Peri Workout Hydro Whey Supplementation Tried Proven Muscle Builder Will Also Increase Tendon Size Strength

Squats are by no means the only exercise that requires strong muscles and tendons.

In a way you could argue that todays SuppVersity article serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides direct evidence for my outrageous claim that the VPX Shotgun + Synthesize study from Saturdays installment of On Short Notice has little to no practical value, because the use of 2x17g of maltodextrin as a control has little to do with the real-world supplementation regimen the potential consumers of respective products are ingesting. I mean, you can safely assume that people who are willing to spend the money on expensive peri-workout kitchen sink supplements will - just like most of you - be ingesting a whey (or other fast acting) protein source after their workouts, anyways.

It goes without saying that it would not have needed a new study to prove this point, so that informing you about another observation Farup et al. made in their most recent study is not just the second, but actually the main purpose of todays SuppVersity article.

A new whey to build tendons of steel

The training protocol: The subjects completed 33 training sessions during the 12 weeks of training. The training program was primarily designed to induce hypertrophy and to a lesser extent maximal muscle strength highlighted by a large number of sets and repetitions and by moderate high intensity. Training frequency was three times per week with a progressive increase in volume and intensity throughout the 12 weeks.

The resistance training exercise consisted of isolated knee extensions in a Technogym knee extensor machine. All repetitions were performed by lifting the load with the concentric leg (while extending the

eccentric leg unloaded). Then, with aid from a training supervisor, an additional load was released onto the weight stack and then lowered with the eccentric leg.

Both the eccentric and concentric leg training program consisted of isotonic knee extensions (TUT 2-0-2s; rest between sets 2min) and applied the following progression in volume and intensity: 6 x 10-15RM (sessions 1–4), 8 x 10-15RM (S 5–10), 10 x 10-15RM (S 11–20), 12¥6–10 RM (S 21–28), and 8 x 6-10RM (S 29–33).

The actual paper is going to be published in one of the future issues of The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports and deals with the outcomes of a 12-week double-blinded resistance training intervention in the course of which the 22 male subjects (healthy, young, recreationally active height 181.5+/- 1.5 cm, weight 78.1 1.8 kg, age 23.9 +/-0.8 years, fat% 16.0+/- 0.9%) consumed either

• a high leucine whey protein hydrolysate + carbohydrate group (WHD; 19.5 g whey protein hydrolysate +19.5 g) or 
• an isoenergetic carbohydrate only supplement for the placebo group (PLA, 36g of carbohydrates)

Regardless of supplementary intake, all subjects performed eccentric training with one leg and concentric training with the other.

"This within-subject design was used to minimize the potential differences in the hypertrophy response that are inherent with group designs (e.g. initial training status, habitual nutritional intake,and/or hormonal status). Eccentric leg was randomly chosen to be either the dominant (preferred kicking leg) or the nondominant leg to exclude any potential pre-training difference between the two." (Farup. 2013)

Overall, we are thus comparing not two, but rather four different training modalities, namely eccentric+WHD, eccentric+PLA, concentric+WHD and concentric+PLA.

Maximal standardization, reliable measuring methods

In the two weeks before commencing the training program, magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans of both thighs and patellar tendons and isometric strength test were taken. In conjunction with the before and after tests that were standardized up to the time of the day, pre- and post-training, "to control for potential effects of diurnal rhythm" (Farup. 2013)

The training sessions were closely supervised and monitored by qualified training instructors to ensure proper execution and loading. The same goes for the ingestion of the supplements, 19.5 g whey protein hydrolysate +19.5 g of carbohydrate (both equal to 4% solution) and the placebo drink consisting of 39 g of carbohydrate, which were handed to the trainees at the beginning of the training sessions and were to be consumed before and after the training (50/50).

Even the intake of additional plain water was standardized, so that the subjects would not ingest and fluids 1 1/2 h prior to and 1 h after completion of an exercise session, "to ensure and standardize the conditions for digestion/absorption and within the range typically applied" (Farup. 2013)

The only methodologically lapse was the absence of dietary control. While the subjects of previous studies in which the participants were advised to "maintain their normal habitual dietary intake throughout the study" (Farup. 2013), did not register any differences in habitual total energy or protein intake (Andersen. 2005; Hartman. 2007; Hulmi. 2009; Erskine. 2012) and the accuracy of food logs is generally questionable, this is kind of awkward in view of the lengths to which the scientists went to exclude any other confounding factors.

Enough of the prelude, what about the results?

So, while we cannot exclude that the subjects in any of the two groups may have skewed the overall results by consuming an additional steak on top of their regular diets, it is quite unlikely that these counfounding factors would have been group specific, so that the overall effects on quadriceps cross-sectional area I plotted in figure 1 are unquestionably reliable.

Figure 1: Relative changes in quadriceps and patella tendon CSA in concentrically and eccentrically trained leg of the subjects in the whey protein hydrolysate and placebo groups (Farup. 2013)

The same obviously goes for the strength increases and the initially mentioned increase in patella tendon CSA. All good and reliable evidence supporting the current "standard" in periworkout supplementation.

Apropos, in conjunction with the recent revelations about the unique glucose-sensitizing effects of the short-chain peptides in whey hydrolysate, it may even be worth to consider adding a "hyrolysate" to the current recommendation to ingest 30g of whey protein in the vicinity of your workouts. Convincing evidence from studies that were specifically designed to elicit the marginal benefits of replacing a regular whey protein with the less tasty (you wont notice that with the tons of flavoring agents, though) and still more expensive "pre-digested" form of whey is yet - at least as far as I know - still missing.

---

Bottom line: Actually, I already mentioned the most important findings of the study at hand in the introduction:

Figure 2: Whether the effects observed in the study are "hydrolysate specific" and related to the amino acid or peptide composition of the supplement that was used in the study at hand cannot be said without a "regular" whey control. The same goes for the general superiority or inferiority of hydrolysates vs. whey isolates or concentrates.

(a) Whey proteins alone will amplify the effects of regular strength training to a degree that is hard to surpass by the more expensive "advanced muscle builders" - no wonder the producers are reluctant to use anything but an isocaloric carbohydrate supplement as their yardstick. (b) Increases in tendon CSA are a novel benefit to be added to the comprehensive list of benefits of a supplement I suspect most of you are using anyway.

Whether the hydrolyzed whey proteins are actually worth the extra bucks is yet still not 100% certain. As previously mentioned, the number of practically relevant direct comparisons is still scarce. We know that they create a more rapid increase of the amino acid levels in the blood, that they are more insulinogenic and we that some of the short peptides have favorable physiological effects (learn more). A long-term study comparing the muscle and (thats new) tendon building effects of the three commonly available varieties of whey, i.e. concentrate, isolate and hydrolysate, has not yet been conducted. But dont worry, as soon as the pertinent data is going to be available, youll find all the information you need, as well as the practical implications of the results right here, at the SuppVersity - your #1 source for the latest on exercise, nutrition and supplementation research on the Internet.

References:

• Farup J, Rahbek SK, Vendelbo MH, Matzon A, Hindhede J, Bejder A, Ringgard S, Vissing K. Whey protein hydrolysate augments tendon and muscle hypertrophy independent of resistance exercise contraction mode. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013 May 7.

Block Periodization for Resistance Trainees 3x Higher Strength Gains on the Bench vs Zero Benefits for Legs

The deadlift probably wont benefit from blocked periodization either... at least if you do it only once a week anyway.

I hope you all remember my recent article about the beneficial effects of block periodization on the training outcome of trained cyclists (if you dont Id suggest you read up on it: "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes") and the hypothesis that the mechanism behind the beneficial effects Rønnestad et al. report in the corresponding paper are not actually a consequence of this specific periodization scheme. Rather than that, the benefits the researchers have observed may well have been a mere consequences of the "change", of "breaking out of the rut" and the provision of a new challenge thats absolutely essential to induce what everyone, from housewife to Olympian athlete is training for: adaptation.

Lets discard the mechanism for a moment, though and lets rather focus on the hard facts - hard facts that are complemented by the results of a soon-to-be-published paper by researchers from the University of Bologna and the University of Central Florida.

Whats so interesting about this paper is ...

....that it looks at the effects of block periodization in trained strength athletes and could thus help us answer a question that may have been preying on your mind, ever since I published the previously cited article about the beneficial effects of block periodization in endurance athletes: "Do Different Rules Apply for Strength vs. Endurance Athletes?" Or, put simply: Would a weight lifter benefit to a similar extend from block periodizing his training regimen as a cyclist - irrespective of what the underlying mechanisms may be?

Figure 1: The subjects trained 4x per week - identical training plans in both groups (Bartolomei. 2014)

The answer is "yes and no" - Yes, if we are talking about the upper body, no - and thats interesting because cycling obviously involves the same muscle groups - when we are looking at the lower body performance gains in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Changes in max. strength (1RM in kg), mean power (in % of baseline) and jump height (in cm) in the 24 study particpants in response to traditional linear or block periodization (Bartolomei. 2014)

As you can see, the gains in lower body power was identical - irrespective of the type of periodization (see overview in Figure 1). For the upper body, on the other hand, the subjects who did not simply ramp up the intensity continuously from 5 sets of 8-10 reps at 65-75% of  1RM  with  less  than  2  minutes  of  recovery  between  sets to 5 sets of 3 - 4 reps at 85 -95% of 1RM with 3 minutes of recovery from week 1 to week 12 (TP group), the ...

"[p]articipants  in  BP  were  more  likely  (79.8%)  to increase the area under the force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power at the bench  press compared to TP group, and a possible improvement (~ 60%) in maximal strength and power in the bench press." (Bartolomei. 2014)

Whether thats muscle-specific reaction to the three 5-week mesocycles, instead of one 15-week mesocycle is yet highly questionable - or do you think the legs respond less to the periodization program thats depicted in Figure 3, than chest, back, arms & co?

Figure 3: Illustration of the interplay between intensity and volume of the n=14 24-year-old male, resistance trained (>3 years, >3 sessions per week) subjects in the block periodization group (Bartolomei. 2014)

Personally, I would rather come back to the "novelty approach". It goes without saying that we can assume that the abrupt changes on a blocked periodization regimen favor "growth promoting overloads". In the case of the musculature of the lower body, the simple fact that it was trained just once a week may yet have provided a similarly "novel" or at least less accustomed stimulus on every leg-day.

"Periodize Appropriately and Cut 12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks!" | more

Bottom line: Again, its difficult to tell, whether there is any special magic in block periodization. What can be said, though, is that we can again (see "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes: Revolutionary Training Concept, Or Just a Good Way to Eventually Break Out of the Comfort Zone?" | read more) make an argument for the "breaking out of the rut" hypothesis... in this case, however, in an ostensibly muscle-specific manner thats eventually not "muscle-", but actually "training-frequency-specific".

In the end, it does not matter, if my ad-hoc explanation is or isnt accurate. For you as a practicioner who is probably training the muscles of his upper body thrice a week, the results of this study are significant - no matter what the underlying mechanisms are. In other words: The results of the A classic HST-oriented training program that is eventually "block periodized" will yield better training results than one, where you train in the same rep ranger 365 days a year. But lets be honest: Thats not surprising, is it?

References

• Bartolomei, Sandro, et al. "A Comparison of Traditional And Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). [ahead of print]
• Rønnestad, B. R., J. Hansen, and S. Ellefsen. "Block periodization of high‐intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists." Scand J Med Sci Sports 24 (2014): 34–42.

Strength train to reach your fitness goals and lose weight!

Your health is the most valuable asset you have…without it youll inevitably spend everything you have, financially and emotionally, to get it back!

Strength training is important regardless of your age and becomes even more important after age 30.

There are many ways that you can incorporate it into your life even if you think you cant.

Weight lifting on a repeated basis will help you to improve your physical appearance, fitness level and reduce your risk of health problems like heart disease.

Strength exercises on a regular basis will help you lose a lot of weight, a lot more than any cardio exercise ever could.

In addition, before doing any weight lifting, make sure you warm up your muscles properly. Dont do any weight lifting when your muscles are cold.

Warm up 5 to 10 minutes on a stationary bike, treadmill, etc. is sufficient.

You know that weight lifting is good for you, so make it a part of your every day routine. You can effectively exercise while keeping up with your other everyday-jobs.

When I’m out for a walk with my dogs, I find a bench or short wall and do push ups to fatigue, triceps dips and then repeat.  Walking lunges, squats can be done while watching TV...

Strength training helps you lose weight, improves your health so you can live a longer and more productive life.  Be sure to include strength training exercises in your over-all exercise plan.