Muscle lab: Bulk up with the science of bodybuilding

[CFT]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19330-muscle-lab-bulk-up-with-the-science-of-bodybuilding.html

Thought this might be of interest to those who are into S&C.


Because the nuclei of muscle fibres are key to the production of new muscle protein, Gundersen thinks that after a bout of training, the potential to grow muscle sticks with you for life. So no matter how much time has passed since you were in the peak of muscular fitness, it should be easier to achieve the second time around.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Pretty much anyone that has ever done serious ST knows that getting it back is easier than getting it in the first place.
BUT, the older you get, WHAT you get back isn't always what you had.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This here is misleading:

What is the best way to pump iron?

Standard advice for gym bunnies is to lift as much weight as you can in a training session. But Stuart Phillips and his team at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, reckon this might not be the best way to build muscle. Instead, they suggest that slow and steady wins the race.

In Phillips's study, men in their early 20s lifted weights with their legs over various periods at 30 and 90 per cent of the maximum weight they could lift. Phillips analysed biopsies from the leg muscles before and after each training session.

He found that the production of new muscle proteins was greatest when the men were lifting the relatively light weights – at 30 per cent of their maximum – until they were fatigued, and couldn't lift any more.

The idea that you should lift progressively heavier weights to bulk up is "completely false", says Phillips. Instead, the best way to build muscle is to lift more manageable weights until you tire out, he says.

Unless that study was done with a consistent control across the board on both groups, there is not much that can be take from it.
Other studies have CONSITENTLY shown that heavy weights cause the most increase in muscle mass, whether they are applied to a volume approach OR a "HIT" approach.
The main point in the study above was the fatigue issue, basically the lower weight group pushed their legs more then than the higher weight one, IF the higher weight one had also pushed to fatigue they would have gotten better results.
Almost every ST protocol works, if done correctly and for at least 6 weeks and for no more than 12 ( body begins to adapt).

[teetsao]

all you have to do is look at people who "bodybuild" ie; higher reps lighter weights,just a generaliztion no offense to anyone, then at the powerlifters who do heavy weight for much fewer reps. the powerlifters are always much denser and hold their muscle much longer,as it is not volumization. the biopsy was taken from the leg muscle and not from different parts of the body. the legs are known to respond to higher reps as we stand and walk on the all day long so they are used to the endurance and you really have to blast them tho get them to grow. a whole body test should have been done. kinda like the study saying you should rest 30 sec. between sets. this was made up so as to run more pwople through the gym=more money for the gyms. watch serious powerlifters train and see how long they take between sets.

[Hebrew Hammer]

kinda like the study saying you should rest 30 sec. between sets. this was made up so as to run more pwople through the gym=more money for the gyms. watch serious powerlifters train and see how long they take between sets.

No quite correct...its intended to increase heart rate, reduce recovery time, and tear down the muscles. Power lifters take longer breaks because that's what they do in competitions...they have short periods of exertion with longer recovery times. Let me know which gym is making more money off this 30 second rest between sets.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No quite correct...its intended to increase heart rate, reduce recovery time, and tear down the muscles. Power lifters take longer breaks because that's what they do in competitions...they have short periods of exertion with longer recovery times. Let me know which gym is making more money off this 30 second rest between sets.

I agree, the study that showed that the 30 sec rest was just as good was comparing it to a 60 sec and NOT the types of rests needed when working in a power lifting protocol.
Though you certainly CAN do it that way too.

[Dragonzbane76]

thing that was not mentioned: Most workout routines start out with the higher rep. lower weight regiement to begin with. It's later that more weight is usually added. It's all about foundation building.

[CFT]

I think there is a fundamental problem to the study, maybe. If he is looking at training for muscle bulk, i.e. body building, then the advice may not carry over to strength training. I still thought the muscle fibre nuclei results were interesting, evidence to back up the "knowledge".

[viper]

I am finishing my exercise science degree soon the main thing I have learned for gains is that muscle rebuilds after being broken down. There is a point you can break it down to much but time under tension is the big factor for muscle to be broken down to rebuild back up further. So basically more time under under tension the more break down the more adaption after wards. Also a power lifter takes a longer break because they are aiming to lift heavy and need time to get a complete recovery or as close to complete recovery as possible to lift the heavy weight again. Lifting weight is not just lifting weight it`s a specific thing for what you want to achieve and different people may also be affected greater or less from one type of training then a other person. Ps does anyone have a link to the actual study not the article about it? (maybe i missed the link)

[Kevin73]

No quite correct...its intended to increase heart rate, reduce recovery time, and tear down the muscles. Power lifters take longer breaks because that's what they do in competitions...they have short periods of exertion with longer recovery times. Let me know which gym is making more money off this 30 second rest between sets.

There are MANY gyms across the nation which don't even have squat racks or deadlift platforms and don't allow O-lifts or d-lifts. They are marketing to people they know will join for a year and then not show up after a month or two. Their marketing is also that you have to only put in a bit of effort to get GREAT results. Watch the gym trainers. What do they have their clients do? A bunch of isolation exercise on machines so they can feel good but not have to put in hard effort like whole body lifts (squats, deadlifts)

[teetsao]

kevin73,you are right on. that is exactly how it is. i am glad i have a friend who owns his own private gym for powerlifters and strongman competitors. where real men work out.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Lets not paint everything the same way guys.
Fact is, outside of powerlifitng there is no need for the average person to do anything even lose to it, same goes for olympic lifts.
And while I am not a fan of isolation moves, they serve a purpose.
For most people, doing ST is for health reasons and ANY exercise that makes them stronger is better than nothing and if that means easy isolation over serious compounds then U say good for them.

Fact is, most trainers have no ****ing clue what they are doing and just follow whatever is the latest fad and hope for the best.

I think it is better to have a trainer that doesn't really know anythign about ST putting people through leg externsion, leg curls, and such, then putting them doing squats and NOT knowing how to incorporate squats into a workout.

[IronFist]

This here is misleading:


Unless that study was done with a consistent control across the board on both groups, there is not much that can be take from it.
Other studies have CONSITENTLY shown that heavy weights cause the most increase in muscle mass, whether they are applied to a volume approach OR a "HIT" approach.
The main point in the study above was the fatigue issue, basically the lower weight group pushed their legs more then than the higher weight one, IF the higher weight one had also pushed to fatigue they would have gotten better results.
Almost every ST protocol works, if done correctly and for at least 6 weeks and for no more than 12 ( body begins to adapt).


Absolutely.

Lifting lighter weights "until tired" will give you crazy endurance and probably a decent pump, but not much muscle growth, if any.

There is a reason competitive BBers do not lift 30% of the 1RMs.

[IronFist]

There are MANY gyms across the nation which don't even have squat racks or deadlift platforms and don't allow O-lifts or d-lifts.

Worthless gyms!!!


They are marketing to people they know will join for a year and then not show up after a month or two. Their marketing is also that you have to only put in a bit of effort to get GREAT results. Watch the gym trainers. What do they have their clients do? A bunch of isolation exercise on machines so they can feel good but not have to put in hard effort like whole body lifts (squats, deadlifts)

Ha, personal trainers have their clients do things like dumbell curls while standing on a Bosu Ball and other worthless BS because personal training is a sales occupation, and if your client thinks they are getting some super cool workout they will keep paying you money.

No one, especially women, wants to pay a personal trainer to lift weights or do cardio.

[IronFist]

Fact is, most trainers have no ****ing clue what they are doing and just follow whatever is the latest fad and hope for the best.

This.

It's one of the 3 reasons I left the fitness industry. The other two were:

- Personal training is not a field of study where one performs analysis and gets results. It is sales*. The trainers who get the most clients (and money) are the charismatic ones who BS their clients about standing on Bosu Balls while holding a 2 pound weight at arms length in order to keep them coming back. I'm far too cynical to be a good salesman :D

- 99% of clients are not serious about their goals, and just want to know how many crunches they need to do to lose their belly fat. And after you explain to them why crunches won't help with that, they ask "so is 200 per day enough?" Or "oh, I don't want to lift weights because I don't want to get big." lol! Listen lady, I've been trying to get big for 10 years. It's not as easy as you think it is :D



*another revealing moment in my life was when I realized that stockbrokers are also just salesmen, they just sell stocks instead of cars or personal training sessions.

[Dragonzbane76]

- 99% of clients are not serious about their goals, and just want to know how many crunches they need to do to lose their belly fat. And after you explain to them why crunches won't help with that, they ask "so is 200 per day enough?" Or "oh, I don't want to lift weights because I don't want to get big." lol! Listen lady, I've been trying to get big for 10 years. It's not as easy as you think it is

yep... most people don't understand the dedication and pain you have to go through to get what you want. When you try and explain that it's not an exact number of things, you can't put a definitive on it, they can't understand. haha I've tried explain the exact same thing your talking about (crunches/situps) to people that it doesn't make you bells flat.... they don't understand that actually it will probably make it look bigger, and that diet is one of the major deciding factors in weight loss.

[Scott R. Brown]

I am finishing my exercise science degree soon the main thing I have learned for gains is that muscle rebuilds after being broken down. There is a point you can break it down to much but time under tension is the big factor for muscle to be broken down to rebuild back up further. So basically more time under under tension the more break down the more adaption after wards. Also a power lifter takes a longer break because they are aiming to lift heavy and need time to get a complete recovery or as close to complete recovery as possible to lift the heavy weight again. Lifting weight is not just lifting weight it`s a specific thing for what you want to achieve and different people may also be affected greater or less from one type of training then a other person. Ps does anyone have a link to the actual study not the article about it? (maybe i missed the link)

Good points viper, time under tension for muscle growth is 30-70 seconds. The longer rest for heavy lifting is to allow the nervous system to recover more than the muscles.:)

[viper]

Scotty you are 100% correct amazes me the amount of people guys mainly that assume big muscles equals big strength not realizing the cns is a massive contributor to strength and speed.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scotty you are 100% correct amazes me the amount of people guys mainly that assume big muscles equals big strength not realizing the cns is a massive contributor to strength and speed.

I've seen guys who look like total wimps bench 315# easy. In over 30 yrs of lifting I've never benched 315#, now I've never cared to and have never worked towards it, but still.......

[IronFist]

Scotty you are 100% correct amazes me the amount of people guys mainly that assume big muscles equals big strength not realizing the cns is a massive contributor to strength and speed.

Careful, TMA guys are going to misinterpret this as "yeah we don't have to lift weights because big muscles don't mean you're strong. I'm too deadly for the street! Qiblasts!!!"

And let's not forget that usually guys with big muscles are stronger. The average big guy is pretty strong. The average skinny guy is not usually secretly a powerlifter.

All else being equal a bigger muscle has more potential than a smaller muscle. This is why the absolute strongest people on the planet are heavyweights, although the smaller powerlifters are often stronger proportional to their bodyweight. The fact remains there are no 150 pound guys squatting 1,000 pounds.

Plus, bodybuilders tend to have more muscular endurance than PLers due to the nature of their training. Sure, a 150 pound powerlifter guy might bench 315 (which is awesome), but he won't be able to crank out as many reps as a 220 pound bodybuilder, regardless of how much weight is used.

I'm a pretty skinny guy with a fast metabolism. I remember the first time I started training like a powerlifter and I was finally able to bench 225. I was so excited!!! I weighed like 160 or something and I had been doing 5 reps or less for months to get to that point, and I could barely bench 135 x 10 anymore. My strength curve was so jacked and I had no endurance from all the low rep/long rest period/heavy weight powerlifting stuff.

To be honest I didn't really care, though. I was like 20 years old and was super pumped to be able to bench two plates on each side :D

[YouKnowWho]

There are MANY gyms across the nation which don't even have squat racks or deadlift platforms and don't allow O-lifts or d-lifts.
Last time I checked out all the gyms around my area (Shell Beach, Ca), I asked if they had heavy bag. The way they looked at me as if I came from another planet.

[Scott R. Brown]

Last time I checked out all the gyms around my area (Shell Beach, Ca), I asked if they had heavy bag. The way they looked at me as if I came from another planet.

Kennedy Fitness in Atascadero has a bag. Its not hanging from a secure spot for a serious bag user and I doubt it gets much use, but they do have one.


And let's not forget that usually guys with big muscles are stronger......

All good points, however, just because you were unable to bench 135x10 doesn't mean you couldn't have trained to do so. When I was younger I benched 200# for 2 sets of 5, but 150# for 5 sets of 10. Right now I. Am doing 3-5 reps in the am and 10 reps in the pm in 2 workouts a day. You get what you train for.

[viper]

Ironfist I am certainly not bashing on the fact that bigger muscles usually means stronger just the fact that most newbies to the iron game assume its all about muscle and seem to neglect the CNS. I think if you want to get stronger you have to lift or at least work at it and that wont happen unless you challenge the body to get stronger which is usually using weights.

[IronFist]

All good points, however, just because you were unable to bench 135x10 doesn't mean you couldn't have trained to do so.

I know, I was just giving an example of how you lose endurance if you focus exclusively on 1RM maximal strength.

[Syn7]

anyone here incorporate Tabata protocol into their strength and conditioning programs??? or anyone have an opinion on tabatas research??? i believe he was working at the national institute of fitness & sports in tokyo when he did this work, but dont quote me on that:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

anyone here incorporate Tabata protocol into their strength and conditioning programs??? or anyone have an opinion on tabatas research??? i believe he was working at the national institute of fitness & sports in tokyo when he did this work, but dont quote me on that:rolleyes:

I do, though not the classical Tabata, It's hard to get up to that level of Vo2.
I do 2:1 ratios of course so I alternate between:
2 min with 1 min rest
1 min with 30 sec
30 sec with 15 sec
20 and 10.

Depending on what I am doing and in the mood for.
The thing about TRUE Tababat and not just typical HIIT, is that it is truly BALLS to the wall ! and if you CAN complete a cycle ( 8 sets) you are NOT doing it right.
Best way you can see it is that, classical Tabata would be:
RUnning as fast as possible, no Holding back at all, for 20 sec, then 10 sec rest and then doing it again another 7 times.
Yes, you are correct, you should NOT be able to actually do it, that is the point of HIIT, if you CAN finish a cycle ( there is only one) you are NOT doing it with enough intensity.
So how does this actually work for the best?

Well, the truth is that it is part of a larger cycle:
ex:
10 min of moderate pace, just to get the body warmed up
One cycle of Tabata to make you puke and cry like a little girl !!
10 min cool down at moderate pace.
Total time: 24 min.

Of course you can play with the warm up and cool down but never less than 5 min and never more than 10.
Keep it easy and moderate.

[Frost]

anyone here incorporate Tabata protocol into their strength and conditioning programs??? or anyone have an opinion on tabatas research??? i believe he was working at the national institute of fitness & sports in tokyo when he did this work, but dont quote me on that:rolleyes:

yep i have an opinion on it lol :o) firstly the study was done at a very high rpm rate, and was terminated when those taking part could no longer reach the required rpm, so it wasnt just balls to the wall it was very scientific

heres some stuff i wrote about it a while ago


He should also mention that the Tabata study is the most overblown study used in exercise, its proof that marketing works much better than science when it comes to selling products. I mean it’s hard as hell to do, but what exactly does it accomplish apart from making you puwk?

the original study he did only had 14 test subjects (how many scientific studies do you know with less than 15 people taking part) all relativity unfit, 7 did the protocol (plus 30 minutes a week of lsd work which is over looked) and the other group did lsd work for 6 weeks, then at the end they found that VO2 Max and anaerobic capacity were better improved by using anaerobic means then aerobic means, hardly ground breaking.

The group that used an anaerobic methods improved anaerobic capacity and the group that used a method that did not stress the anaerobic method did not (and there improvements in VO2 max happened mostly in the first 3 weeks, in the last three weeks they saw almost no improvements) whilst the aerobic groups VO2 max increased at a slower rate, it kept increasing and if the study group had continued for another 4 or 5 weeks would have probably surpassed that of the HIIT group. So HIIT training leads to greater immediate changes but tapers off and these changes are not very stable, no news there

Even using VO2 max as a measure of aerobic fitness is misleading, resting heart rate, heart rate recovery, heart rate at anaerobic threshold, and power output at anaerobic threshold are much better indicators of aerobic power and capacity and overall fitness.


I just think the study has been blown out of all proportion and it is used by people to bash steady state work and say all you need to do for aerobic and anaerobic training is 4 minutes of hard work, which I think distorts the study.

The first thing people tend to forget is that the HIIT group did one session of 30 minutes LSD work a week in addition to the intervals
Secondly to quote the study:

“Average VO2 max in group one was 52.9 (LSD group) in the second group it was 48.2 (HIIT Group)”

So the LSD group had a larger VO2 at the start, so they had a better aerobic system to begin with and would be less likely to see improvements in the 6 weeks


Also whilst the HIIT group saw good increases in VO2 mas in the first 3 weeks, in the second three weeks as tabata himself said “no significant changes were observed."

Whilst the LSD group saw smaller but steady increases over the whole 6 weeks.

So the study proved that HIIT causes better short term adaptations but they stall after a few weeks whilst LSD leads to slower but more steady progress

Also he only tested VO2 max for aerobic fitness, if Tabata had measured other variables such as changes in cardiac output and stroke volume, resting heart rate, anaerobic threshold, velocity at anaerobic threshold, etc. you would have got a different result

I also don’t like how people use tabata for bodyweight stuff, weights etc, the original study used the bike and subjects were very carefully monitored, once pedal speed dropped below a certain point the training was stopped as it was no longer considered beneficial, this is very different from simply trying to work as hard as you think you can doing burpees or running

Overall I think the study was useful but has been blown out of all proportion and used as an excuse not to do LSD work, threshold training or any other longer term aerobic training etc

[sanjuro_ronin]

Frost, like I mentioend on the thread you posted that info, you need to re-read the study, for one thing the individuals were NOT untrained, they were competitive rowers ( I f I recall correctly).
The rest I addressed in that thread too.
Fact is HIIT is ONE of many protocols that can be used it is not THE protocol.
One of the crucial elemets of the study was also how the subjects continued to "burn calories" even after they finished their routine because of the high level they bodies had been "jacked" up to.

Fact is anyone that has done this and done it correctly sees the changes quite quickly, the problem is it can't be sustained, just like any other HIT protocol, it is good for about 4-6 weeks and then you need to switch it up.

[Scott R. Brown]

And anyone tuned into their body can feel it anyway!

[Frost]

Frost, like I mentioend on the thread you posted that info, you need to re-read the study, for one thing the individuals were NOT untrained, they were competitive rowers ( I f I recall correctly).
The rest I addressed in that thread too.
Fact is HIIT is ONE of many protocols that can be used it is not THE protocol.
One of the crucial elemets of the study was also how the subjects continued to "burn calories" even after they finished their routine because of the high level they bodies had been "jacked" up to.

Fact is anyone that has done this and done it correctly sees the changes quite quickly, the problem is it can't be sustained, just like any other HIT protocol, it is good for about 4-6 weeks and then you need to switch it up.

actually there although his original work was with speed skaters, the study people quote was done with PE students (some of them table tennis players)


from the text
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Subjects. Young male students majoring in physical education volunteered for the study (Table 1). Most were physically active and were members of varsity table tennis, baseball, basketball, football (soccer), and swimming teams. After receiving a detailed explanation of the purposes, potential benefits, and risks associated with participating in the study, each student gave his written consent."

Average VO2 max in group one was 52.9 (LSD group) in the second group it was 48.2 (HIIT Group)

There were only 7 people in each group

Hardly pro athletes by any means, they were members of student rec teams and PE students at a university. They were NOT competitive speed skaters or trained athletes. Their average VO2s are low and indicate they were fairly untrained in any high intensity exercise whatsoever. It's also worth noting that the LSD group had a noticeably higher VO2 max to begin with, meaning they probably had better aerobic fitness to begin with and would be less likely to improve as much over the 6 weeks

and i agree anything can work for a few weeks, the questions are how long does its effects last and how far can improvments be made

[Frost]

And anyone tuned into their body can feel it anyway!

can feel what? that it hurts, that it sucks, anyone can come up with a workout that hurts but does it actually improve your performance thats the question

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that what the study does prove, beyond any doubt and that all can agree on is that, once more, SPECIFICITY rules.
The study showed that the anerobic conditioning improved dramitically with HIIT and that there was even improvement in the aeribioc part as well.
You do NOT get that with moderate paced aeriobic activity.

So, for anerobic specific atheltic events ( sprints and such) and time limited events ( boxing for example), HIIT works better AND they get some aerobic conditioning to boot.

[Frost]

I think that what the study does prove, beyond any doubt and that all can agree on is that, once more, SPECIFICITY rules.
The study showed that the anerobic conditioning improved dramitically with HIIT and that there was even improvement in the aeribioc part as well.
You do NOT get that with moderate paced aeriobic activity.

So, for anerobic specific atheltic events ( sprints and such) and time limited events ( boxing for example), HIIT works better AND they get some aerobic conditioning to boot.

actually the VO2 max increased in both groups, the HITT group saw a dramatic increase over the first 3 weeks then as tabata himself says there was virtually no improvement in the final 3 weeks, whilst the steady state group saw a smaller linear improvement that continued through the 6 weeks, also the HITT group started at a lower VO2 max so of course they would have seen better increases.

ANy improvement in the aerobic conditioning of the HITT group is hard to judge since he actually had them doing 1x30minute session a week of aerobic cardio which kind of messes with the final outcome of the study.

As for HITT being better for boxing etc, i tend to see it differently, i see most combat sports as being alactic/aerobic in nature, these events can last up to 30 minutes overall with periods of very short fast activity with periods of longer activity at a lower pace, so training methods that work the alactic system and the aerobic system are what i think works, but opinions are like ar%eholes everyone has one :)

[Drake]

can feel what? that it hurts, that it sucks, anyone can come up with a workout that hurts but does it actually improve your performance thats the question

That's the biggest mistake people make. They don't understand that this is an actual science, and that there are specific metrics and plans that are taken into consideration. You can't just go and toss about heavy things. You'll improve in some aspects, but it's sort of like taking the long way to a destination. And in many cases, you'll never even reach your goals.

Like with medicine and other topics, this is one area where I defer to the experts.

[Syn7]

what i think is most appealing about the tabata method is that it can be applied to anything at any level for anyone... its simple, its direct and it cant end up being the kind of pseudo workout people get into after they have been doing it awhile, tabata forces you to be your best, always... good days and bad days... you never win, just get stronger thru real hard work... aslong as what you are doing is a good exercise, tabata will give you maximum output potential...

[IronFist]

What is "lsd work?"

Tabata gave his subjects drugs :D

[Frost]

what i think is most appealing about the tabata method is that it can be applied to anything at any level for anyone... its simple, its direct and it cant end up being the kind of pseudo workout people get into after they have been doing it awhile, tabata forces you to be your best, always... good days and bad days... you never win, just get stronger thru real hard work... aslong as what you are doing is a good exercise, tabata will give you maximum output potential...

no it cant and no it isnt

This is the problem people don’t actually read the study, just the bits magazines and e-articles care to post and they try to make it something it’s not, the original test was done scientifically they had set rpm goals to reach, once their output fell below this established perimeters tabata ended the session, it wasn’t a case of just doing 8 sets of 20seconds as hard as possible, it was a case or reaching scientifically predetermined rates of force production, and if these couldn’t be maintained then ending them session, which is why they used spin bikes so they could accurately measure output, doing what you think is an all out effort for 20secs may feel hard and feel like you are working, but that is not what tabatas study was about and it is not his protocol
and suggesting someone unfit should try this kind of work is just plain silly, intervals have there place but a base must be built first, and that base is built through steady state aerobic work

[Frost]

What is "lsd work?"

Tabata gave his subjects drugs :D

smartarse, he used steady state moderate work

[Drake]

From my experiences with athletes coming into the Army, the big problem is always cardio. They can do pushups fine, usually good with situps. You take them on a run, and they sound like a dying cow.

From a fighting perspective, cardio is crucial. I can't count how many people I've whittled down in sparring and combatives simply by outlasting them, which normally doesn't take long. The clinch drill is exhausting as well. Good cardio is very important.

[Frost]

That's the biggest mistake people make. They don't understand that this is an actual science, and that there are specific metrics and plans that are taken into consideration. You can't just go and toss about heavy things. You'll improve in some aspects, but it's sort of like taking the long way to a destination. And in many cases, you'll never even reach your goals.

Like with medicine and other topics, this is one area where I defer to the experts.

yep one pro trainer when asked by a client why his workout was so short and didnt hurt said "anyone can write a workout that makes someone puke, it takes hard work and brains to make someone stronger faster and better conditioned"

[Syn7]

where can i read the whole study in english???

[IronFist]

No, in all seriousness, I don't know what lsd refers to in this context :o

[Frost]

No, in all seriousness, I don't know what lsd refers to in this context :o

long slow distance training, usually running but also used can to refer to any type of relatively easy stedy state cardio work

[Frost]

where can i read the whole study in english???

i think its only on the premed web site, which yo have to be a member of, ill try and post some of it on here

[Frost]

here is a write up from a pretty well known author and athlete, it includes a lot of the tabata research so if you want to just ignore his comments and read the extracts





Effects of Moderate-Intensity Endurance and High-Intensity Intermittent Training on Anaerobic Capacity and VO2 Max
Title and Abstract

Tabata I. et. al. Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (1996) 28(10):1327-30.

This study consists of two training experiments using a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. First, the effect of 6 wk of moderate-intensity endurance training (intensity: 70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P < 0.01) (mean +/- SD). Second, to quantify the effect of high-intensity intermittent training on energy release, seven subjects performed an intermittent training exercise 5 d.wk-1 for 6 wk. The exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, VO2max increased by 7 ml.kg-1.min-1, while the anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems.




Background

In recent years, training and the Internets have become interval crazy. Everybody wants to do nothing but interval training all the **** time (with some even proclaiming that any non-interval training is not only useless but downright detrimental).

Now, I’ve written extensively about this in what must be about a 12 part series on Steady State vs. Interval Training here on the site. I’m not going to rehash the entirety of that series, mind you; go read it. But simply, both intervals and steady state have their place in training. Arguments that one is inherently or always superior to the other has more to do with marketing than reality.

But among other aspects of this particular meme, the idea of the Tabata protocol (often abbreviated Tabatas) gets bandied about all the time. And the problem is that people are using the term to describe something that they don’t really understand. What has happened is that a bunch of people who don’t really know what they are talking about have written so much about the protocol that what it actually is or accomplishes has been completely diluted.

So I figured I’d undilute it by actually examining the study that the whole set of claims and supposed ‘protocols’ are based on. Because, as is so often the case, what people think they are doing as ‘Tabatas’ are nothing like what the actual study did. And most people who think they are doing the Tabata protocol are doing absolutely nothing of the sort.

As a bit of history, the protocol was actually originally developed by a Japanese speed skating coach and later studied by researchers; I bring this up because speed skating is actually a very peculiar sport in a lot of ways (something that I have insight into as I’ve spent the last 5 years training full time as a skater). But I’m not going to get that into detail here; I simply mention it for completeness.




The Study

The study set out to compare both the anaerobic and aerobic adaptations (in terms of one parameter only, VO2 max) to two different protocols of training. The study recruited 14 active male students who were, at best moderately trained (VO2 max was roughly 50 ml/kg/min which is average at best; elite endurance athletes have values in the 70-80 range).

All work including the pre- and post tests were done on a mechanically braked bicycle ergometer; this is an important point that is often ignored and I’ll come back to in the discussion. Every test or high-intensity workout was proceeded by a 10 minute warm-up at 50% of VO2 max (This is maybe 60-65% maximum heart rate).

The two primary tests were VO2 max and the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (this is a test of anaerobic capacity, basically people with higher anaerobic capacity can generate a larger oxygen deficit) and then subjected to one of two training programs.

The first program was a fairly standard aerobic training program, subjects exercised 5 days/week at 70% of VO2 max for 60 minutes at a cadence of 70 RPMs for 6 straight weeks. The intensity of exercise was raised as VO2 max increased with training to maintain the proper percentage. VO2 max was tested weekly in this group and the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit was measured before, at 4 weeks and after training.

The second group performed the Tabata protocol. For four days per week they performed 7-8 sets of 20 seconds at 170% of VO2 max with 10 seconds rest between bouts, again this was done after a 10 minute warm-up. When more than 9 sets could be completed, the wattage was increased by 11 watts. If the subjects could not maintain a cadence of 85RPM, the workout was ended.

On the fifth day of training, they performed 30 minutes of exercise at 70% of VO2 max followed by 4 sets of the intermittent protocol and this session was designed to NOT be exhaustive. The anaerobic capacity test was performed at the beginning, week 2, week 4 and the end of the 6 week period; VO2 max was tested at the beginning and at week 3, 5 and the end of training.




Results

For group 1, the standard aerobic training group, while there was no increase in anaerobic capacity, VO2 max increased significantly from roughly 52 to 57 ml/kg/min (I say roughly because the paper failed to provide vaules, I’m going by what’s in the graphic below). Frankly, given the lack of anaerobic contribution to steady state training, the lack of improvement in this parameter is absolutely no surprise.

For group 2, both the anaerobic capacity and VO2 max showed improvements. VO2 max improved in the interval group from 48 ml/kg/min to roughly 55 ml/kg/min (see graphic below). It is worth noting that the interval group was starting with a lower value and may have had more room for improvement. Also note that they still ended up with a lower Vo2 max than the steady state group.

I’ve put Figure 2 from the paper (showing improvements in VO2 max) below

click this link to see the graph

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/vo2max



As I noted, pay attention to the fact that the Tabata group (black line, filled circles) started lower than the steady state group, they also still ended up lower than the steady state group. As well, note that pattern of improvement, the Tabata group got most of their improvement in the first 3 weeks and far less in the second three weeks. The steady state group showed more gradual improvement across the entire 6 week period but it was more consistent. As the researchers state regarding the Tabata group

.

[Frost]

Part 2...........................


after 3 wk of training, the vo2 max had increased significantly by 5+-3ml.kg/min. It tended to increase in the last part of the training period but no significant changes [emphasis mine] were observed.

Basically, the tabata group improved for 3 weeks and then plateaued despite a continuingly increasing workload. I’d note that anaerobic capacity did improve over the length of the study although most of the benefit came in the first 4 weeks of the study (with far less over the last 2 weeks).




My comments

first and foremost, there’s no doubt that while the steady state group only improved vo2 max, it did not improve anaerobic capacity; this is no shock based on the training effect to be expected. And while the tabata protocol certainly improved both, not only did the tabata group still end up with a lower vo2 at the end of the study, they only made progress for 3 weeks before plateauing on vo2 max and 4 weeks for anaerobic capacity.

Interestingly, the running coach arthur lydiard made this observation half a century ago; after months of base training, he found that only 3 weeks of interval work were necessary to sharpen his athletes. More than that was neither necessary nor desirable. Other studies using cycling have found similar results: Intervals improve certain parameters of athletic performance for about 3 weeks or 6 sessions and then they stop having any further benefit.

I’ve asked this question before but for all of the ‘all interval all the time’ folks, if intervals stop working after 3-4 weeks, what are people supposed to do for the other 48-49 weeks of the year. Should they keep busting their nuts with supra-maximal interval training for no meaningful results?

On that note, it’s worth mentioning that the tabata group actually did a single steady state workout per week. Is it at all possible that this contributed to the overall training effect (given that 70% vo2 max training improved vo2 max in the steady state only group)? Does anybody else find it weird that the tabata promoters ignore the fact that the tabata group was doing steady state work too?

It’s also relevant to note that the study used a bike for training. This is important and here’s why: On a stationary bike, when you start to get exhausted and fall apart from fatigue, the worst that happens is that you stop pedalling. You don’t fall off, you don’t get hurt, nothing bad happens. The folks suggesting high skill movements for a ‘tabata’ workout might want to consider that. Because when form goes bad on cleans near the end of the ‘tabata’ workout, some really bad things can happen. Things that don’t happen on a stationary bike.

As well, i want to make a related comment: As you can see above the protocol used was very specific. The interval group used 170% of vo2 max for the high intensity bits and the wattage was increased by a specific amount when the workout was completed. Let me put this into real world perspective.

My vo2 max occurs somewhere between 300-330watts on my power bike, i can usually handle that for repeat sets of 3 minutes and maybe 1 all out-set of 5-8 minutes if i’m willing to really suffer. That’s how hard it is, it’s a maximal effort across that time span.

For a proper tabata workout, 170% of that wattage would be 510 watts (for perspective, tour de france cyclists may maintain 400 watts for an hour). This is an absolutely grueling workload. I suspect that most reading this, unless they are a trained cyclist, couldn’t turn the pedals at that wattage, that’s how much resistance there is.

If you don’t believe me, find someone with a bike with a powermeter and see how much effort it takes to generate that kind of power output. Now do it for 20 seconds. Now repeat that 8 times with a 10 second break. You might learn something about what a tabata workout actually is.

My point is that to get the benefits of the tabata protocol, the workload has to be that supra-maximal for it to be effective. Doing thrusters or kb swings or front squats with 65 lbs fo 20 seconds doesn’t generate nearly the workload that was used during the actual study. Nor will it generate the benefits (which i’d note again stop accruing after a mere 3 weeks). You can call them tabatas all you want but they assuredly aren’t.

Finally, i’d note that, as i discussed in predictors of endurance performance vo2 max is only one of many components of overall performance, and it’s not even the most important one. Of more relevance here, vo2 max and aerobic endurance are not at all synonymous, many people confuse the two because they don’t understand the difference between aerobic power (vo2 max) and aerobic capacity (determined primarily by enzyme activity and mitochondrial density within the muscle). Other studies have shown clearly that interval work and steady state work generate different results in this regards, intervals improve vo2 max but can actually decrease aerobic enzyme activity (citrate synthase) within skeletal muscle.

The basic point being that even if the tabata group improved vo2 max and anaerobic capacity to a greater degree than the steady state group, those are not the only parameters of relevance for overall performance.




Summing up

first, here’s what i’m not saying. I’m not anti-interval training, i’m not anti-high intensity training. I am anti-this stupid-assed idea that the only type of training anyone should ever do is interval training, based on people’s mis-understanding and mis-extrapolation of papers like this.

High-intensity interval training and the tabata protocol specifically are one tool in the toolbox but anybody proclaiming that intervals can do everything that anyone ever needs to do is cracked. That’s on top of the fact that 99% of people who claim to be doing ‘tabatas’ aren’t doing anything of the sort.

Because 8 sets of 20″ hard/10″ easy is not the tabata protocol and body-weight stuff or the other stuff that is often suggested simply cannot achieve the workload of 170% vo2 max that this study used. It may be challenging and such but the tabata protocol it ain’t

[IronFist]

long slow distance training, usually running but also used can to refer to any type of relatively easy stedy state cardio work

thank you sir.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thanks for that review Frost,
I noticed that the fat burning properties were not mentioned though...
He is totally right though, it (HIIT) is but ONE of MANY tools are are disposal.

People tend to fall in the this or that category, they tend to NOT see the value of something outside what they are doing at the time.
Trends tend to dictate to people.

HIT as a weight training protocol works very well, but is much maligned.
It works just as well as the 5x5 and the 3x10 and the list goes on.

The fact is the vast majority of people just grab onto a trend and don't really understand or apply it well enough to work.

Case in point, I have seen MANY try HIT and HIIT and I can count on one hand how many actually go to failure in HIT and how many truly push it to the max on HIIT.

Fact is, for 3-6 weeks everything works and then your body adapts.

Here is the thing though, when done correctly HIT and HIIT can get you the same or even better results in the same time period, BUT you are spending LESS time actually working out.

Yes you plateau, just like every other system/protocol and yes, in many cases since you are pushing it more, you plateau sooner.

So you just have to switch things up more and than is NOT a bad thing.

[Frost]

Thanks for that review Frost,
I noticed that the fat burning properties were not mentioned though...
He is totally right though, it (HIIT) is but ONE of MANY tools are are disposal.

People tend to fall in the this or that category, they tend to NOT see the value of something outside what they are doing at the time.
Trends tend to dictate to people.

HIT as a weight training protocol works very well, but is much maligned.
It works just as well as the 5x5 and the 3x10 and the list goes on.

The fact is the vast majority of people just grab onto a trend and don't really understand or apply it well enough to work.

Case in point, I have seen MANY try HIT and HIIT and I can count on one hand how many actually go to failure in HIT and how many truly push it to the max on HIIT.

Fact is, for 3-6 weeks everything works and then your body adapts.

Here is the thing though, when done correctly HIT and HIIT can get you the same or even better results in the same time period, BUT you are spending LESS time actually working out.

Yes you plateau, just like every other system/protocol and yes, in many cases since you are pushing it more, you plateau sooner.

So you just have to switch things up more and than is NOT a bad thing.

i dont think the tabata talked about the weight loss properites of the study, but i dont care what fat burning properties it has post workout, a workout that lasts only 4 minutes will not have the same effect as a 45min cardio session

As for having the same effect it all depends on what effect you are looking to have, Intervals thicken the muscle and the fibres of the heart, but if you are looking to increase the hearts size (especially the left ventrical) and thus decrease your resting HR and increase your hearts ability to pump blood around the body then HITT wont do this you need to put the time in on steady state work work,

Another thing the study does not talk about is that the intervals, whilst having a quicker effect not only peak quicker than aerobic work they also not last as longer, this has been pointed out in other studies.

[Syn7]

any more on tabata would be most welcome... and if anyone can actually post the original study in english, that would be awesome and much apreciated... frost isnt the first person ive heard say "u need to read the whole original study" but nobody seems to have a copy of it... honestly, i cant find a copy... ive tried all the resources at my disposal but its proving inadequate... so anyone with the whole study, it would be great if you could post it up... all i can find are articles and opinion pieces... ive seen med journal opinions, magazine opinions, health sites opinions but thats about it as far as quality info on tabatas study goes...


i'll take a japanese copy if thats all that i can get... i can work with that...


FROST:
are you a med student???

[Frost]

nope just someone with a great interest in training (i did tabata for years always wondering why pro athletes didnt do this and still did steady state work etc)

the problem is the full text is only on pub med which is a paid for site, i used to have a pdf version but cant find it, ill see if i can get it again, but lyles recap covers most things, it shows what the study originally set out to do (find the effect of 2 types of training on VO2 levels) , how it did it the programme it used and the outcome. Theres not much more really to it

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is a interesting view on intervals:
http://www.cbass.com/INTERVAL.HTM

[Syn7]

what exact date did he start the study? and finish?

[Frost]

it was done and published in 1996, dont know the exact dates of hand sorry will look later