True or False: "Washing Your Fruit and Veggies is Useless - You Can't Wash Away the Pesticides, Anyway!"

It's a good idea to wash your veggies, but this is not the most effective method. Bath them in warm water, don't wash them under the faucet.

Despite the fact that I had my reasons to end the SuppVersity "True or False" Series back in the day. The popularity of the corresponding articles that appear from time to time as SuppVersity Classics on Facebook does yet tell me that you won't be mad at me, if I revive it and try to tackle a statement I've overheard in one of those infamous gym conversations between two ladies on the cross-trainer: "I always wash those pepper extra thoroughly, you know... tomatoes are among the veggies with the highest amounts of pesticides on them." Answer lady two: "Ha, you don't really believe the pesticides are on the outside of the tomatoes only, do you? They are in the tomato. Washing them will at best remove some of the dirt on their skin!"

True or False: "It's useless to wash your peppers."

False - I was surprised, when I realized that the answer to this True or False item was much easier to find than I had thought. It took me a while, though, before I found a study that analyzed data from more than just one vegetable variety, but the basic answer,  i.e. "No, it's not useless to wash your peppers - quite the contrary!" popped up right in my first cursory database search.

Figure 1: Amount of ethylenebisdithiocarbamates and chlorpyrifos on selected vegetable (µg/kg) before and after washing; the figure above the bars indicate %-change from pre to post washing (Chavarri. 2004; Randhawa. 2007)

If you look at the data of two studies I selected more or less randomly (see Figure 1) you will yet see that the effectiveness of the "wash away the pesticide approach" depends on both, the type of vegetable and the type of pesticide. With a mean total endusulfan reduction of >20% it should however be absolutely obvious that not washing your veggies would be wreckless.

Table 1: Current European Union Maximum Residue Levels in mg/kg (Council Directives 76/895/EEC and 90/642/EEC, last revised in June 2004)

Artificially contamination ➫ standardization: The baseline pesticide level of the vegetables in the Chavarri study was achieved by spraying fresh produce from controlled plots with no previous pesticide applications with those pesticides farmers usually use in the EU. The reason should be obvious: standardization. Thus, the pesticide levels were within the contemporary EU limits (s. Table 1) - something you cannot necessarily expect from every product you buy in the supermarket.

I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you to that it's unquestionably healthy not to be exposed to the full load of 24µ/kg chlorpyrifos and 1,626µg/kg ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (both have carcinogenic effects in humans; cf. Houeto. 1995, Josephson. 2005), from the tomatoes - specifically in view of the fact that 5.% of the tomatoes that are sold in the EU exceed the contemporary pesticide limits (Nasreddine. 2002) and would thus contain way more of these hazardous substances to begin with.

Aprospos washing! How do you do that?

You don't know how to wash veggies? Well, I obviously can't tell you what the absolute optimal way is, but what I can tell you is how scientists washed the specimen that were used in the studies the data in Figure 1 is based on: They placed the veggies in a dish or a clean lavatory with warm tap water and cleaned them with "gentle rotations of the hand" (Randhawa. 2007), before they grapped a conventional paper towel and blotted them dry.

Figure 2:  Illustration of the processing steps in Chavarri et al. (2007).

That's similar to what you do? Great, and you know what, I would bet that's not the only similarity between yourself and the average scientist. Just like you, scientists don't eat all their veggies raw. Consequently, both Chavarri et al. as well as Randhawa et al. conducted additional analyses of the pesticide content of their veggies after the produce had been blanched (the peppers were roasted, not blanched), peeled, pureed (Chavarri. 2004; see Figure 1) and cooked or peeled and cooked (Randhawa. 2007), respectively.

Figure 3: Relative ethylenebisdithiocarbamates and total endosulfan levels (in % of baseline) after washing, peeling, blanching / cooking & co. (Chavarri. 2004; Randhawa. 2007)

As you can see in Figure 3, each of these processing steps lead to a further reduction of pesticides. For the initially highly intoxicated asparagus, for example, even the last traces of pesticides ended up in the cooking water. If you would now decide to recycle the water for a soup or whatever, all your efforts to rid yourself of the pesticide would have been in vein.

"Conventional vs. Organic is not about getting more, but about getting  less for your money" | more

Bottom line: Wash your damn veggies you lazy *****! If you still don't believe that it's well worth spending this inconvenient extra-minute it takes to prepare warm water (28-32 °C), put your foods in, scrub a little with your hand and then continue processing them, I'd suggest you take a look at a recent meta-analysis from Ghent University in which the authors dealt with the exact same question and conclude:

"Reduction of residue levels was indicated by blanching, boiling, canning, frying, juicing, peeling and washing of fruits and vegetables with an average response ratio ranging from 0.10 to 0.82." (Keikotlhaile. 2010)

References:

• Chavarri, M. J., Herrera, A., & Arino, A. (2005). The decrease in pesticides in fruit and vegetables during commercial processing. International journal of food science & technology, 40(2), 205-211. 
• Houeto, P., Bindoula, G., & Hoffman, J. R. (1995). Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates and ethylenethiourea: possible human health hazards. Environmental health perspectives, 103(6), 568.
• Keikotlhaile, B. M., Spanoghe, P., & Steurbaut, W. (2010). Effects of food processing on pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables: a meta-analysis approach. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(1), 1-6.
• Nasreddine, L., & Parent-Massin, D. (2002). Food contamination by metals and pesticides in the European Union. Should we worry?. Toxicology letters, 127(1), 29-41.
• Randhawa, M. A., Anjum, F. M., Asi, M. R., Butt, M. S., Ahmed, A., & Randhawa, M. S. (2007). Removal of endosulfan residues from vegetables by household processing. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 66(10), 849.

True or False: Foamy Slim.Fast is Better Slim.Fast | Stable Liquid Foams Increase Satiety by 50-100% | NO2-Aerated Foods Can Promote Dieting Efforts. Mechanism Unknown.

Would this work w/ this foam, as well?

We all know (hopefully) that there is not magic weight loss bullet, but who knows, maybe there is a magic weight loss foam... don't worry I am just kidding, but if you look at the data Sergey M. Melnikov et al. present in a recent study in the scientific journal Obesity, it looks as if foamy foods could be one out of many tools in your weight loss toolbox.

The scientists who work for Anglo–Dutch multinational consumer goods company Univlever conducted two randomized cross-over studies.

You can find more True or False articles at the SuppVersity

Pasta "Al Dente" = Anti-Diabetic

Vinegar & Gums for Weight Loss

Teflon Pans Will Kill You!

Yohimbine Burns Stubborn Fat

You Can Wash Pesticides Away

Milk = Poisonous Hormone Cocktail

In study one, the 24 volunteers the scientists had recruited for their trials consumed a full portion liquid (325 ml, 190 kcal) or aerated (1,000 ml, 190 kcal) of a commercial Slim.Fast drink at 0 min, or half portions of liquid (162 ml, 95 kcal) or aerated (500 ml, 95 kcal) of the same well-known diet beverage at 0 and 120 min.

Figure 1: Hunger scores as a function of time after ingestion of Lfull (liquid, 190 kcal, 325 ml), Afull (aerated, 190 kcal, 1,000 ml), Lhalf (liquid, 95 kcal, 162 ml), and Ahalf (aerated, 95 kcal, 500 ml) treatments (left) and corresponding area under the curve for the two treatments (Melnikov. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1, the aeration of the Optima Milk Chocolate RTD from Slim.Fast (325 ml 330 g, 190 kcal, 15 g protein, 5 g fat, 21 g carbohydrates + vitamin/mineral mix) led to significantly more pronounced and sustained decreases in hunger compared to the non-aerated regular diet drink; and that in spite of the fact that both contained the exact same amount of nutrients and energy.

Want to make your own coconut foam? One you can use for your desserts like the chef who made the dessert on the left did?

Here is a guide that explains how you can create your own food foams. All you need is a compressed Nitrous Oxide dispenser and NO2 chargers. Well, and the ingredients you want to have in your foams, obviously.

Now, as usual, the question is: What's the mechanism of action, here? To answer this question and find out, whether it's just a question of volume or if the texture of the foam is involved in one way or another, Melnikov et al. conducted a second study. This time, the subjects consumed plain water that was either saturated with N2O or with CO2 10 min after a mini-drink (180 kcal). If it was just the NO2 there should be a similar increase in satiety as it was observed for the aerated Slim.Fast drink.

Is it the texture that makes the difference? Or is it just about volume? Or even the NO2?

As you can see in  (see Figure 2) this was not the case. The absence of significant effects suggest that the satiety effects is not simply attributable to any remarkable effect of the gas (N2O) that is added to the drink to create the foamy texture. That's in line with what the authors write about previous studies, ...

Figure 2: Hunger ratings in study 2 - no effect of NO2 alone vs. CO2  (Melnikov. 2014)

"[...which] have shown that entrapped air can effect an acute enhancement of satiety following single preloads of milkshakes (Rolls. 2000) or ready-to-eat cereals (Irvine. 2007), but effects are small and the duration of the satiety effects was not shown.

A small effect of carbonation on satiety has also been demonstrated over short periods and mainly seen with much higher gas volumes than used here (Moorhead. 2008)." (Melnikov. 2014)

Accordingly, the satiety effects may, as Melnikov et al. suggest, be attributable to the effect of aeration on gastric handling of the ingesta, which is related to an increased separation of nutrients in the stomach. Alternatively, the results could also be simply explained by the effect of the foam itself on gastric volume. If the latter was the case, results of previous studies would suggest that "the consumption of 1,000 or 500 ml foam would be sufficient to reduce eating motivations" (Melnikov. 2014).

Bottom line: The duration of the beneficial effects on satiety speak against the "increased gastric volume hypothesis", as it was far more pronounced than might be expected from previously published examples.

Can xanthan reduce the glycemic response to "sweet treats" like this?

In the end, we will probably need further studies to elucidate if there is an independent effect of textural food properties such as viscosity and hardness (liquid vs. semisolid vs. solid), which have been previously shown to influence the appetite and satiety response to foods (Martin. 2007). Until corresponding studies have been conducted, we are left with the intriguing insight that aeration of products with a particular composition, structure, and stability can dramatically enhance the degree and duration of post-meal suppression of eating motivations and could thus help overweight and normal-weight individuals, alike, to control their food intakes and body weight | Comment on FB!

References:

• Irvine, Paul, Barbara Livingstone, and Robert Welch. "Bulk density of ready-to-eat cereals affects satiety and subsequent intakes in young women." International Journal Of Obesity. Vol. 31. Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan St, London N1 9xw, England: Nature Publishing Group, 2007. 
• Martin, Corby K., et al. "Slower eating rate reduces the food intake of men, but not women: implications for behavioral weight control." Behaviour research and therapy 45.10 (2007): 2349-2359. 
• Melnikov, Sergey M., et al. "Sustained hunger suppression from stable liquid food foams." Obesity (2014).
• Moorhead SA, Livingstone M, Dunne A, Welch RW. "The level of carbonation of a
  sugar-sweetened beverage preload affects satiety and short-term energy and food
  intakes." Br J Nutr 99 (2008):1362-1369.
• Rolls, Barbara J., Elizabeth A. Bell, and Bethany A. Waugh. "Increasing the volume of a food by incorporating air affects satiety in men." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.2 (2000): 361-368.

True or False: You Can (Ab-)Use Nicotine Chewing Gums to Get Shredded Without Compromising Your Health

Nicotine gums are made for smokers. Smokers are leaner than no-smokers. Chewing nicotine gums helps you lean out... broscience? Logic? Or bullshit?

It's one of the better-known pieces of broscience: "Nicotine chewing gums will promote weight loss!" Aside from being "better-known", it's yet also highly controversial. In that, people usually don't question the fact that nicotine chewing gums may promote weight loss (we do all know that smokers, are leaner, don't we?), but rather that they do so in the absence of significant ill-health effects.

Since this is the SuppVersity and not the bb.com bulletin board, I am not going to restrict today's analysis on the health issues. Instead, I will start by looking for scientific evidence that would confirm the common sense assumption that chewing nicotine gums does in fact promote weight loss -- in humans, not in rodents (Lupien. 1988).

You can find more True or False articles at the SuppVersity

Pasta "Al Dente" = Anti-Diabetic

Vinegar & Gums for Weight Loss

Teflon Pans Will Kill You!

Yohimbine Burns Stubborn Fat

You Can Wash Pesticides Away

High Volume Diet = Success

Let's first take a look at the connection between nicotine and body weight management in general. In 2006 Chen et al. published an intriguing paper the title of which could in fact explain why smokers tend to be lighter than non-smokers (for US citizens that's ~ 3.7% leaner; cf. Albanes. 1987): "Cigarette Smoke Exposure Reprograms the Hypothalamic Neuropeptide Y Axis to Promote Weight Loss" (Chen. 2006)

According to Chen et al., the anorexic effects they observed in a 4 week rodent study are behind the anti-obesity effects of smoking. Similar effects on appetite in general and reductions in sugar cravings (Grunberg. 1982) in human studies as well. Nevertheless, if a reduction in appetite was the only beneficial effect of nicotine would be limited to phases of ad-libitum dieting. A direct effect on fat loss, as it is implied by broscience, on the other hand, would not exist.

Beware of becoming skinny fat! While the average smoker may be lighter, he is not necessarily leaner. The results of a 1989 study by Shimokata et al. show that smokers have higer waist-to-hip ratios and "indicate that there are harmful effects of cigarette smoking on the pattern of distribution of body fat" i.e. away from the harmless body parts, i.e. the extremities and right to the epicenter of unhealthy fat: the waist! Due to the fact that cigarette smoking is also associated with unhealthy eating habits (Dallongeville. 1998), it's yet difficult to tell, whether this effect is (solely) due to the cigarettes.

If it was not for Schechter et al. and other scientists who report "nicotine-induced weight loss in rats without an effect on appetite" (Schechter. 1976), I could stop here and tell you that (a) you obviously don't want to chew nicotine gums for the rest of your life to benefit from its appetite suppressing phases and that (b) it wouldn't make sense to chew them in a phase, where you're counting calories, anyway (if you want the appetite suppressing effects, anyway, add caffeine, this will enhance them; Jessen. 2005).

Figure 1: Body weight and food intake in 13 week rodent study with 0.4mg/kg and 0.8mg/kg (right) of nicotine administered in solution or saline control thrice daily (Schechter. 1976)

Thanks to the impressive reduction in body weight Schlechter et al. observed in the previously cited rodent study in the absence of statistically significant reductions in food intake (graphs at the bottom of Figure 1), it's worth to keep digging further.

Figure 2: (a) Male body weights before, during, and after nicotine or saline administration; (b) Female body weights before, during, and after nicotine or saline administration (Grunberg. 1987)

Ladies, beware! The non-food related weight loss could be a "male only thing"! According to Grunberg et al. "the nicotine-related changes in body weight were accompanied by changes in bland food and water consumption" in female rodents - as the authors point out, a significant difference to previous studies (Grunberg. 1986). Accordingly, a follow-up study showed: "The body weight of females that had received nicotine were indistinguishable from controls up to 4 months after cessation of nicotine. The body weight of males that had received 12 mg nicotine per kg per day remained lower than controls." (Grunberg. 1897). Notably, the dreaded weight regain occured in male & female rodents (Figure 2)!

If you take a close look at the results you will yet realize that there is a big caveat to the impressive weight loss (specifically in the 3x0.8mg/kg group | human equivalent ~ 3x4mg or three high dose nicotine chewing gums). Yes, I am talking about the the nasty weight regain that occurred - likewise in the absence of increased food intakes - when the nicotine administration was seized.

Against that background, it's all the more important to find evidence from human studies. Unfortunately, the majority of studies on nicotine gums is not relevant to the topic, because they are (a) dealing with the success of smoking cessations, or (b) dealing with weight regain after smoking cessation. We will therefore have to resort to ostensibly unrelated results such as...

• 

  Figure 3: Plasma leptin levels in non-smokers, long-term nicotine gum users and smokers after adjustment for age and body composition (Eliasson. 1999)

  the increase in leptin levels researchers from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Göteborg (Sweden) observed in a 1999 study in 73 subjects: 23 non-smokers, 31 smokers and 19 long-term nicotine gum chewers (NGCs) with similar ranges of age, body mass index (BMI) and per cent body fat. As the authors of the corresponing paper point out, "[t]he increased leptin levels may be an important reason for the lower body weight in smokers." (Eliasson. 1999). Unfortunately "long-term" is nothing you would associate with the use of nicotine gums as diet adjuvant.
  
  As suggestive as they may be, the increases in leptin are thus probably not relevant for short term decreases in body weight - or even better body fat - as you would expect them, when you're dieting.
• the association with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance the same Swedish researchers from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital observed in a previous investigation (Taskinen. 1996) clearly suggest that the chronic consumption of nicotine leads to insulin resistance, metabolic abnormalities associated with the insulin resistance syndrome, and increased cardiovascular morbidity.
  
  On the other hand, we are - I can't repeat that often enough - not talking about the chronic use of nicotine gums, but their (ab-)use for 4-6 weeks to propel your fat loss results. Eventually, the results are thus as irrelevant as the previously mentioned beneficial effects on leptin (see previous bullet-point).

• 

  Figure 4: Thermogenic effect in 150min after the ingestion of nicotine and / or caffeine (Jessen. 2003)

  the "pronounced" thermogenic effect researchers from the The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Denmark observed in their 2003 study. Aside from scientific evidence that the administration of nicotine has thermogenic effects, the second important result of the study at hand is the observation hat the thermogenic effects  of 1 mg nicotine (measured over 150 min after the ingestion) can be (almost) doubled, if the nicotine is administered in conjunction with 100 mg of caffeine (Jessen. 2004).
  
  It's also important to note that "[i]ncreasing the nicotine dose to 2 mg does not increase the thermogenic effect but produces side effects in most subjects." (Jessen. 2003) More is thus, as so often, not better for nicotine (a similar non-linear dose-response effect was observed with cigarettes, as well; cf. Collins. 1996). A previous study by Collinset al. (1994) found a 7.5% increase in resting energy expenditure with 200mg of caffeine and a similarly low amount of nicotine, i.e. 0.8mg of nicotine from cigarette smoke over a 3h period.

If you take a look at the evidence I provided, it supports the previously raised concerns about the long-term use of nicotine gums. On the other hand, the study by Jessen et al., as well as the study Collins et al. who didn't just find a similar synergistic effect of caffeine and nicotine, but were also able to show that the effects occur in both smokers and non-smokers (Collins. 1994; similar results in Perkins. 1989), clearly indicate that the short-term (ab-)use of nicotine gums may in fact promote the loss of body weight and - assuming you're getting your 1.5g/kg protein and lifting heavy objects - body fat, as well.

Figure 5: The increase in thermo- genesis due to 4x20µg intranasal nicotine is impressive in men, non- significant in women (Perkins. 1996)

Do men better sniff their nicotine?! While snuff is obviously not identical to an intranasal nicotine spray, the results Perkins et al. present in their 1996 study which investigated the effects of 4x20µg/kg nicotine that was administered intranasally every 30 minutes for 2h after the consumption of tonic water or alcohol are quite impressive... well, at least in men. In contrast to the male subjects in whom the nicotine only increased the energy expenditure by almost 13%, the 3.8% increase in the female study subjects was not significant! Whether that's a result of the absolutely lower dosage (remember the nicotine was dose per body weight) or a true sex-difference is uncertain.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to say whether these benefits come with significant negative effects on your health. Evidence on short-term effects of nicotine abuse in human beings is scarce. Furthermore studies in non-smokers suggest that healthy people and people with pre-existing problems with glucose management react differently, with the former experiencing no and the latter experiencing severe reductions in insulin resistance in response to the acute infusion of nicotine in a 2001 study by Axelsson et al.

Figure 6: Negative effects of nicotine on insulin sensitivity occur only in diabetics (Axelsson. 2001)

As far as the dreaded increases in insulin resistance are concerned, you could thus argue that the contemporary evidence suggest that healthy athletic individuals have nothing to fear. Since the same appears to be true for the negative effects on platelet count (Mundal. 1995), blood pressure and other markers of cardiovascular health (Benowitz. 2002). For people who belong to one of the classic risk groups, i.e. men and women with metabolic syndrome and / or existing heart condition, the use of nicotine gum may yet easily result in a hospital stay or worse (Rigotti. 1986).

If you want to try it, try this: 200mg caffeine + 1mg nicotine from chewing gums upon rising, another 200mg of caffeine and 1mg nicotine at lunch or pre-workout, additional 2x 100mg caffeine + 1mg nicotine between breakfast and lunch and lunch and dinner.

Bottom line - True! For healthy athletic folks! Just to make that clear. I am not, by any means recommending the use of nicotine gums for weight loss. All I do is to answer the often heard question whether the bro-scientific assumption that they'd help you shed body fat is true.

And, by the way, the study that would confirm that "dieting + nicotine" = greater weight / fat loss than "dieting alone" has not yet been conducted. If you want to do your own N=1 study, do it at your own risk. Next to potential (albeit for healthy people probably controllable health issues), it appears as if there was also a minimal risk of addiction for never-smokers (Etter. 2007) | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Albanes, Demetrius, et al. "Associations between smoking and body weight in the US population: analysis of NHANES II." American Journal of Public Health 77.4 (1987): 439-444.
• Axelsson, T., et al. "Nicotine infusion acutely impairs insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic patients but not in healthy subjects." Journal of internal medicine 249.6 (2001): 539-544.
• Benowitz, Neal L., Anna Hansson, and Peyton Jacob. "Cardiovascular effects of nasal and transdermal nicotine and cigarette smoking." Hypertension 39.6 (2002): 1107-1112.
• Chen, Hui, et al. "Cigarette smoke exposure reprograms the hypothalamic neuropeptide Y axis to promote weight loss." American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 173.11 (2006): 1248-1254.
• Collins, L. C., et al. "Effect of caffeine and/or cigarette smoking on resting energy expenditure." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 18.8 (1994): 551-556. 
• Collins, Lynell C., Jerome Walker, and Bryant A. Stamford. "Smoking multiple high-versus low-nicotine cigarettes: impact on resting energy expenditure." Metabolism 45.8 (1996): 923-926.
• Dallongeville, Jean, et al. "Cigarette smoking is associated with unhealthy patterns of nutrient intake: a meta-analysis." The Journal of nutrition 128.9 (1998): 1450-1457.
• Eliasson, Björn, and Ulf Smith. "Leptin levels in smokers and long‐term users of nicotine gum." European journal of clinical investigation 29.2 (1999): 145-152. 
• Etter, Jean-François. "Addiction to the nicotine gum in never smokers." BMC public health 7.1 (2007): 159.
• Grunberg, Neil E., Deborah J. Bowen, and Suzan E. Winders. "Effects of nicotine on body weight and food consumption in female rats." Psychopharmacology 90.1 (1986): 101-105.
• Grunberg, Neil E. "The effects of nicotine and cigarette smoking on food consumption and taste preferences." Addictive behaviors 7.4 (1982): 317-331.
• Grunberg, N. E., S. E. Winders, and K. A. Popp. "Sex differences in nicotine's effects on consummatory behavior and body weight in rats." Psychopharmacology 91.2 (1987): 221-225.
• Jessen, Anna B., Søren Toubro, and Arne Astrup. "Effect of chewing gum containing nicotine and caffeine on energy expenditure and substrate utilization in men." The American journal of clinical nutrition 77.6 (2003): 1442-1447.
• Jessen, A., et al. "The appetite‐suppressant effect of nicotine is enhanced by caffeine*." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 7.4 (2005): 327-333. 
• Mundal, H. H., K. Gjesdal, and P. Hjemdahl. "Acute effects of low dose nicotine gum on platelet function in non-smoking hypertensive and normotensive men." European journal of clinical pharmacology 47.5 (1995): 411-416. 
• Lupien, John R., and George A. Bray. "Nicotine increases thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue in rats." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 29.1 (1988): 33-37.
• Perkins, Kenneth A., et al. "Metabolic effects of nicotine in smokers and non-smokers." Problems of Drug Dependence 1989 (1989): 469.
• Perkins, Kenneth A., Joan E. Sexton, and Amy DiMarco. "Acute thermogenic effects of nicotine and alcohol in healthy male and female smokers." Physiology & behavior 60.1 (1996): 305-309.
• Rigotti, Nancy A., and Kim A. Eagle. "Atrial fibrillation while chewing nicotine gum." Jama 255.8 (1986): 1018-1018.
• Schechter, Martin D., and Peter G. Cook. "Nicotine-induced weight loss in rats without an effect on appetite." European journal of pharmacology 38.1 (1976): 63-69.
• Taskinen, Marja-Riitta, and Ulf Smith. "Long-term use of nicotine gum is associated with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance." Circulation 94.5 (1996): 878-881.

True or False? Glycine & Proline Supplements Ramp Up Collagen Synthesis & Improve Joint Health. Plus: The Tripeptide Advantage of Collagen Hydrolysates

The "Paleo" cult has repopularized eating and preparing your own (Chicken) bone broth, but will this also help with bone and cartilage health?

Although you're probably thinking of collagen as the stuff that's important for joint health, its implications in human health are more far-reaching than most of us believe.

In fact, collagens are the most abundant group of organic macro-molecules in human and animal body. Because of their tensile strength, they perform numerous structural functions within the body - specifically in connective tissues which include among other tissue also organs as your heart, your intestines, your lungs and the parenchymal organs like the liver and the kidneys and even the fibrous matrix of skin and blood vessels.

As I already said, collagens are yet by far best known as structural components of the protein matrix of the skeleton and its related structures, like bones, teeth, tendons, cartilage and ligament, which bring us back to the original question that bothered me after assuring Chris who emailed me asking about the necessity of taking glycine and proline supplements in the absence of any other protein (my answer was "that's bullocks"): Do glycine and problem supplements even help with collagen synthesis and joint health? Or is the supplement vendor next door the only person who benefits?

You can find more True or False articles at the SuppVersity

Pasta "Al Dente" = Anti-Diabetic

Vinegar & Gums for Weight Loss

Teflon Pans Will Kill You!

Yohimbine Burns Stubborn Fat

You Can Wash Pesticides Away

High Volume Diet = Success

We do have evidence (from rodent studies) that the ingestion of low molecular weight (=small peptides) collagen hydrolysates with intact glycyl-prolyl-hydroxyproline tripeptides that actually make it through the gut into the bloodstream and will increasee the organic substance content and decreased the water content of the left femur (Watanabe-Kamiyama. 2009). Previous studies had already shown hat the content of an orally administered gelatin hydrolysate will be incorporated into the cartilage tissue of rats (Oesser. 1999). Similar observations have been made by Iwai et al. for human volunteers and porcine gelatine hydrolysate, as well.

"After the oral ingestion, the peptide form of Hyp significantly increased and reached a maximum level (20-60 nmol/mL of plasma) after 1-2 h and then decreased to half of the maximum level at 4 h after the ingestion. Major constituents of food-derived collagen peptides in human serum and plasma were identified as Pro-Hyp. In addition, small but significant amounts of Ala-Hyp, Ala-Hyp-Gly, ProHyp-Gly, Leu-Hyp, Ile-Hyp, and Phe-Hyp were contained." (Iawai. 2005)

If we assume a similar physiological effect as it was observed by Watanabe-Kamiyama in rodents, the ingestion of (large) quantities of gelatine could thus very well, after it's hydrolysation in the gut, have similar effects on human cartilage tissue as the collagen hydrolysate that was used in the Watanabe-Kamiyama study.

Table 1: Summary of Structure and Recovery of Food-Derived Collagen Peptide in Human Serum or Plasma after Oral Ingestion of Gelatin Hydrolysates (Iawai. 2005).

With respect to the occurence of glycyl-polyl-hydroxproline tripeptides, of which the Watanabe-Kamiyama study suggests that they may be responsible for the beneficial effects on cartilage synthesis it should yet be said that it occurred in human plasma only after the ingestion of chicken, but not in porcine collagen in the Iawai study (see Table 1). If that's no coincidence, HARIBO, which is usually made with porcine gelatine is no "collagen builder", a real chicken soup, cooked with bone, on the other hand, could be.

Given that your stomach is working properly a nice paleo bone broth (preferably from chicken bone) could thus produce similar results as a collagen hydrolysate of which a recent review in Current Medical Research and Opinion says that its ingestion stimulates a statistically significant increase in synthesis of extracellular matrix macromolecules by chondrocytes.

There is more to collagen hydrolysates than joint health: In 2009 Saito et al. were able to show that fish collagen hydrolysates affect lipid absorption and metabolism in rats and may be useful in suppressing the transient increase of plasma triglycerides (Saito. 2009). Moreover, Spanish researchers showed that the daily dietary intake of hydrolyzed collagen seems to have a potential role in enhancing bone remodeling at key stages of growth and development in 60 children (9.42±1.31 years) who had been randomly assigned to either placebo or collagen (+ calcium) supplementation. In spite of these benefits, the ingestion of corresponding supplements is not necessary for people with healthy collagen metabolism who exercise regularly and eat clean.

Figure 1: Physician rated (top) and subject-rated (bottom) improvement in joint pain walking (left) and standing (right) in the Clark study (Clark. 2008).

The authors, researchers from the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago and the University of Kiel in Germany add:

"These findings suggest mechanisms that might help patients affected by joint disorders such as OA. Four open-label and three double-blind studies were identified and reviewed; although many of these studies did not provide key information – such as the statistical significance of the findings – they showed collagen hydrolysate to be safe and to provide improvement in some measures of pain and function in some men and women with OA or other arthritic conditions." (Bello. 2006)

Subsequent studies such as Benito-Ruiz et al. (2009) or Clark et al. who evaluated data from 97 athletes from a varsity team or a club sport in Pennsylvania support Bello's conclusion (see Figure 1).

Similar beneficial effects were also observed by  et al. in a more recent study with "normal" subjects with articular pain in response to 1,200mg/day of collagen hydrolysate (Bruyère. 2012). When we're looking into the effects of single amino acids, however, things look different. If they're ingested separately, glycine and proline are not going to form a tripeptide in the course of the digestive process. And while they may still serve as a raw material for the endogenous synthesis of such peptides the chance that they actively promote the synthesis of new collagen is slim.

Biologically active tripeptides, not just glycine & proline is what you want!

Bottom line: Collagen hydrolysates with intact tripeptides seem to have a beneficial effect on collagen synthesis. Classic broth and gelatine, both best made from chicken bones (absorption data on beef is not available), could have beneficial effects on collagen synthesis. In view of the chance that and rate at which the physiologically relevant  glycyl-prolyl-hydroxyproline tripeptides (see image to the right) are produced during the natural digestion process it does yet appear certain that you would have to garble down tons of it on a daily basis to actually trigger collagen synthesis and not just to do what individual amino acids could probably do as well: provide the necessary substrates without actually accelerating collagen synthesis.

Chris' original question whether you'd have to take glycine and proline supplement on their own and in the absence of any other proteins and amino acids would thus actually be obsolete (you shouldn't take them at all), but I guess it may be worth mentioning that doing that, i.e. taking them on their own will only increase the "risk" of both being used by the liver as a substrate for glyconeogenesis (proline for example has the 3rd highest potential for gluconeogenesis 75% of the most glycogenic amino acid, i.e alanine; cf. Ross. 1967) - especially if you top "taking them on their own" with "taking them during a fast".

References:

• Bello, Alfonso E., and Steffen Oesser. "Collagen hydrolysate for the treatment of osteoarthritis and other joint disorders: a review of the literature." Current Medical Research and Opinion® 22.11 (2006): 2221-2232.
• Benito-Ruiz, P., et al. "A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of a food ingredient, collagen hydrolysate, for improving joint comfort." International journal of food sciences and nutrition 60.S2 (2009): 99-113. 
• Bruyère, Olivier, et al. "Effect of collagen hydrolysate in articular pain: a 6-month randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study." Complementary therapies in medicine 20.3 (2012): 124-130.
• Iwai, Koji, et al. "Identification of food-derived collagen peptides in human blood after oral ingestion of gelatin hydrolysates." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 53.16 (2005): 6531-6536.
• Oesser, Steffen, et al. "Oral administration of 14C labeled gelatin hydrolysate leads to an accumulation of radioactivity in cartilage of mice (C57/BL)." The Journal of nutrition 129.10 (1999): 1891-1895. 
• Ross, B. D., R. Hems, and H. A. Krebs. "The rate of gluconeogenesis from various precursors in the perfused rat liver." Biochem. J 102 (1967): 942-951.
• Saito, Masataka, et al. "Effect of collagen hydrolysates from salmon and trout skins on the lipid profile in rats." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 57.21 (2009): 10477-10482.
• Watanabe-Kamiyama, Mari, et al. "Absorption and effectiveness of orally administered low molecular weight collagen hydrolysate in rats." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 58.2 (2009): 835-841.

True or False: Older Men Have a Much Harder Time Building Strength, Building Muscle Borders the Impossible!

Are you training for nothing, if you are "too old" (whatever that may be)? Find out in today's SuppVersity Article!

"The older we get, the weaker we are." That's something most normal men accept as a given truth - according to the latest science, it does yet appear as if it was more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Researchers from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity and Neuromuscular research Center at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland have recently conducted a study to verify the common sense assumption that older men are having a much harder time to to maintain / increase their muscle strength than young ones.

To find out, whether this would also be true for those, who are willing to succumb to a high volume, medium load “hypertrophic” resistance training, the Häkkinen et al. recruited young (28 ± 5 yr, 179 ± 6 cm, 77 ± 12 kg, 21 ± 8 percent fat) and older (65 ± 4 yr, 177 ± 6 cm, 80 ± 10 kg, 23 ± 6 percent fat) men via an advertisement in a local newspaper.

Especially for older guys the anti-catabolic effects of HMB could be of interest!

HMB + Over- reaching = WIN

HMB, ATP, Gylcogen

HMB Pre- or Post-Workout

Does HMB Block Fat Loss?

Don't Waste Money on Aminos

HMB Blocks Muscle Damage

The experimental groups consisted of 23 young and 26 older men (training groups) and the non training control groups consisted of 10 young and 11 older men. The goal was to achieve maximum strength, muscle mass and muscle activation of the lower limbs in both groups.

Table 1:  Resistance training program of the young and older experimental groups (performed with resistance machines)

To this ends, both groups performed 10 weeks of whole-body resistance training twice per week with the emphasis on lower limb exercises. The training program consisted of high volume, medium intensity exercise with short inter-set rest intervals, as it is typically performed by bodybuilders (i.e. 2-5 sets of 8-14 repetitions, 1-2 min rest).

Lower limb exercises, i.e. leg press, knee extension and knee flexion, were performed before upper body exercises. At least 48 h rest was required between training sessions. Maximum dynamic and isometric neuromuscular performance, as well as lean leg and muscle mass were examined before and after the training period. The changes in body composition were assessed 3-4 d and neuromuscular measurements were performed 7 d after the last training session.

Before participating in the study at hand, the "subjects were physically active but unaccustomed to resistance training for the previous 6 months." Training and testing took place throughout the day (9am-7pm), but young and older subjects were pair-matched to avoid any time-of-day effects on neuromuscular performance measurements. All subjects were given nutritional advice in an attempt to maximize muscle hypertrophy, however, no direct nutritional intervention was performed in the present study.

It's a pity that the diet wasn't controlled for. In view of our main interest, i.e. the question "Are old guys at a disadvantage", on the other hand, it's actually quite interesting, because we usually assume that older guys would have to ingest extreme amounts of protein to keep up with their younger competitors. In the study at hand, they were only told to consume ~20 g of protein within 1 hour of training and in total ~1.5–1.8 g of protein per kg body mass per day, to optimize the muscle hypertrophy response. If you add the "30g of quality (=high EAA) protein with every meal rule that's pretty much the "SuppVersity Suggested" protein intake ;-)

The resistance training program consisted of . Briefly, leg exercises (bilateral leg press, knee extension, and knee flexion) were performad before upper body and torso exercises; bench press, pulldown, shoulder press, seated row, triceps pushdown, biceps curl, abdominal crunches and back raises.

"The subjects performed medium intensity, high volume training consisting of 2–3 sets and 12–14 reps (60–70% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 1–4), then 2–3 sets and 10–12 reps (70–80% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 5–7), and 3–4 sets per exercise and 8–10 reps (75–85% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 8–10). One min rest was given between sets during weeks 1–4, and then 2 min rest was given between sets during the remaining weeks 5–10. One set was performed to failure during each training session." (Häkinnen. 2014)

As you've probably recognized by now this is a more or less classic linear periodization; a very conservative periodization technique with a lot of back up that it works (learn more about periodization).

Figure 1: Pre- and post values for 1RM and isometric leg strength (Häkkinen. 2014)

If you look at the results, you'll see that this protocol led to significant increases in one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press performance in both training groups (young: 13 ± 7 %, P < 0.001; older: 14 ± 9 %, P < 0.001).

Interestingly, said performance improvements were accompanied by increased muscle activation, assessed by voluntary activation level (29 ± 51%, P < 0.05) and electromyography amplitude (35 ± 51 %, P < 0.01) in older men only. Unfortunately, only the young men showed significantly increased lower limb lean mass (2.4 ± 2.5 %, P < 0.01), which were furthermore significantly related to the strength increments (r = 0.524, P = 0.01, n = 23).

Figure 2: The rel. changes in total lean leg mass and vastus lateralis cross sectional area leave no doubt, you can gain muscle at the age of 65+ (Häkkinen. 2014)

Bottom line - true or false? The notion that you can't get stronger if you're past the 60-year mark is flawed. The common understanding that you'll have a significantly harder time to actually increase your total muscle mass and not "just" your strength, on the other hand, appears to be accurate. The signficant local increase in vastus lateralis CSA (Figure 2) does yet indicate that it's not impossible to grow even at the age of 65+ years (keep in mind, though, the subjects were previously more or less untrained!).

Nevertheless, in general, the study appears to suggest that young men are more likely to literally "grow stronger", while older men tend to draw on improvement in the mind-muscle connection, when it comes to lifting higher weights.

References:

• Häkinnen, et al. "Similar increases in strength after short-term resistance training due to different neuromuscular adaptations in young and older men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print.