Download Fitness Tools

HIIT on the rowing machine is a powerful fat loss tool even w/out HMB. It's yet also pretty intense, so I'd suggest that you don't do it everyday | learn more

You will probably remember Jacob Wilson's impressive 2014 HMB study (Wilson. 2014 | read more). A study that repopularized an old supplement that was once marketed as being "as potent as a weak steroid". Steroids, however, are not exactly the #1 doping agent for endurance athletes. While many (ab)use everything that could improve their performance, agents like erythropoietin (EPO) are obviously much more popular.

Against that background it is not totally obvious to do what Krzysztof Durkalec-Michalski and Jan Jeszka did in their latest study: To assess the effect of HMB supplementation on physical capacity, body composition and levels of biochemical markers in endurance athletes, elite rowers to be precise.
The study design was simple, yet effective: 16 elite male rowers, aged 20± 2 years, with a body weight of 87.3 ± 9.8 kg and a height of 187 ± 5 cm consumed 3×1 g HMB/day or an identically looking placebo for 2×12 weeks. "2×12"? Yes, the study wasn't just randomized, placebo controlled, and double-blinded, it was also a crossover study with a 10 days washout period between the first and the second 12 week period. This makes the results more reliable - in spite of the low number of subjects.

Figure 1: Overview of the design of this double-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trial (Durkalec-Michalsky. 2015)

Before and after the two 12-week phases, aerobic (maximal oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold) and anaerobic (anaerobic power indices) capacity were determined and analyses of the body composition as well as levels the creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, testosterone (T), cortisol (C) levels and the T/C ratio were conducted.

Figure 2: While it looks like there was a sign. testosterone (T) boost in the HMB group, the p-value is 0.569. Accordingly, only the fat mass changes showed sign. inter-group differences (Durkalec-Michalsky. 2015).

What the analyses of these data revealed was quite conclusive: The provision of "regular" calcium HMB at a dosage of "only" 3g/day had a highly significant "advantageous effecton the increase in aerobic capacity and the reduction of fat mass" (Durkalec-Michalsky. 2015). More specifically,...

• Figure 3: Changes in maximal oxygen uptake and rates at ventilatory threshold after 12-week supplementation of HMB. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. Significant differences compared with placebo (independent samples t-tests) at: *- p = 0.03; †- p = 0.012, ‡- p = 0.002; #- p < 0.001. VO _ 2 max: maximal oxygen uptake; TVT: time to VT; WVT: load at VT; HRVT: HR at VT (Durkalec-Michalsky. 2015).

  the subjects' VO2 max increased (+2.7 mL/min/kg) significantly (p < 0.001) in comparison to PLA where it was even slightly reduced (−1.0 mL/min/kg), 
• the ventilatory threshold, the threshold load, and the heart rat, which are the time-point, wattage, and heart rate at which further increases in respiration will no longer lead to increases in VO2 intake, were postponed by +1.2 min, +0.42 W, and +9bpm, respectively,
• with -0.9 kg the subjects in the HMB group lost body fat, while the subjects in the PLA groups gained 0.8 kg (p = 0.03), and lastly
• the refusal time to continue (a proxy of short term recovery) in the progressive test was extended (p = 0.04), maximum load (p = 0.04) and anaerobic peak power (p = 0.02) increased. 

References:

• Durkalec-Michalski, Krzysztof, and Jan Jeszka. "The efficacy of a β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplementation on physical capacity, body composition and biochemical markers in elite rowers: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 12.1 (2015): 1-11.
• Wilson, Gabriel J., et al. "The effects of 12 weeks of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate free acid supplementation on muscle mass, strength, and power in resistance-trained individuals: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study." European Journal of Applied Physiology (2014)

Strength, size and conditioning, you want them all, this article has it all.

Alright, the latest issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research is out and I am going to give you the elevator pitch on what I found to be the most interesting articles in the July 2015 issue.

The first one is Brad Schoenfelds 3x1-day full body vs. 3-day split training comparison in well-trained athletes with interesting, but not mind-blowing results. The second one is a study in which scientists from the San José State University prove that Kettlebell training can be an effective aerobic training even in trained rather endurance-oriented athletes like female collegiate division I soccer players.

• Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men (Schoenfeld. 2015) - In essence, Schoenfeld's study was designed to answer the often-asked question, whether SPLIT training is superior to TOTAL body training.
  
  One of the many strengths of the study is that Schoenfeld et al. recruited well-trained subjects, who had been resistance training a minimum of 3 days-per-week for at least 1 year, with a mean lifting experience of 4.5 ± 3.1 years. In addition, the subjects were not just randomly assigned to the two study groups, but initially pair matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 experimental groups:

  Table 1: Overview of the training protocols (Schoenfeld. 2015)

  "a SPLIT, where multiple exercises were performed for a specific muscle group in a session with 2–3 muscle groups trained per session (n = 10) or a TOTAL, where 1 exercise was performed per muscle group in a session with all muscle groups trained in each session (n = 10)" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  All in all, the subjects performed 21 exercises targeting the major muscle groups, thus training "all" muscles once a week in the SPLIT and thrice a week in the TOTAL group. I would like to point out, though, that Schoenfeld et al. were clever enough to modify the TOTAL workout for day 1-3. While all TOTAL workouts were full body workouts, the exercises the subjects did were different (see Table 1).
  

  Figure 1: A brief glimpse should suffice to tell that the biceps, triceps and vastus lateralis (from left to right) gains didn't differ between the SPLIT and the TOTAL group (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  Speaking of details, as previously stated both groups trained thrice a week on nonconsecutive days for 8 weeks. Both groups performed 2 to 3 sets per exercise for a total of 18 sets per session. The sets in both groups involved 8–12 repetitions with 90 seconds of rest afforded between sets (cadence was controlled concentric, 2s eccentric). In both groups, sets were carried out to the point of momentary concentric muscular failure (defined as the inability to perform another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form). In both groups the load was adjusted for each exercise as needed on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieve failure in the target repetition range. So, what do you conclude from all the "both"s? Yes, that's right. Schoenfeld et al. really did a good job isolating the variable they wanted to instigate.
  

  Figure 2: Changes in 1-RM bench (left) and squat (right) performance (Schoenfeld. 2015) - Again, the workout routines worked their magic, but there's no statistically significant difference for these values.

  Against that background you will probably agree that the answer to the longstanding question which is better: SPLIT or TOTAL is "NONE" - assuming all other variables are kept "constant",... well, unless you want to make your forearm flexors grow, i.e. the biceps, because that's (not shown in Figure 1-2), where Schoenfeld et al. found a significant difference after adjusting for baseline - in this case for the TOTAL body workout. Against that background the overall conclusion that

  "[t]he findings suggest a potentially superior hypertrophic benefit to higher weekly resistance training frequencies" (Schoenfeld. 2015)

  is correct and using a split workout to train each muscle once a week is minimally inferior to full body training twice a week. The difference, however, is less significant than many of you may have suspected. One thing to keep in mind here is that the results may have been skewed by the novelty factor of changing programs. As Schoenfeld et al. highlight in the paper, 16 of the 19 subjects reported training with a split routine on a regular basis, in the pre-interview. As they rightly point out, the topic is not well studied, but

  "[...] there is some evidence to indicate that muscular adaptations are enhanced when program variables are altered outside of traditional norms. Thus, it is conceivable that those in TOTAL benefited from the unaccustomed stimulus of training more frequently" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  If that's the case, this is just another argument in favor or training periodization, i.e. mixing split and full-body routines, high volume, lower intensity with high intensity, lower volume training up in regular cycles, to keep a certain degree of novelty over a long(er) time frame. 
  
• Effects of Kettlebell Training on Aerobic Capacity (Falatic. 2015) - In the past decade, kettlebell (KB) training has gained popularity in the United States and become a viable option for strength training and conditioning. Kettlebells are an ideal tool for ballistic full-body exercises using high muscle forces, making them potentially useful for improving muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Even I have written about it before, although, I personally don't like doing it ;-)
  
  In a recent study, researchers from the San José State University tested the effect of kettlebell training on seventeen female National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I soccer players (age: 19.7 ± 1.0 years, height: 166.1 ± 6.4 cm, weight: 64.2 ± 8.2 kg).
  
  • Both groups trained 3 days a week for 4 weeks in addition to their off-season strength and conditioning program. All workouts lasted 20 minutes.
  • The KB group performed the 15:15 MVO2 protocol (20 minutes of kettlebell snatching with 15 seconds of work and rest intervals; they were instructed to perform their snatches as fast as possible.
  • The CWT group performed multiple free-weight and dynamic body-weight exercises as part of a continuous circuit program for 20 minutes.
  The results show that only the 15:15 MVO2 kettle-bell protocol significantly increased VO2max the already above average VO2max of the subject by an average 2.3 ml/kg/min, or approximately a 6%.
  

  Figure 3: Changes in body weight (n.s.) and VO2max (significant only for KB | Falatic. 2015).

  This does also mean that there were no significant change in VO2max in the CWT free qeight + body weight exercise control group. So, if you want to "pimp" your conditioning with weights, kettle-bells are the better choice.

If you are just starting out on your way to build a body like this, there's little doubt that circuit training is worth considering. If you are more advanced and have a priority on strength and muscle gains, things may be different.

This is not the first article about the benefits of circuit training here at the waredownloadsoft. It is however one of the most convincing ones, as far as the the choice between time-efficient circuit training regimen and a more time-consuming classic resistance training + aerobic training combo is concerned.

To test, which of the two regimen is "better, the subjects of the study, 34 sedentary young women (20.9 +/- 3.2 years; 167.6 +/- 6.4 cm; 65.0 +-/ 15.2 kg), were assigned to either (a) a combined resistance and aerobic exercise group (COMBINED; n = 17) or (b) a circuit-based whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit group (CIRCUIT; n = 17).
All subjects, regardless of which group (for a detailed description of the training protocols see Figure 1) they'd been assigned to trained 3 days per week for 5 weeks.

Figure 1: Tabular overviews of the two training protocols; the COMBINED training group did 30 minutes of resistance training followed by 15 minutes of aerobic exercise (Myers. 2015).

The study outcomes included pre- and post-training measures including VO2peak, anaerobic Wingate cycling, and muscular strength and endurance tests. Tests that revealed that...

• Figure 2: Selected study results (Myers.2015).

  the aerobic performance, as measured by the VO2peak pre- vs. post-test, increased exclusively in the CIRCUIT group (11%),
• peak and relative average power increased to similar extents in both groups, i.e. by 5% (p = 0.027) and 3.2% (p = 0.006), respectively, in the CIRCUIT group and by 5.3% (p = 0.025) and 5.1% (p = 0.003) in the COMBINED training group, 
• a slightly greater inter-group difference was observed for the chest and hamstrings 1 repetition maximum (1RM) which improved by 20.6% (p = 0.011) and 8.3% (p = 0.022) in the CIRCUIT and by 35.6% (p , 0.001) and 10.2% (p = 0.004) in the COMBINED group, respectively,
• the most significant advantage of the COMBINED training group, was observed for the back (11.7%; p = 0.017) and quadriceps (9.6%; p = 0.006) 1RM, which did not improve in the CIRCUIT group, 

• Myers TR, Schneider MG, Schmale MS, Hazell TJ. Whole-body aerobic resistance training circuit improves aerobic fitness and muscle strength in sedentary young females. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):1592-600.