Cold water immersion (a.k.a., “ice baths”) has become a popular method amongst exercise enthusiasts and athletes to enhance recovery after an intense training bout. The strategy involves exposing either the trained limb or the whole body to very cold liquid temperatures. According to p...
Brad Schoenfeld, Ph.D, C.S.C.S., is an internationally renowned fitness expert and widely regarded as one of the leading authorities on body composition training (muscle development and fat loss). He is a lifetime drug-free bodybuilder, and has won numerous natural bodybuilding titles.
In this latest episode of the B&B Connection, Bret and I discuss periodization and its relevancy to resistance training. In case you don’t know, periodization can be defined as the planned manipulation of exercise program variables (in this case sets, reps, load, etc) to optimize a given fitness component. Despite what you may have heard, research on periodization is highly conflicting. Here we discuss the limitations of the researh, delve into what can be gleaned from science as well as experience, and provide opinions for practical application of periodized principles. Hopefully it provokes thought and debate on the topic. Enjoy!
Happy to report that I’ll be doing regular fitcasts with my brother-from-another-mother, Bret Contreras, which we somewhat unoriginally call the B & B Connection (what’s in a name, right?). We’ll be discussing the practical application of research on a variety of fitness topics, objectively delving into some of the more controversial issues that currently exist. Each fitcast will be limited to 30 minutes (translation: we’ll cut right to the meat of the topic without any fluff).
Our inaugural fitcast covered the mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy. We explored my review paper, The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training, with specific emphasis on the roles of mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and myodamage on muscle development. For anyone interested in maximizing their muscle mass, this fitcast will serve as a primer to help with optimizing exercise program design.
In our second fitcast we tackled the hotly debated topic of high-intensity resistance training (HIT). For those who don’t know, HIT is a catch-all for single-set training. The discussion was spurred by a recent research study showing that single set training was equally as effective as multi-set training in improving measures of upper body strength. As is often the case, however, the devil is in the details. What does not get mentioned in the abstract (or anywhere in the discussion, for that matter), is that the “single set” group actually performed one set of three exercises for each muscle group. Given that the subjects trained three times per week, this amounted to nine sets per muscle per week. Not exactly what I would consider a “single set” routine, and certainly not consistent with what HIT pioneers such as Ellington Darden have prescribed as optimal for muscular adaptations. Understand that this by no means invalidates HIT as a potentially viable approach. As Bret and I discuss, the issue on training volume ultimately comes down to your personal goals. I highly encourage you to give this one a listen and let us know your thoughts on the topic.
Suffice to say, I’m very much looking forward to our future B & B fitcasts. Stay tuned.
In addition to my collaboration with Bret, I’ve been interviewed on a number of other sites recently. Here’s a rundown of each:
Most recently, I had the pleasure to chat about bodybuilding with Ben Pakulski and John Meadows. In case you don’t know, these two guys are at the pinnacle of the profession. Ben is an elite bodybuilder who placed second in the Arnold Classic this past year; I feel confident in saying he is destined to be an Olympia champion one day. John is a highly ranked NPC competitor who also trains many of the top pros. Listen to the interview and you can tell the level of commitment and understanding these guys have about the practical application of scientific principles; they certainly dispel the frequent notion that bodybuilders simply rely on genetics and gear. Whether you’re a bodybuilding fan or not, this is a must listen for those interested in maximizing muscle development.
Next, I spoke with Carl Lenore on Super Human Radio about whether muscle soreness is a good way to gauge the success of your workout. Carl always does a great job allowing for scientific discussion of fitness topics, and this was no exception. If you’re caught up in how sore you after a workout you should definitely check this one out.
My interview onJay Scott’s Full Disclosure Fitness Podcast provided wide-ranging questions spanning a variety of fitness topics. Rep ranges, diet, and supplements were just a few of the issues covered. Jay did a great job of keeping the interview focused and interesting.
I spoke with Scott Tousignant on the premier episode of his Fitness Frontier podcast. Scott is a natural bodybuilder who shows a true passion for the sport. In addition to discussing training for physique enhancement, I got to recollect on my past experiences as a competitive bodybuilder.
Last but certainly not least, I was interviewed by two top English fitness pros, Luke Johnson and Joseph Agu. Luke and Joseph are organizing my upcoming seminar series in the United Kingdom this January. Lots of interesting topics discussed. As a bonus, they have really cool English accents! This one is a videocast; I’ve embedded the video below.
embedded by Embedded Video
Okay, gotta get back to work on my dissertation now. In the meantime, hope this provides you with enough listening enjoyment for the time being!
As mentioned previously on this blog, I’m thrilled to serve as an educational consultant to Reebok — a world leader in fitness and sporting apparel. In my consuling role, I’ll be contributing monthly content to the ReebokOne website. Here are two recent videos I filmed for the site that you may find of interest:
The first video demonstrates an awesome variation of the traditional plank called the long-lever posterior tilt plank (LLPTP). This variation was popularized by Pavel Tsatsouline of the RKC. Research from my human performance lab shows that the LLPTP blows away the traditional plank with respect to abdominal muscle activity. It’s a challenging exercise, but for more advanced lifters definitely something to have in your training arsenal. Here’s the link: Long-lever posterior tilt plank video
The second video addresses the longstanding claim that you shouldn’t allow your knees to travel past the line of your toes when squatting or lunging. This belief has been adopted as gospel in a majority of the fitness community. Question is, does the claim have validity? Find out the real science here: Is knees-over-toes harmful during the squat?
In order to view the videos, you do need to register on the ReebokOne site. The good news is that registration is free and takes only a few minutes. Hope you enjoy the content!
The journey to obtain my PhD is now in its final phase. I passed my comprehensive exams back in July and officially became a doctoral candidate! I am now in the process of collecting data and have an awesome research team assembled that’s helping in these efforts (see the team photo on the left). The study involves investigating the effects of different resistance training loading ranges on muscular adaptations in well-trained individuals. It will be the first study of its kind and should provide substantial insight into the practical manipulation of program variables for optimizing muscle strength and hypertrophy. If all goes according to plan, I hope to defend my dissertation in January! I will be posting updates as the study progresses. Stay tuned!
Now that my PhD coursework is complete I’ve rededicated my efforts to again writing consumer articles. Here are a couple that I recently penned for T-Nation. The first is a collaboration with a colleague Dan Ogborn. Dan is extremely knowledgeable about muscle building, both from a research as well as practical standpoint. Our article, titled, Light Weights for Big Gains, discusses how integrating low-load training can play an important role in maximizing the hypertrophic response to lifting. We actually have a review article on the topic that is currently in editorial review at a popular journal. The second article covers a technique called blood flow restricted (BFR) training. Over the past couple of years I’ve experimented with using BFR as a supplement to my own training, as well as that of several physique athletes with whom I consult. Based on empirical experience, it’s been an effective technique as a means to enhance hypertrophic gains. In my T-Nation article, Blood Flow Restriction, I discuss the basics of BFR and how it can be employed for optimum results. For those interested in the science of the topic, see my recent collaborative review published in the current issue of Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
I had the pleasure of being interviewed by uber trainers and top-ranked bodybuilders John Meadows and Shelby Starnes for their new show, Blue Collar Radio. I’m honored that they asked me to be the first guest on the premier broadcast. It’s basically three muscle-heads discussing the art and science of hypertrophy training. Hope you enjoy listening as much as I enjoyed doing the interview.
Speaking of articles, no one has been more profilic lately than my bud Bret Contreras. Bret is hands-down one of the best fitness pros in the business and he consistently puts out quality high quality info at an amazing rate. Here is an excellent post on Squat Biomechanics that’s an excellent read. If you’re not reading his blog on a regular basis, you should be.
Another good friend and colleague, Alan Aragon stepped into the lion’s den for an interview to challenge the theories and merits of Paleo Dieting. Note that the interview was conducted on a paleo website, but Alan stood his ground and provided an in depth critical analysis of the diet, pointing out its inconsistencies. No one knows the practical applicaitons of nutritional research better than Alan and his knowledge is well-displayed here
Finally, I’ll be doing a webinar on muscle hypertrophy…in Spanish! The webinar is being hosted by one of the largest Spanish fitness sites, Grupo Sobre Entrenamiento. Me habla Espanol muy poquito (translation: I speak very little Spanish), so I’ll be lecturing in English and it will be translated into Espanol. This will be a new experience for me and I’m excited to be able to share scientifici muscle-building practices with a foreign audience.
Read pretty much any academic nutrition text and you’ll get the same-old same-old about high-protein diets being harmful to your health. The concerns center around everything from cardiovascular disease to kidney function to bone resorption. Question is, are these claims grounded in science or are they mostly hyperbole?
We can dismiss the cardiovascular claims offhand as they are based on consumption of ketogenic diets. The issue here is not with protein intake per se but rather with saturated fat. Let’s be clear: you can have a high protein intake without consuming large amounts of dietary fat. They are not necessarily tied to one another. Lean poultry, fish and beef have a low fat content. So any discussion about cardiovascular issues should be relegated to dietary fat consumption irrespective of protein intake (and for the record, there is much dispute as to whether saturated fat actually plays a role in atherosclerosis – but that’s a topic for another day).
That out of the way, I’ll delve into the other areas of contention. In this post I’ll cover the effects of a high protein intake on kidney function. In Part II I’ll explore the impact on bone. Okay, let’s dig in.
The claim that a high protein intake is detrimental to the kidneys has been attributed to Dr. Barry Brenner, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. A little background is in order to understand the purported issues. The metabolism of protein entails a complex sequence of events for proper assimilation to take place. During digestion, protein is broken down into its component parts, the amino acids (via a process called deamination). A byproduct of this occurrence is the production of ammonia, a toxic substance, in the body. Ammonia, in turn, is rapidly converted into the relatively non-toxic substance urea in the liver, which is then transported to the kidneys for excretion. The excretory process initially takes place in an area of the kidneys called the glomerulus, where waste is filtered through a large network of capillaries.
Brenner proposed that the associated urea production from excessive protein intake overloads the glomerulus, thereby causing renal injury and dysfunction. This became known as the “Brenner Hypothesis.” Brenner’s work in the area was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine and the hypothesis subsequently became gospel in academic nutritional circles.
Here’s the rub: Brenner’s hypothesis was based on data from animal studies and those with existing renal disease. And as any good scientist knows, you cannot necessarily extrapolate such results to a healthy population.
An examination of the literature shows that, within wide limits, there is no evidence that a diet high in protein has any detrimental effects on those with normal renal function. Healthy kidneys are readily able to filter out elevated amounts of urea. In a review of research, Martin et al. concluded that “we find no significant evidence for a detrimental effect of high protein intakes on kidney function in healthy persons after centuries of a high protein Western diet.” These findings are consistent with those in a review on the effect of high protein diets in an athletic population. Studies have examined protein intakes in excess of three times the RDA without noting ill-effect. And in case you want to argue that the negative effects of protein intake on renal function take a long time to manifest and thus may not be detectable in shorter-term studies, a recent study by Lowery et al. found no markers of renal damage over a nine-year period in a cohort of healthy resistance trained subjects who consumed an average of 2.5 g/kg/day. It should be noted that increased protein consumption does lead to increases in renal size over time. However, studies show that this is a normal adaptation that has no adverse effects on kidney function.
So how much is too much? It has been postulated by some researchers that an intake greater than ~4 to 5 g/kg/day may exceed the body’s ability to convert the excess nitrogen load to urea for safe excretion. Thus, a 165 pound male would theoretically fall into the safe range at anything up to about 300 g/day; a guy weighing 220 pounds would have an upper limit of ~400 g/day. That’s *a lot* of protein! In actuality, this recommendation is probably a bit conservative. A portion of the protein you consume does not require deamination since it is directly utilized for structural remodeling of bodily tissues as well as production of hormones, enzymes, and other functions. Thus, safe levels of intake conceivably would be somewhat higher than previously thought.
Bottom line: High protein intakes may be detrimental to those with existing renal dysfunction, but there is no evidence that any negative effects are seen in individuals with healthy kidneys. Consumption of up to approximately 4 g/kg/day appears to pose no increased health risk when kidney function is normal. It’s been well-demonstrated that resistance-trained individuals require at least twice the amount of protein compared to non-lifters (although the benefit of consuming more than ~2 g/kg remains questionable from an anabolism standpoint). Moreover, higher protein intakes are beneficial for fat loss, both in terms of promoting satiety as well as reducing muscle catabolism during times of caloric restriction.
Stay tuned for Part II where I’ll discuss the claim that high protein diets are harmful to bone.
Writing a book is a lengthy, arduous process. To do it right involves a great deal of planning. You need to map out everything that needs to be covered and decide on the best way to organize this information into a cohesive, readable format. A diligent author spends countless hours contemplating these complexities before a single word makes it to the page. But no matter how attentive you are to detail, there are always some things you somehow miss that ultimately become apparent once the book is released. The best you can do at this point is to address any omissions ex post facto.
Based on reader feedback and questions, it has come to light that I made such an omission in my book, The M.A.X. Muscle Plan, with respect to warming up prior to training. In retrospect, this is not something that I should have taken for granted. A warm-up heightens blood flow to muscles, enhances speed of nerve impulses, increases energy substrate delivery to working muscles as well oxygen release from hemoglobin and myoglobin, and reduces the activation of energy for cellular reactions and muscle viscosity (Thacker et al. 2004). Suffice to say, it’s an important component of a workout. This post therefore will seek to rectify the oversight and address my recommendedations for the M.A.X. Muscle warm-up.
A warm-up can be divided into two distinct components: general and specific. The general warm-up – which involves performing a brief bout of low-intensity, large muscle group aerobic-type exercise – should be included in all three M.A.X. Muscle mesocycles (i.e. strength, metabolic conditioning, and hypertrophy). The purpose of the general warm-up is to elevate core temperature and increase blood flow. This has implications not only for injury prevention, but for performance as well. In fact, there is evidence that combining a general warm-up with a specific warm-up increases maximal strength to a greater degree than peforming a specific warm-up alone (Abad et al. 2011).
Virtually any cardiovascular activity can be used for the general warm-up. Modalities such as the stationary bike, stair climber, or treadmill are fine, as are most calisthenic-type exercises (such as jumping jacks, high steps). Choose whatever activity you desire as long as the basic objective is met.
As previously noted, the intensity for the general warm-up should be low. To gauge intensity, I like to use a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. My preference is the Category-Ratio RPE Scale, which grades perceived effort on a range of 0-10 (where 0 is lying on your couch and 10 is an all-out sprint). Aim for an RPE of around 5, which for most would be a moderate walk or slow jog. Five to ten minutes is all you need – just enough to break a light sweat. Your resources should not be taxed, nor should you feel tired or out of breath either during or after performance. If so, cut back on the intensity. Remember, the goal here is merely to warm your body tissues and accelerate blood flow — not to achieve cardiovascular benefits or reduce body fat.
The specific warm-up augments the general warm-up. It serves to enhance neuromuscular efficiency in performing a given exercise. To optimize benefits, the exercises used in the specific warm-up should be as similar as possible to the actual activities in the workout. For example, if you are going to perform a bench press, then the specific warm-up would ideally involve performance of light sets of bench presses. In this way, the neuromuscular system gets to “rehearse” the movement before it is performed higher levels of intensity. Specific warm-up sets should always be stopped well short of fatigue – the focus here is to facilitate performance of the heavier sets.
For the M.A.X Strength Phase, I recommend at least a couple of specific warm-up sets per exercise. Since this phase employs a total body routine with very heavy loads (>85% 1RM), it is important that each exercise include specific warm-up sets. As a general rule the first set should be performed at ~40-50% of 1RM and the second set at ~60-70% 1RM. Eight to ten reps is all that is needed in these sets –any more than this is superfluous. Thereafter, you’re then ready to plow into your working sets.
For the M.A.X Hypertrophy Phase, I recommend performing a specific warm-up prior to the first exercise for each muscle group only. Since this is a split-routine where multiple exercises are performed per body part, the benefits achieved from the specific warm-up on the intial movement will carry over to the other exercises for the subsequent exercises for that muscle group. Additional warm-up sets can actually be detrimental since they can hinder generation of metabolic stress, which is a desired outcome in this phase.
Specific warm-up sets are not necessary in the M.A.X Metabolic Phase. In this phase you’re already using light weights and the initial repetitions of each working set therefore serve as “rehearsal” reps. What’s more, performance of warm-up sets is counterproductive to the goal of maximizing training density to bring about desired metabolic adaptations.
Hopefully this addresses the feedback and questions I’ve received on the topic. I’ll look to cover some additional questions I’ve received in future posts. In the meantime, keep the comments coming!
Brad
References
Abad CC, Prado ML, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, Barroso R. Combination of general and specific warm-ups improves leg-press one repetition maximum compared with specific warm-up in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Aug;25(8):2242-5.
Thacker SB, Gilchrist J, Stroup DF, Kimsey CD Jr. The impact of stretching on sports injury risk: a systematic review of the literature. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Mar;36(3):371-8
If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you’ll probably notice something different. Yep, I’ve taken the plunge and completely revamped my website. It had been six years since I last updated the site design. In the world of cyberspace that’s an eternity. I realized that it needed a makeover to keep up with the times.
The first thing you’ll see from the makeover is that my blog is now fully integrated into my primary site (www.lookgreatnaked.com). Sure, you can still access the blog by typing in Workout911.com. But now the blog and site are seamless in their navigation. The focus of the blog will remain the same; I’ll continue to strive to deliver quality content on fitness-related matters. The fact that I’m finishing up my PhD coursework should allow me more time to devote to posts.
The site itself is designed for functionality. In the “Articles” section I’ve posted the PDFs to many of my peer-reviewed papers as well as links to some of my online articles. I’ll continue to update this page more of my work becomes available. The site also has lots of other areas of interest. I’ve updated my bio and media kit, added testimonials, and revamped the products/services page. The site is an ongoing work-in-progress so I hope to enhance its utility over the coming months.
A big thanks to Michael Muff of White Buck Media for doing an outstanding job on the design and working tirelessly to make sure that the implementation was smooth and successful. I recommend him wholeheartedly for any web-related consulting.
Hope you enjoy the new site. I welcome any and all feedback that you may have. Just drop me a line.
So much going on that I want to share. First, I just returned from my last semester of PhD coursework at Rocky Mountain University in beautiful Provo, Utah. The attainment of my doctoral degree is finally in sight! I am on schedule to begin data collection on my dissertation research later this summer and, if all goes according to plan, defend my dissertation in January. This has been an amazing–albeit grueling–educational journey. I’ve learned so much about critical thinking, met so many incredible people, and honed my skills as a researcher along the way these past two-and-a=half years. I’ll be blogging about my experience in the near future. Stay tuned…
My review article, Postexercise hypertrophic adaptations: a reexamination of the hormone hypothesis and its applicability to resistance training program design has been published in the current issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. The article exhaustively reviews the literature on whether acute hormonal elevations following resistance training play a role in muscle growth. For years, it was believed that spiking hormones after exercise was the key to maximizing hypertrophy. Entire workouts were planned around maximizing the anabolic hormonal response. Turns out, this belief was misguided. Studies are equivocal as to whether post-workout hormonal elevations are involved in the muscle-building process; some show a positive correlation, others do not. Bottom line is that if there is a hypertrophic effect from such elevations, it would be relatively modest. That said, even a modest effect on hypertrophy could be practically meaningful to someone seeking maximal muscle development, such as a bodybuilder or strength athlete. There are still many gaps in the literature that need to be sorted out before a definitive conclusion can me made on the topic–particularly with respect to the effects in experienced lifters. I will be carrying out research in the coming months that hopefully will help to fill in some of these gaps. Will keep you updated here when I have data to share.
I recently did two interviews of interest with Super Human Radio. The first, The Role of Metabolic Stress in Muscle Growth is an extensive discussion of various aspects of muscle hypertrophy. The second, Look Great Naked delves into women’s fitness as well as touching on post-workout nutrition. What I really like about these interviews is that the host, Carl Lanore, is a true science geek. As such, he let’s me expound on the science of these topics in depth. I go into a level of detail generally not afforded in other media outlets. Each interview lasts about an hour so there’s a lot of listening for your enjoyment 🙂
About a year or so ago I wrote an article on glute training that appeared in Fitness Rx for Women magazine. Well, lo and behold, they published the article online for free! The article is called, The Tight and Toned Butt Workout (yeah, I know the title is a bit cheesy, but hey, that’s apparently what sells magazines…). Although the article is geared toward women, it’s a routine that can be used effectively by men too. Check it out.
Book update: Rodale has acquired the mail order rights to my book, The M.A.X. Muscle Plan. In case you don’t know, Rodale is an industry leader in fitness media. They publish Men’s Health Magazine, as well as many other fitness publications. As I’ve mentioned previously, this book was the culmination of many years of of research and practice, and represents the most cutting-edge muscle building program ever developed (and I’m not blowing smoke when I say this!). It’s available at a discount on Amazon.com as well. I hope you’ll give it a read; I’d love to hear your feedback.
Finally and importantly, I have agreed to a consultant role with Reebok International. In my role, I will be providing educational content for fitness professionals as well as making select appearances at Reebok-sponsored events. There are other as-yet undefined areas that may be explored as well. I am honored to be affiliated with such a terrific brand and look forward to partnering with them to share my fitness expertise.
Antioxidant supplements continue to be touted by many fitness professionals as a nutritional panacea. In case you’re not aware, antioxidants are the body’s scavengers. They help to defend against damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) — unstable molecules that can injure healthy cells and tissues — which are produced in abundance each day during the normal course of respiration. The main culprit: oxygen. Every time you breathe, oxygen uptake causes ROS production. Environmental factors such as pollutants, smoke and certain chemicals also contribute to their formation. Their production have been linked to a multitude of ailments including arthritis, cardiovascular disease, dementia and cancer. Not surprisingly, exercise is associated with substantially greater ROS production given that it substantially inreases oxygen consumption. This has led to the supposition that antioxidant supplements are especially beneficial for hardcore exercisers.
Here’s a short-course in how the process works: Your body is made up of billions of cells held together by a series of electronic bonds. These bonds are arranged in pairs so that one electron balances the other. However, in response to various occurrences (such as oxygen consumption), a molecule can lose one of its electron pairs making it an unstable free radical. The free radical then tries to replace its lost electron by stealing one from another molecule. This sets up a chain reaction where the second molecule becomes a free radical and destabilizes a third molecule, which becomes a free radical and destabilizes a fourth molecule and so on.
To prevent rampant ROS production, your body has a sophisticated internal antioxidant system. Various antioxidant enzymes combine with antioxidants from the foods you eat to help keep ROS at bay. There are dozens of known antioxidants including Vitamin C, Vitamin E, coenzyme Q10, alpha-lipoic acid, and carotenoids, amongst others. Although these nutrients are readily obtainable from food sources, it is often postulated that it’s virtually impossible to consume adequate quantities from your daily diet, thus making supplementation mandatory. In theory, supplementing with antioxidants would seemingly make sense since a greater availability should allow for greater protection against ROS. Question is, does theory translate into practice?
I first became interested about the topic a dozen or so years ago. A friend gave me a book to read called The Antioxidant Miracle, which as the title implies touted the wonders of antioxidant supplementation. The book piqued my curiousity. I delved into the research. Lo and behold, the claims seemed legit. A large number of studies showed positive effects of supplementation on a wide array of health-related benefits. What really caught my attention was a review by Dekkers et al. in the journal Sports Medicine, which discussed favorable results of antioxidant supplements during intense physical activity. The article went on to conclude that “human studies reviewed indicate that antioxidant vitamin supplementation can be recommended to individuals performing regular heavy exercise.” At the time, I wasn’t very savvy as to the complexities of research. I jumped on the antioxidant supplement bandwagon.
My bad.
Fast forward several years. Larger randomized controlled trials were conducted. The findings of these studies were at best decidedly mixed, with a majority showing no health-related benefits from supplementing with antioxidants. Alarmingly, several meta-analyses reported that there may even be an increased supplement-associated risk for cancer, stroke, and all-cause mortality. An objective evaluation of the current literature would make it difficult for even the most ardent antioxidant proponent to make a case for improving well-being by supplementation.
What’s particularly interesting to me as an exercise scientist is emerging research suggesting that antioxidant supplements may actually have a *detrimental* effect on training-related adaptations, particularly those associated with muscle hypertrophy. At issue here is the distinction between chronic versus acute ROS production. Evidence does show that chronically elevated levels of ROS can impair muscle function and even bring about muscle wasting conditions. Understand, however, that exercise upregulates the body’s antioxidant defenses. This ultimately helps to reduce chronic elevations in ROS without the need for supplementation.
On the other hand, acute production of ROS during a workout has been implicated in a variety of exercise-related adaptations including enhanced muscle remodeling. ROS production has been found to promote growth in both smooth muscle and cardiac muscle, lending credence to the supposition that these substances may have similar hypertrophic effects on skeletal muscle as well. The mechanisms have yet to be determined, but studies show that ROS can function as key cellular anabolic signaling molecules in the response to exercise. What’s more, there is evidence that they help to mediate the activity of satellite cells, which are responsible for aiding in repair and regeneration of muscle fibers. I have covered these topics extensively in my recent reviews of the roles of metabolic stress and muscle damage in exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. By suppressing ROS production, antioxidant supplements may inhibit these hypertrophic effects and thus impair the growth and repair process. Indeed, preliminary studies indicate a negative impact of supplementation on exercise-induced adaptations.
There are a couple of take-home messages here, the most obvious of which is that the risk/reward ratio for antioxidant supplementation appears to be poor. Focus on eating a diet replete in vegetables and fruits and you’ll get all the antioxidants you need to support basic health. Overloading on antioxidants via supplements will not confer any additional benefits; it’s possible they may actually cause harm. And although the jury is still out, it is at least conceivable that supplementation can impede muscular development and other exercise-related adaptations. Any way you slice it, antioxidant supplementation doesn’t seem to make sense, at least for otherwise healthy individuals who exercise on a regular basis.
On a broader scale, the overriding message to be gleaned is the importance of using caution when interpreting research. This is particularly true of exercise-related studies, which are usually limited by small sample sizes, the inability to control for various confounders, and the almost unlimited number of variations that encompass exercise program design. All-too-often fitness professionals are quick to form opinions based on limited evidence. Such an approach is decidedly misguided and unscientific. As illustrated here, I was guilty of falling into this trap. Fortunately I learned from the mistake and as a result became a more astute fitness professional.
Extrapolating research findings in an evidence-based fashion can be equated to solving a jigsaw puzzle. Each published study is a piece to the puzzle. In almost every situation there will be conflicting results between studies. Sometimes two studies will report diametrically opposite findings on the same topic. How can you make sense of all this?
The best fitness professionals, guys like Bret Contreras, Alan Aragon, Joe Dowdell, and James Krieger, will weigh the body of evidence by considering factors such as the type of study (experimental vs. observational), the subjects (animal vs. human), and the setting (in vitro, ex vivo, in vivo, etc). They’ll also take into account numerous other factors including study design, statistical power, generalizability, and the quality of the journal in which the study was published. Only after a thorough analysis of the prevailing body of literature can an educated opinion be formed that guides decision-making and provides the basis for practical recommendations. It’s a skill that can be honed. The more research you read, the better you become at critical thinking, allowing you to piece together the puzzle in question.
One last thing: I frequently hear trainers and even researchers cite a study as “proof” of a given opinion. Not! A single study never “proves” anything. Rather, it simply lends support to a given theory. As noted, some studies carry more weight than others. The greater the strength of evidence, the more support there is for the theory. But theories are not set in stone. Case in point: Until recently, it was taken as gospel that saturated fat and cholesterol caused cardiovascular disease. Every nutrition text, bar none, stated such as fact. Recent research has now challenged these assumptions, however, suggesting that any relationship is far more complex than previously thought. Bottom line is that the more knowledge we acquire, the more we realize just how much more there is to learn.
Always be skeptical. Always be willing to change your opinion based on new information. This is what separates the ordinary practitioners from the elite.
For those in the New York City area, I will be giving a 3-hour seminar next month on Advanced Programming for Muscle Hypertrophy. The seminar is being held at the American Academy of Personal Training, located in the meat-packing district of Manhattan, as part of their continuing education series. Here is the session description.
Muscle development is of primary interest to those who partake in resistance training. But developing muscle size, as opposed to strength or endurance, involves its own unique set of considerations. This AAPT course elucidates the science behind optimizing muscular hypertrophy, exploring how factors such as exercise modality, training to failure, speed of movement and recovery affect muscle growth. You will learn the significance of metabolic stress in relation to protein synthesis, as well as gain a trove of valuable techniques in manipulating intensity, sets, repetitions, and rest intervals. Sample routines will be provided in the context of a periodized approach to help you with perfecting program design for muscle hypertrophy.
The seminar will take an evidence-based approach, going in-depth into how to combine science and art in creating optimal hypertrophy training programs. Below is the link to register. Hope to see you there!
Entries (RSS)
