How to diet fast 1 week

"Thats all the exercise in induced T-response, bro. Now shut up, I got to squat!"

Yes, this is another of those rodent studies of which we simply dont know if the results will eventually translate to humans. In contrast to previous studies on CLA, which dealt with weight loss and produced marvelous results (see "CLA Destroys Body Fat & Increases Endurance!" | read more) which could not be reproduced in human trials.

This very recent paper from Italy deals with CLAs effects on exercise, testosterone, and potential gains in muscle mass and leaves the parameter body fat out of the equation (Barone. 2013).

"Hold on, thats not news, is it?"

When Roy Nelson shot me the link to the pertinent paper by Rosario Barone et al. (2013), the above, i.e. "Hold on, thats not news, is it?" was actually my first thought. After all, I had written about the purported muscle building effects of CLA in the past (see "Review Claims: CLA & Fish Oil Improve "Anabolic" Effects of Exercise - What Does the SuppVersity Sniff Test Say?" | read more). After briefly checking my previous article, I did realize, though: This is news!

The previous article did not discuss the same results. It did however come from the same team of Italian researches and made the claim that CLA & fish oil would be natural anabolics (read it!) - a claim I reviewed and wrote:

"[...] as far as ergogenic and/or anabolic effects are concerned, CLA is unquestionably the more promising fatty acid off the "two" (actually we are talking about four fatty acids, here: DHA + EPA = fish oil and cis-9,trans-11 and trans-10,cis-12 CLA)." (SuppVersity. 2013)

I have to admit, though, that I was thinking of CLAs ability to block the storage of body fat on a bulk, primarily - not so much about its not yet fully, but at least half-way established effects on exercise performance. The testosterone boosting effects, on the other hand, were something I discarded, so that its about time to look at them more closely.

In vitro + in vivo - thats the way Barone et al. did it

In a first attempt to access the effects of CLA on the testicular androgen production, the scientists from the University and Hospital of Palermo conducted a couple of tests in the petri dish. Usually boring stuff, if it were not for geeks like me (and some of you) who always ask the nasty question: "Why".

Figure 1: The same research group published a paper that showed increased testosterone in young men on a resistance training regimen. It is therefore not totally unlikely that the results do translate to human beings; the figure shows the total testosterone before vs. after a workout in ng/dl (Macaluso. 2012)

In this case, we are lucky, because Barone et al. did not focus solely on the amount of steroids the the leydig tumour cells (dont worry that should work with regular cells, as well) were spilling out. They also tested for enzymatic changes and observed that as 17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase (CYP17A1), which converts progesterone into androstenedione and has  been demonstrated to have direct downstream effects on the testosterone production (Svechnikov. 2009; Weisser. 2011).

As every SuppVersity reader knows, the cytochrome P450 enzyme cascade is on of the most powerful and overlooked actors in the steroid orchestrate. While CYP17A1, which does effectively increase the production of testosterone pre-cursors and will thus exert an indirect beneficial effect on the testosterone production, other members of the cytochrome family facilitate the conversion and clearance of testosterone.

Against that background it was sound to expect to observe similar effects in the in-vivo part of the study. The interplay with other enzymes, however, could easily have thwarted the results. Outside of the petri dish the sheer number of variables that could change the outcome of the study makes it more or less impossible to predict the "exact" study outcome and - I want to emphasize this - the latter could well look slightly or completely different from what you see in Figure 2, when you went ahead and tried to support your training efforts with 4g of the patented Tonalin® FFA 80:

Figure 2: Free testosterone and CYP17A1 expression in the supplemented (CLA-) /  unsupplemented (PLA-) mice after 6 weeks of no (SED) or 15-60min (ramp up) of exercise 5x per week (Barone. 2013).

I hope you did notice the important hint I hid in the last sentence above Figure 2, where it says: "Support your training efforts..." If you didnt take a look at Figure 2 ... I guess, its obvious to see that this short insert is of paramount importance: No training, no CLA bonus!

"The protein expression of CYP17A1 was significantly higher in both the trained groups (PLA-TR and CLA-TR) compared to the sedentary groups (PLA-SED and CLA-SED) (P <0.01). Moreover, CLA supplementation induced a further increase in CYP17A1 protein in the CLA-TR group compared to the PLA-TR group (P < 0.01)" (Barone. 2013)

In other words, training alone is a CYP17A1 powered testosterone booster and CLA is an adjuvant, which has no effect in the absence of 6 weeks with five "cardio" sessions/week at an ever-increasing pace and duration (15-60min and 3.2-4.8m/min from week 1-6).

References:

• Barone, R, Macaluso F, Catanese P, Marino Gammazza A, Rizzuto L, et al. Endurance Exercise and Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) Supplementation Up-Regulate CYP17A1 and Stimulate Testosterone Biosynthesis.  PLoS ONE 8(11): e79686.
• Macaluso F, Morici G, Catanese P, Ardizzone NM, Marino Gammazza A, Bonsignore G, Lo Giudice G, Stampone T, Barone R, Farina F, Di Felice V. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on testosterone levels in vitro and in vivo after an acute bout of resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Jun;26(6):1667-74.
• Svechnikov K, Spatafora C, Svechnikova I, Tringali C, Söder O. Effects of resveratrol analogs on steroidogenesis and mitochondrial function in rat Leydig cells in vitro. J Appl Toxicol. 2009 Nov;29(8):673-80.
• Weisser J, Landreh L, Söder O, Svechnikov K. Steroidogenesis and steroidogenic gene expression in postnatal fetal rat Leydig cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2011 Jul 20;341(1-2):18-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2011.03.008.

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.
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.