The Slower, The Stronger, Or A Take On Time Under Tension

Greetings, Brethren of the Iron Cult.

Today, it is my intention to take you out of your comfort zone. Nah, no groping, it'll be worse.

I know you think you work hard, but... How hard are you working? Yeah, I know. You bench 100kg! How comes everybody always guesstimates his strength at a 100kg bench?

Truth is, if you really go to the gym with the hopes of ripping sleeves, you may need to worry a little less about the weight and a little more about the execution of the lift.

This guy definitely leaves the ego at the door. Do you?

We all know hypertrophy requires a good diet (a minimum amount of protein, a positive balance energetic state, etc), and a good routine. But the latter is seldom paid enough attention. What frequency are you using? What volume? Fortunately, people are more aware about the former as of late, and the latter was always higher than necessary for most gym-goers. But what about execution?

Within this we can consider reaching failure and Time Under Tension, henceforth referred as TUT. Most people aiming for hypertrophy usually reach failure alright (they've watched Pumping Iron I guess?), but not many pay attention to their tempos. And I'm sorry to bear bad news, but throwing the weights around without giving two fucks about form or TUT is not benefitting you.

We all know that slowing tempos can help to avoid momentum, but slowing the concentric can turn the reps into grinders and make you use less weight than you could. That's bad, mmmkay?

What about slowing it especially in the eccentric phase? You can still do fast, even explosive concentrics, and thus use heavier weight, and slow it down in the eccentric, enough to produce the metabolic stress you're seeking.

Tanimoto et al tested 36 lifters, and had two different groups do 5 basic compounds, with group 1 using 55-60% of 1RM with tempos 3-0-3-0, and group 2 using 80% of 1RM with tempos 1-0-1-1. Both aimed for 8 reps, trained twice a week, and followed this protocol for 13 weeks. The results? Group 1 increased muscle thickness by 6.8 +/- 3.4% and 1RM strength by 33.0 +/- 8.8%, whereas group 2 did by 9.1 +/- 4.2%, and increased their 1RM strength by 41.2 +/- 7.6%. Pretty significant, given group 1 was probably working below their full capacity (they were using only 55-60% of 1RM after all).

Nicholas et al had 8 test subjects perform three sets of unilateral knee extension exercise at 30% of one-repetition maximum strength with either 6-0-6-0 or 1-0-1-0 tempos. Protein synthesis, which was checked through vastus lateral is biopsies, showed an increase of 114% in the slow tempo group, and 77% in the fast one. In this one, we can see better results due to not having such a high discrepancy between the intensities used. We must note, however, that both groups worked to failure.

Cameron et al split 18 test subjects in 3 groups, with leg trainings of 3 sets of 30% of 1RM, 3 sets of 80% of 1RM, or 1 set of 80% of 1RM. Working to failure, 3 times a week, and 10 weeks. The usual jazz. Well, apparently no significant differences were found between the two 3-set groups in terms of muscle protein synthesis, and only the group which had done a single set had had worse results.

I like numbers. They make me feel smart and shit.

What can we make of all this?

When test subjects reached failure, intensity was slightly influential, but nowhere near decisive, in comparison to total volume. Total work load determined the highest group MPS when the rest of the variables were equal in tested groups.

When test subjects reached failure using slow tempos instead of faster reps, they showed higher MPS.

What can you do?

• This can't be stressed enough. If you're working for strength, you should work it rather than test it. Other way to say it is "leave your ego outside the gym". This is especially important for hypertrophy lifters.

• Working to failure is good yo.

• Working beyond failure is even gooder.

• Forced reps, or having your routine include negatives, is goodest.

• "Both 3-set groups had the same MPS, but I'd rather lift heavy". Yeah, well, guess what group could aim for higher volume without frying their CNS.

• We know volume and TUT are cornerstones for hypertrophy, and high frequency trumps over everything in my experience. Aiming for high volume while maintaining frequency 2 or 3 is a great way to work for hypertrophy, and strength. Full body, upper/lower, and L/P/P are great ways to train. Probably you don't need to do over 8-12 sets per MG and day. Forget about your 50 sets old chest day which took you nowhere. Keep your reps moderately high. MPS was shown equal for both groups, but the one with higher reps will be able to do higher volume without taxing their CNS as much. Now that's quite a thing eh?

Stay around,

J

Sources:

Manimoto, Sanada K, Yamamoto K, Kawano H, Gando Y, Tabata I, Ishii N, Miyachi M. Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men. Journal for  Strength Conditioning Research. 2008

Nicholas A Burd, Richard J Andrews, Daniel WD West, Jonathan P Little, Andrew JR Cochran, Amy J Hector, Joshua GA Cashaback, Martin J Gibala, James R Potvin, Steven K Baker, and Stuart M Phillips. Muscle time under tensiontension during resustance exercise stimukates differential muscle protein sub-fractional protein responses in men. J Physiol, 2012

Cameron J. Mitchell, Tyler A. Churchward-Venne, Daniel D.W. West, Nicholas A. Burd, Leigh Breen, Steven K. Baker, and Stuart M. Phillips. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2012

To All The Carnivores I Loved

Did that sound gay? Yeah it probably did.

To all the lifters in the place, with style and grace, would you please raise your hand if you've been told before meat is bad? 

Flexing guns ain't necessary, thanks. 

So yeah, probably most of us have faced that claim in our hoisting-devoted lives at least once. "You need more veggies", or "meat is bad". Almost on par with the arguments against busting a nut (at least eating meat doesn't fuck your sight), these people usually brandish the worst type of bullshit you'll ever encounter: scientific bullshit.

Indeed, vegetarianism (and veganism) was incredibly supported during the last quarter of the last, pathetic century. Along with pop music, people descended into the uttermost phaggotry by supporting veganism, political correction, and every other side of sheer stupidity. Good bye real men who ate 2kg steaks and fled civilisation on huge Harley-Davidson bikes at the cry of "fuck pollution" to rape coyotes in the desert. Now we drink fat free water, listen to whoever is famous that week, and, sometimes, fuck trees. Of course, it was the era when most gurus would chant the benefits of munching on grass.

No more meat?!

But weep not, noble men, for today the "vegetarianism for health reasons" flag has been burnt and pissed on. 

Burkert et al. from the henceforth glorious Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, in Graz, Austria, has come up with some very, very interesting results after testing 1320 individuals and their eating behaviours. 

Apparently, vegetarians had a lower average BMI, and were unlikelier to drink alcohol, but they also ended with higher percentages in illness biomarkers. Test subjects on more common diets (carnivorous with fruit and vegetables) showed less incidence or tendency to develop cancer, allergies, or mental health ailments. The icing on the cake? Vascular risk, the long preferred argument of pro-veganists, was found to be the same in both groups, and moreover, a lower animal fat intake was linked to poorer health. 

Of course, this doesn't entail that a vegetarian diet may be the cause of poorer health; I won't incur in cum hoc fallacious argumenta. God forbid. Tested subjects could have opted for a vegetarian diet due to their already weakened health condition, but we can't deny the light the study has shed. 

Of course, there's another side to it. Vegetarian diets have been found to be linked with lower cholesterol levels (Appleby et al.) or found a higher life expectancy in vegans.

So, what can we make of all this?

• Vegetarian/Vegan diets may have been linked to poorer health partly because of the general lack of knowledge about nutrition many of their practitioners may suffer. A more restricted aminogram, and lower levels of certain micronutrients (or a lack thereof) could be the culprit. If you plan to go veggie, perhaps you should consider supplementing B12, iodine, calcium, iron, and vitamin D. This is not as crucial for vegetarians, who can rely on better protein sources to maintain bone density and health, besides muscle. Omega-3 fatty acid levels were also found to be lower in vegetarians (WH Wu).

• I totally understand people not wanting to eat animal products for ethical reasons, but they should be aware that these diets are not only not necessarily healthier, but also could be unhealthier.

• Given the audience of the blog is the lifting community mainly... You probably should eat meat or fish if you want to grow bigger or stronger. IIFYM is a thing, but it won't work wonders when your protein intake lacks certain aminoacids.

• Conversely, you should eat fruit and vegetables every day. Taking a multi vitamin may be nice to cover whatever micro nutrient you may be deficient in, but you have to factor in fiber intake as well.

Stay around,

J

Sources:

Paul N Appleby, Margaret Thorogood, Jim I Man & Timothy JA Kay, The Oxford Vegetarian Study, The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 1999.

WH Wu et al, Effects of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on blood lipids, estrogen metabolism, and in vivo oxidative stress in postmenopausal vegetarian, European Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 2005.

Nathalie T. Burkert, Johanna Muckenhubber, Franziska Grobßschädl, Éva Rásky, & Wolfgang Freidl, Nutrition And Health - The Association Between Eating Behaviour And Health Parameters, A Matched Sample Study, PLOSONE, 2014.

How Much Protein Do You Need Or "They Shall Call Me Jack The Butcher"

Sup kneegrows,

This is a pretty recurrent thread. If any of you guys happen to lift (which you may, but do you even?) you surely have come across this age old question before:

"Bro how much protein do I need?"

We all know protein is key. Yeah you heard that right you grass-loving hippie. If Nixon were still in office you'd be guilty of phaggotry and condemned to 25 steaks and a chicken wing.

In fact, if any of you apes studied Greek you should know that protein comes from a term from the aforementioned language, proteios, meaning primary. That adjective fits its noun pretty well, given protein helps in maintaining and building both muscle and the skeleton, catalyses metabolism reactions, transports shit throughout that pathetic excuse for a body you're trying to change, and above all, and the role we're interested in, it is necessary to GET JACKED.

We can agree now that it IS important, right?

This wolf knows where it's at. Then again, wolves are so badass they probably don't give a shit.

Ok, so now that we've put facts forward, does the average Joe need more? If by average Joe we understand somebody who does even lift, YEAH.

But how much is more? Many people (among whom I can count myself) fall short of their protein OPTIMAL intake. Some others, on the other hand, go way beyond that line. We'll see why neither is the best approach.

First of all, what does the body use protein for, besides structural reason? Mainly what we saw above, and also to provide a supply of energy through gluconeogenesis, that is, the synthesis of glucose from aminoaclike   Is this the best method, cost effectiveness? Hardly.

For structural (building mussels yo) reasons, let's see how much the body can process.

Some (Tarnopolski et al, Walberg et al) found that you could maintain positive nitrogenic balance with as little as 0.8g/kg. We have to say, though, that tested subjects were elite bodybuilders, with a very adapted metabolism already, meaning they break down much less protein in results to training (this has been backed up by many other scientists, like Rennie & Tipton, Moore et al, and Hartman, Phillips, Moore). 

Tarnopolski also found that after two weeks, no differences were shown when consuming 1.4g/kg or 2.4g/kg in total protein synthesis.
Phillips and Van Loon added two standard deviations and went as high as 1.8g/kg. However, in most instances the highest mean value taken from studies is 1.7g/kg. And that was seen in test subjects who were pretty likely to have better protein assimilation than normal people do, like elite athletes or bodybuilders.


So what do we have?

• 0.81g/lb or 1.7g/kg is a very sensible number to aim for. No, you don't train harder than the test subjects, and thus need more. If anything, you may need much less.

• AAS users have a much higher capacity to synthesise protein, and therefore should consume more. How much though...? Sadly, I haven't found any literature regarding this issue, but many people go for 3-3.5g/kg (and I think you're pushing it at 3.5-4) with excellent results.

• Should you take less? Unless on a tight budget (protein rich foods are usually the most expensive) you should try to aim for that. Whey protein can be found at very nice prices. Look out for deals and buy in bulk, it'll last for very long.

• Should you take more? Unless you don't keep track of your macros and you give two shits about being in a 1k kcal surplus, more protein will entail less carbs/fats, and thus worse power output.

• Should you eat always less than 30g because the body won't process more? Nope. Eat it all in once sitting if you will, although some research seem to point out that spreading your meals out helps raise your protein synthesis.
• Do you need to take that protein immediately after training? No. Read here why.

• Does that mean you're better off snacking on protein all day? Hardly. Some studies also show that the steadier the supply with little amounts of protein, the more it is oxidised instead of used for structural processes.

• I'm a vegetarian, wat do? Well, if you're a vegetarian, you can still have dairy products, and eggs. Literally you keep the best sources.

• I'm a vegan. Drinking milk makes sweet baby Jesus cry at night. Ok, you still have powders derived from pea, soy, or wheat protein. Keep in mind these will lack in certain aminoacids, so buying separately those would be good. In food sources, look for beans, lentils, chickpeas, tofu, etc.

Don't worry, little buddy, there's some hope for you too!

So summarising! 1.7g/kg is plenty. If you are really concerned about protein synthesis, trying to spread your intake in more meals could be good, but don't lose sleep over that if it interferes with your life. On the long term, since we don't live for this (unless I have drawn the attention of a professional bodybuilder, or any strength athlete), the best diet is that you can stick to for the longest time.

Peace,

J

Sources:

Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey SJ, Sebolt DR. Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters.  Int J Sports Med. 1988 Aug;9(4):261-6

Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.

Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. J Sports Sci. 2011;29 Suppl 1:S29-38.

Hartman, J. W., Moore, D. R., & Phillips, S. M. (2006). Resistance training reduces whole-body protein turnover and improves net protein retention in untrained young males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 31, 557–564.

The Anabolic Window, Or "Hurry Bro I Gotta Have My Shake!"

Greetings,

Gather round, brethren, for today a most ubiquitous issue haunts us. Tread lightly. Catabolism lurks in the shadows, ready to feast upon our hardly achieved gainz.

Bullshit.

I know this may be a dying myth, but also a pretty resilient at that. Plenty of people still live by the 30 minutes rule. "Take the shower at home bro I gotta have my shake or otherwise this session will have been useless!"

Allow me to present a rebuttal. But before that, let's properly define the "anabolic window", as proposed by most supplement companies and 135lbs soaking wet gurus. The anabolic window is a period of time during which you have to eat, especially protein, not to hinder gains. Some even claim that gains can be null without this post workout shake/meal. Some have even claimed that timing the intake may even play a bigger role than net daily energetic balance towards changes in body composition. We have before us, then, a really wide spread notion.

This wouldn't have happened if he had had his low GI high fructose corn syrup with casein, by Bull Hit Nutrition.

This seems to be a very favorable notion for supplement companies that live on their customers' naivete. Indeed, who else could have spread such a myth? Who benefits from it? Exactly. Some critical thinking is usually good, boys. Throw some sets into your routine.

Fortunately, many actually educated people fight on our behalf day after day. Many nutritionists and coaches have been trying to debunk this and other myths in the last decades, much to the aforementioned companies' dismay. Let's see what some of them have to say.

Among other variables, the most often preached benefits of the post workout shakes are their seemingly uncanny glycogen stores refilling properties, and the ability to raise protein synthesis.

Glycogen stores repletion

Given the traditional target of these companies' advertisements are bodybuilders, powerlifters, and weightlifting practitioners in general, a sport where most of our fuel will come from glycolysis, glycogen repletion should be something to be concerned about.

In several studies (MacDougall et al, Robergs et al), an elbow flexion at 80% 1RM, from 1 to 3 sets in the different studies, showed results indicating that the glycogen stores had been depleted, from as little as 12% from a single set to as much as 24.1% from 3 sets of 12RM.

It's been noted that a super compensation occurs when adding a carbohydrate shake immediately after training, and apparently delaying it for two hours can reduce this glycogen re-synthesis for as much as 50%.

What's the point of working out if you miss your anabolic window bro? May as well start doing cardio.

However, these same studies show that routines ranging in the 5-10 sets of volume per muscle group depleted as much as 30-40% of the glycogen. Therefore, unless a trainee were to workout several times a day, his glycogen stores would have time to recover. When upping the volume to 20+ sets, almost total depletion occurred, but these high volume routine are usually arranged in a low frequency protocol, as well.

Other study (Parkin et al) compared the differences in glycogen levels after 8 and 24h in groups that had taken a high GI carbohydrate shake immediately after training, and another one which had a normal replenishing meal hours after having trained, and found no differences.

Protein synthesis

What else, right? La pièce de résistance of every anabolic window theorist. Fuck glycogen depletion, what boys out there really care about is how much will their bulging biceps make up for their underdeveloped lower limbs (feel free to think of it as a double entendre). Protein synthesis is the really only important matter. Well, let's see what science says.

First of all, muscle protein synthesis is highly increased (as much as 200%) post exercise when using resistance training. This is counteracted by the catabolic (oh, NNNNOOOOEEES!!1!!one!!) effect of faster proteolysis.

It's generally acknowledged that eating post workout raises protein synthesis, although the existence of the anabolic window is argued still. One study (Levenhagen et al) showed a threefold increased when consuming a shake with protein, carbohydrates and fats immediately after training, whereas waiting 2 hours to take it showed only a 12% increase. These results, however, were attributed to increased mitochondrial/sarcoplasmic protein fractions instead of contractile elements (Brad Schoenfeld & Alan Aragon) due to the aerobic nature of the exercise in the study.

On the other hand, Rasmussen et al found no difference in amino acid net value when the shake was taken 1 or 3 hours afterwards. Conversely, Tipton et al found no difference when the protein shake was taken 1 hour before or after workout. Yup.

You'd better hurry and crawl in while it's open like you're Frodo at the Black Gate!

So what to do, after all this? Needless to say, it seems that the research fails to prove vehemently the existence of the infamous anabolic window. However, and the foregoing notwithstanding (I wanted to sound smart yo), bashing on the people who choose to take advantage of the anabolic window seems very arrogant. Research doesn't prove its definite existence, (if we take the definition of 1 hour window, a replenishing meal following workout as late as 3-4 hours later is still highly advised), but it doesn't prove it wrong either. As it is, trying to take any small benefit may be good, as long as the benefits are worth the hassle.

So what do we have?

• In low volume (circa 5-10 sets/MG), high frequency routines, there's not much need to worry about glycogen depletion because of the smaller portion of the stores these protocols use.

• In high volume (20 and upwards) there's a real concern, but the lower frequency makes up for that.

• Having a protein shake immediately afterwards may help raise MPS. I'd advise taking it if we can, although given the lack of definite proof I wouldn't go out of my way to do that.

• Many studies showed that what caused a dramatic change in MPS was the net protein intake, and not its timing. I'd advise aiming for 1.8g/kg of bodyweight, which is so far the maximum proved to be used by the body for structural reasons. Here you can see how much protein you need.

Stay safe,

J

Sources:

 MacDougall JD, Ray S, Sale DG, McCartney N, Lee P, Garner S: Muscle substrate utilization and lactate production.

Can J Appl Physiol 1999, 24(3):209-15.

 Robergs RA, Pearson DR, Costill DL, Fink WJ, Pascoe DD, Benedict MA, Lambert CP, Zachweija JJ: Muscle glycogenolysis during differing intensities of weight-resistance exercise.

J Appl Physiol 1991, 70(4):1700-6. 

 Parkin JA, Carey MF, Martin IK, Stojanovska L, Febbraio MA: Muscle glycogen storage following prolonged exercise: effect of timing of ingestion of high glycemic index food.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997, 29(2):220-4.

 Levenhagen DK, Gresham JD, Carlson MG, Maron DJ, Borel MJ, Flakoll PJ:Postexercise nutrient intake timing in humans is critical to recovery of leg glucose and protein homeostasis.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001, 280(6):E982-93.

 Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR: Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001, 281(2):E197-206.

 Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Aarsland AA, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR: Stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after exercise.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2007, 292(1):E71-6.