON) essential amino acid (EAA) supplementation. Data are mean ± SD, n = 10 per group. †Mode main effect; LC different than CE, P < 0.05. *Drink main effect; EAA different than CON, P < 0.05 (Pasiakos. 2015).

The fact that the loading didn't make a difference in either direction, i.e. that it did neither increase nor decrease the breakdown or synthesis of muscle protein may be surprising, but it's not the only result worth mentioning before we evaluate the results in the bottom line. In addition, it should be noted:

1. The EAA-mediated decrease in muscle breakdown was complemented by both enhanced mixed-muscle and sarcoplasmic MPS during exercise.
2. During the recovery phase, the mixed muscle and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis in response to loaded cardio training were higher than they were in the control group.

Of these results, finding #2 is of most interest as it puts the alleged uselessness of loaded cardio into perspectives. Muscles do after all grow during rest and if the muscle protein synthesis during the recovery phase is increased compared to the control non-loaded exercise this clearly suggests that loaded endurance exercise is more anabolic than non-loaded endurance exercise.
References:

• Pasiakos, Stefan M., et al. "Leucine-enriched essential amino acid supplementation during moderate steady state exercise enhances postexercise muscle protein synthesis." The American journal of clinical nutrition 94.3 (2011): 809-818.
• Pasiakos SM, McClung HL, Margolis LM, Murphy NE, Lin GG, Hydren JR, et al. "Human Muscle Protein Synthetic Responses during Weight-Bearing and Non-Weight-Bearing Exercise: A Comparative Study of Exercise Modes and Recovery Nutrition." PLoS ONE 10.10 (2015): Online only.