18 Interesting studies from 2016

1. Beta-alanine useless?

 

2. Sugar isn’t evil

 

3. Strength training for brain gains

 

4. BCAAs no better than sugar

 

5. Cardio ‘not that bad’?

 

6. Saturated fat good for your heart?

 

7. Red meat & cancer

 

8. Protein is overrated

 

9. Circadian rhythms are underrated

 

10. Stop demonizing insulin

 

11. Late night protein snacking

 

12. Intermittent fasting

 

13. Short rest for maximum muscle is broscience

 

14. High frequency training

 

15. Can the body only absorb 20 g protein per meal?

 

16. Dairy: healthy or not?

 

17. Bodybuilding for life

 

And last but not least…

18. Bayesian Bodybuilding’s own publication about metabolic damage [click to read]

 

Want to stay up-to-date on the latest research? Like/Follow Bayesian Bodybuilding on Facebook. We have launched a new feature called #StudyInTheSpotlight where we regularly share interesting new studies in easily understandable infographics.

 

7 Comments

  1. Rdmkr says:

    Menno, regarding the Japanese study on interference effect between lower body cardio and strength training, since the diet between the two groups was the same (no indication otherwise), isn’t it a trivial consequence of the difference in energy balance that the cardio group achieved less muscle growth. It seems to me that studies of this kind prove little more than that cutters gain less muscle than bulkers, which doesn’t even preclude that the cutters achieve more muscle growth in the long run when the bulkers are forced to cut as well.

    If you know of any studies that examined the interference effect with energy balance held constant, please share them.

    • Energy balance will not have nearly that effect if you compare the values in the literature.

      • Rdmkr says:

        I struggle to see how these findings fit into the broader pattern of everything you believe. You often say that “the bicep doesn’t care about the glutes when it decides whether or not to grow”, yet apparently the muscles do care about the heart and lungs. What gives the cardio vascular system this special status that it alone can disrupt growth in the rest of the body? How is it that full body training, stressing as many body parts as possible at a time, works so well right up *until* you include cardio into it? How is that compound exercises are great when they target only muscles, but when they target the heart and lungs as well, it all falls apart..?

        There are a few respectable pro-hybrid-atheleticism exercise researchers that are worth looking up:
        – Alex Fiada
        – Gregg Nuckols

        According to Nuckols, the interference effect goes away after the body adapts to the extra workload. Combined with how energy balance is usually stabilized long-term, this is how it is perfectly consistent with studies like the one you mentioned (which test unadapted athletes at negative energy balance) that the IE is not a problem for long term hybrid athletes.

        • Read this: http://www.humanengine.com/index.php/articles/training/item/the-cardio-comedown
          If you can find me a single study in which advanced, natural (!) strength trainees progressed more in terms of any marker of strength or hypertrophy as a result of concurrent training than with pure strength training, I’m all ears.

          • Rdmkr says:

            You’re misrepresenting the debate a bit now. The counter claim to yours was never that concurrent training is ideal for muscle gains when that is taken as the exclusive goal and the sole criterion for success. Just that cardio can be done for its own (huge!) independent benefits without a major sacrifice to muscle gains. And the issue can only be meaningfully interpreted with energy balance and adaptation factors in mind.

            But, out of curiosity, what would you recommend someone with a hybrid training schedule who cares about both muscle gains and the health benefits of cardio to do? Anything short of “stop everything you’re doing and kiss your cardio performance goodbye”?

          • I’ve always been clear there are other reasons to perform cardio than fat loss and cardio can be implemented successfully in a fat loss program. Several of my female competitors perform cardio and I have several clients that perform sports/cardio simply because they enjoy it. But it’s crucial to realize that the application here is aimed at damage control and the cardio is not a positive force for strength development or muscle growth.

  2. Rdmkr says:

    You know, even if you are right that there is a serious negative impact to muscle gains from doing cardio, accounting for long-run energy-balance and adaptation delays, I think it is quite defensible to do a lot of it alongside strength training, let me explain…

    Say that have a cardio performance level you want to get to and a muscle mass level you want to get to. To do either of these independently might take you 2 years each. Say that training up to both levels at the same time would slow down your rate of progress on both metrics to 50%. Now it takes you 4 years to reach both performance levels.

    To me, this would be the break-even point at which I would neither recommend nor advise against training concurrently. You’re not losing anything, because any gains you give up in one area are matched by gains in the other. In fact I would consider the training still somewhat synergetic, because it is possible to reach both levels in the same body. What you end up with is a lot better than where you’d be if you did only one of the two forms of training.

    Now, obviously you’d be making a lot more effort to get there, but for guys like you and me, effort is not a variable we try to minimize. If anything we’re excited by the possibility to train that much harder for the extra results. Speaking for myself at least.

Leave a Comment