22g High EAA (6g) Protein + 36g CHO Pre- / Intra-Workout Boost Fat Oxidation & PWO Resting(!) Energy Expenditure

I don't doubt that you can do that, too!

It does sound awkward: If you mix Twinlab: Amino Fuel (22 g protein - 6 g essential amino acids | L-phenylalanine: 633 mg; Lvaline: 781 mg; L-tryptophan: 133 mg; L-threonine: 679 mg; L-isoleucine: 565 mg; L-methionine: 292 mg, L-histidine: 282 mg; L-leucine: 1350 mg; L-lysine: 1449 mg) with a regular  sports recovery drink that contains 36g of simple sugar, down half of the resulting 800ml serving of whatever you want to call this mix immediately before your workout and consume the rest during the rest periods between sets, this will have measurable effects on your resting energy expenditure and fat oxidation.

From long-term to short time effects

At first, it does questionably sound counter-intuitive that the ingestion of an EAA + carbohydrate mixture before / during would increase the resting energy expenditure and rate of fatty acid oxidation after your workout. On the other hand, if you think about the long-term effects of corresponding supplement regimen, you don't have to look far, to find evidence that they can promote both, muscle gain and fat loss (Bird. 2006).

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?

Kyle J. Hackney, Andrew R. Kelleher, and Lori L. Ploutz-Snyder from the Syracuse University speculated that the highly beneficial changes in body composition Bird et al. observed in their study participants over the course of a 12-week strength training + EAA & CHO supplementation that after "[t]hese adaptations may be related to the acute energy expenditure and substrate utilization responses in the postexercise period." (Hackney. 2013)

Figure 1: The changes in body composition (in kg) in response to 12 weeks of resistance training + placebo, CHO, EAA or CHO + EAA supplementation in 2006 study by Bird et al. "inspired" Hackney et al.

Against that background, it was only logical to conduct a study to examine how multiple bouts of resistance exercise with and without the strategically timed intake of amino acids affect the resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). The results could after all explain if the long/er) term effects on body composition that have been observed in previous studies using chronic training and supplementation regimen are maybe nothing but necessary consequences of repeated acute increases in REE or decreases in RER (you hopefully remember that a decrease in the respiratory exchange ratio signifies an increase in fatty acid oxidation).

Experimental design and results

To this ends, the researchers recruited 10 young (mean age: 23.4y) recreationally trained male participants. All of them had been participating in general resistance training exercise for a minimum of 3 days per week for at least 6 months.

Figure 2: Changes in resting energy expenditure (kcal/day) and comparison of training volume in 58g CHO (black bars) and EAA + CHO (white bars) trials (Hackney. 2013).

As you can see in Figure 2, Hackney et al.'s original hypothesis that "intake of amino acids with each resistance exercise session would lead to greater perturbations of REE and RER" (Hackney. 2013) does unquestionably hold for this population of average (rookie) gymrats.

Whether the scientists "main finding" (Hackney. 2013), i.e. the 3.61% increase in resting energy expenditure (REE) will be similarly pronounced in advanced trainees is yet as questionable as the real-world effects of this artificial value. Despite the fact that Hackney et al. are right, when they say that our resting energy expenditure "represents the largest component of [our] total daily energy expenditure (60–85%) and has been implicated as a major contributor to overall body mass management " (Hackney. 2013), I am not sure how "major" an increase of only 66kcal per day actually is... I mean,  if this pathetic increase in resting energy expenditure was the actual driving force we would need almost 100 days to shed a hilarious pound of body fat (note: the reason I use the flawed 3,500kcal = 1lbs of fat rule of thumb here is that the whole REE calculations would be pointless if you didn't put at least some faith into the "energy in vs. energy out" hypothesis of weight loss - right?)

SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Fat Loss Principles That Work: 10g+ of EAAs W/ Every Meal. Do Energetic Costs of Protein Synthesis Trigger This Effect?" |  read more

Bottom line: It stands out of question that your training success can benefit from a high EAA protein source and some carbs you consume before and during the exercise session. Whether the fat loss benefits are actually brought about by the marginally increased resting energy expenditure (REE) is yet something I doubt - it certainly helps fat loss, but clearly isn't its main motor.

Don't get me wrong, this does not imply that you will benefit from this type of "peri-workout" supplementation. And let's be honest, the end most of you probably don't care about the exact underlying mechanisms, as long as your body composition keeps improving, right?

References:

• Bird, S. P., Tarpenning, K. M., & Marino, F. E. (2006). Independent and combined effects of liquid carbohydrate/essential amino acid ingestion on hormonal and muscular adaptations following resistance training in untrained men. European journal of applied physiology, 97(2), 225-238.
• Hackney, K. J., Kelleher, A. R., & Ploutz-Snyder, L. L. (2013). Amino Acid-Carbohydrate Intake Combined with Multiple Bouts of Resistance Exercise Increases Resting Energy Expenditure. ISRN Nutrition, 2013.

What's the Optimal Dose of Vitamin D3 for Lean, Normal-, Overweight & Obese Women With Established Vitamin D Deficiency to Get 25OHD Back into the Normal Range?

Both ladies are D-ficient, but will probably need profoundly different amounts of D3 to get their 25OHD back in range.

Actually, I guess, I don't really have to tell you that there is not going to be guest post by Adelfo Cerame, today. Adelfo is busy with the last weeks of school, but will be back as soon as he has passed all the tests. And while I am not sure, whether or not you would call the latest on vitamin D supplementation an adequate replacement for a contest prep update from "your's truly", I suppose that it's better than nothing to bridge the time that still remains until the SuppVersity  Science Round-Up on the Super Human Radio Network is going to air (the show starts at 12PM, EST; the Science-Round-Up airs in the 2nd hour and will thus begin at 1PM, EST; click here to listen live or wait for the podcast // update: now available).

I am honestly not yet sure what exactly we will cover today, but among the things I am still thinking about how we can squeeze them into a 1h show are...

• methylxanthines caffeine, theobromine and theophylline can bind to human DNA - what does that tell us about the purported health benefits of caffeine & co?
• caffeine prevents memory impairment - in this case in a model of sporadic Alzheimer's disease
• anti-Alzheimer's effect of CLA - plus a list of supplements that have been implicated in the prevention of Alzheimer's and other amyloid diseases such as Parkinson's, Cerebellar Ataxis, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and (hardly recognized as an amyloid disease) diabetes type II
• the effect of body weight on the benefits of circuit training in older women - turns out that those who need it the most, namely the obese, also see the greatest benefits
• Gum arabicum to ward off holiday weight gain - that this could actually work is at least what a recent human study would suggest
• more on vitamin E, resveratrol, soldiers don't get hurt in battle, but by geranium (DMAA), ...

I think there should be something for everyone of you. Plus: If everything works out, this is going to be the first show to air live via Skype, so no nagging land line echoes and noise any more.

Let's get to the D-news, now

The general consensus among the vitamin D advocates currently is that 2,000 IU of vitamin D3/day is the minimum you need to bring low levels of 25OHD back into the normal range. A soon-to-be-published study by Gallagher, Yalamanchili and Smith that's available ahead of print on the website of the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology does yet contradict this notion - at least for women with a body mass <25kg/m² even the meager RDA of 400IU would be enough (Gallagher. 2012). That said the concise paper actually describes the results of two, not just one experiment, with

• study 1 (ViDOS) being a one-year randomized, double-blind placebo controlled study (ViDOS – Vitamin D supplementation in Older Subjects) of increasing doses of vitamin D3 (400,  800, 1600, 2400, 3200, 4000 or 4800 IU/day vitamin D3 vs. placebo + calcium supplements to maintain calcium intake between 1,200-1,400mg/day) in 163 Caucasians, age 57–90 years; all vitamin D insufficienty, i.e. serum 25OHD ≤ 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l), and 
• study 2 (STOP IT) being a 3-year intervention study of calcitriol 0.25 mcg (the active form of vitamin D) twice daily, conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg  daily, a combination of both and placebo in 488 elderly women, age 65–77 years

Body composition indices for the studies at hand (i.e. percentages of total and regional fat and fat-free mass) were measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA Hologic Delphi) at baseline and after 12 months.

Figure 1: Mean total body weight, total body lean mass, total body fat mass and serum 25OHD in different BMI subgroups of study 2 (STOPIT); right, corresponding calculated ratios (based on Gallagher. 2012).

Even the baseline data in figure 1 does actually yield some insights into the relation of BMI, adiposity and 25OHD levels. While the data on the left already shows that the fat mass increases almost linearly across the BMI levels, while the lean mass remains relatively stable (with the highest value in the overweight group, though), the ratios I calculated and plotted on the right-hand side of figure 1 make it even more obvious clear: The lean / fat mass ratio scales with the BMI. With identical levels in the normal- and overweight individuals and significant increases and declines in the lightest and heaviest study participants. Moreover, the 25OHD vitamin D to fat mass ratio drops most significantly between the low BMI and the upper normal zone, where I suppose even most of the "healthy" individuals will be hovering around these days.

Being lean is a positive predictor of increases in 25OHD with supplementation

That this latent "chubbiness" of the average Westerner may be of particular significance in view of the negative / non-significant outcomes in many of the vitamin D supplementation trials, becomes self-evident, when you take a closer look at the data in figure 2, however you will have to realize that my plot which comprises above all the highly relevant relative changes (middle, marked in red) tells a different story than the original plot from the study showing only the absolute changes (left, but in form of a line graph).

Absolute, relative (compared to baseline) changes and total 25OHD levels (ng/ml) after supplementation with low, medium and high amounts of vitamin D3 in lean, normal, overweight and obese women (based on Gallagher. 2012)

Accordingly, the conclusion of the abstract, which says that "the response to vitamin D is dependent on body weight" and that "women with BMI <25 kg/m² develop much higher levels of serum 25OHD after vitamin D supplementation compared to those with BMI of >25 kg/m²" (Gallagher. 2012) may be correct, but is somewhat misleading as it is open to be interpreted as 'lean women respond most favorably to vitamin D supplementation' - an interpretation that is not really sustainable in view of the relative changes I calculated for figure 2  (middle), yet by no means as incredible as the abstract of another vitamin D study, I dessicated back in September (see "Stronger & Leaner or Fatter & Less Muscular W/ 4,000IU Vitamin D3 - What if Abstract and Data Tell Different Stories?")

Bottom line: The data from this most recent investigation into the differential response of lean, normal, overweight and obese women to vitamin D3 supplementation shows that the absolute increases appear on BMI and that...

• 

  Always take vitamin D with fatty foods! (see "A Fat D-Ficiency")

  low dose supplementation (400 or 800IU/day) is probably only sufficient to rise and maintain adequate vitamin D levels in lean women,
• medium dose supplementation (1,400 or 2,400IU/day) yields the most favorable outcomes in total 25OHD levels and 
• high dose supplementation (3,200, 4,000 or 4,800IU/day) does not yield additional benefits in either the the normal-, overweight and obese subgroup and only marginally higher levels in the lean women.

Overall the study at hand would thus support the notion that a daily vitamin D supplement containing ~2,000IU is the best way to get deficient levels back up, esp. for lean women it should be no problem to cut back to 2x the RDA, i.e. 800IU after normal vitamin D levels are achieved. For the rest, future studies will have to show if low dose supplementation is enough.

These longissimus dorsi slices of mice on a normal and a vitamin D3 supplemented diet show that supplemental vitamin D3 can be used as a fat synthesizer and meat tenderizer in "meat-producing animals". (learn more)

The often-heard hypothesis that the decreased response to vitamin D supplementation in the obese would be a result of the preferential storage of vitamin D in the adipose tissue was not supported by data of the Ghallagher study "there is no evidence from the dose response curves that in obesity serum 25OHD is being deposited in fat" (Gallagher. 2012). In view of the fact that contrary to total vitamin D, which is in fact preferentially stored in adipose tissue (78%) over lean muscle (14%), 25OHD stores are distributed much more evenly with 33% being stored in body fat and 20% in muscle tissue in omnivores like humans and swine (the data is in fact based on a study in pigs; cf. Jakobsen. 2007).

Lastly, a beneficial effect of increase / normalized vitamin D levels on lean or fat mass was (once again) not observed in any of the studies; and that despite the fact that "body fat was an independent predictor of serum PTH", which decreased in response to calcitriol supplementation in study 2 (which is actually more of an adjunct for correlative analysis and as a data source to compare the results of study 1 to). In other words, normalizing your vitamin D levels without taking appropriate measures to counter what's probably behind both, the nasty body fat and the low vitamin D level is not going to make you lean or musclar - at least as of now, it rather appears as if this was yet another instance, where we are - if anything - treating isolated symptoms instead of the root causes of the obesity epidemic.

References

• Gallagher JC, Yalamanchili V, Smith LM. The Effect Of Vitamin D Supplementation On Serum 25OHD In Thin And Obese Women. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2012 Dec 11.
• Jakobsen H, Maribo A, Bysted HM, Sommer OH. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 affects vitamin D status similar to vitamin D3 in pigs – but the meat produced has a lower content of vitamin D. British Journal of Nutrition. 2007; 98 908–913.
• Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med. 2003 Jun;37(3):197-206; discussion 206.

Timed Ingestion of 3x21g of Whey Protein + Exercise Sheds 14% Abdominal Fat in Overweight Subjects Within 4 Months

Minimal effort, minimal results - While you can lose weight by just adding whey protein to your diet, your success will more than double, when you're willing to work (out) for it four times a week!

It's not a secret that things that diet and exercise are the keys to weight control and health in the 21st century. If you skip only one of the two you can hardly expect optimal results. In that, it is often said that weight, or rather fat loss requires a significant reduction of one's total energy intake; and for athletes and already lean individuals, this may in fact be the case. For the average "free-living overweight or obese" individual, however, the dietary changes that are required can be as simple as adding three servings of 21g of whey protein to their regimen on a daily basis (the scientists found no overall increase in energy intake, this means the 252 extra kcal/day from whey were effectively compensated for by the overweight subjects of the study at hand.

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Less Fat, More Muscle!

Before you go ahead and buy a bag of whey from the next best Internet supplement vendor, though, I have to tell you that why alone may have some beneficial effects. Without regular exercise, however, you are not going to shed those ~10% abdominal fat, the subjects in the PRISE, i.e. protein, resistance exercise, interval sprint exercise, stretching/yoga/ Pilates, and endurance exercise, group saw over the course of the 16-week study period.

Table 1: Overview of the exercise program in the PRT and the PRISE group (Arciero. 2014)

ASs you can see in Table 1, the subjects trained four times a week. They did so at different rates of perceived effort (RPE) and they performed

• upper-body resistance exercise (UB) for the chest, shoulders, biceps, triceps, and back,
• lower-body resistance exercise (LB) for the quadriceps, hamstrings, calves, and abdomen, 
• sprint interval training, and endurance training (type C) like walking, jogging, running, cycling, swimming, elliptical, rowing, rollerblading, cross-country skiing, etc. and
• supervised stretching, yoga and pilates workouts (in the PRISE group, only, where
  the four types of exercise were cycled on a weekly basis, such that participants performed each of the four exercises, 1 day/wk for a total of four exercise sessions/wk)

and one session (X), where they were free to chose whatever they wanted to do (i.e. resistance training, conditioning exercises, etc.).

All that without dietary intervention!? It sounds hard to believe that simply adding whey protein to the diet of 79 overweight / obese subjects would have such a profound impact on their body composition, but the scientists did in fact prescribe nothing else than the timed ingestion of 23g of whey protein (1) within 1 h of waking in the morning, (2) mid-afternoon or within 30 min following an exercise session and (3) withing 2 h of going to bed at night (total protein intake ended up at ~1.3-1.5g per kg body weight). Otherwise, all participants were instructed to consume their habitual diet ad libitum throughout the 16-wk intervention.

Only the increase in protein was stat. sign. across all groups (Arciero. 2014)

In the introduction I did yet already hint at the fact that the addition of 252kcal/day from the whey protein did not increase the subjects overall dietary intake (~2,000kcal/day). Against that background it's obvious that the provision of extra whey protein induced voluntary changes in the macronutrient composition of the diet that reached statistical significance for protein (+6%, +9% and +6% in the protein, protein + resistance training and PRISE group, respectively). For fat and carbohydrates the dietary changes were too different from subject to subject (meaning some reduced fat, others carbs) to reach statistical significance - which obviously does not mean that they were not reduced!

During all sessions, the subjects use medicine balls, physioballs, rubber tubes, and bands, which were incorporated into a dynamic warm-up, footwork and agility drills, resistance and power movements, and core and body weight exercises (e.g., lunges, squats, and jumping rope).

Figure 1: Relative changes in body mass, fat mass (subcutanous, visceral and in the abdominal region) and waist circumference over the course of the 4 months study (Arciero. 2014).

If you think that's more than you can handle, you better take another look at the results in Figure 1. Are you really sure you don't have the guts (don't tell me you don't have the time, if you have time to watch TV and lie around lazily on your sofa) to work out on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday?

I must say that the changes in lean mass are disappointing. Maybe a focus on higher intensity resistance training would have helped build the usually relatively muscled (from carrying an obese body) legs of the overweight / obese participants.

Bottom line: You can argue simply having that extra whey is also going to help you lose body fat, but compared to the "PRISE"-less combination of protein and resistance exercise, intervals, stretching/yoga/ Pilates, endurance exercise the fat loss from whey alone is not exactly impressive. Ok, it's impressive that simply adding three servings of whey do trigger reductions in body fat, but adding 4 workouts of which only the sprint interval workouts reach a maximal intensity of 10 on the RPE scale for only 30s (!) is what makes the difference between statistically significance, and mirror and "man, you've slimmed down"-comment significance ;-)

Needless to say, though, that completely turning your diet upside down and making exercise an integral part of your everyday life are more promising strategies to lose weight and stave it off than any of the interventions in the study at hand | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Arciero, Paul J., et al. "Timed-daily Ingestion of Whey Protein and Exercise Training Reduces Visceral Adipose Tissue Mass and Improves Insulin Resistance: The PRISE Study." Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985) (2014).

New "Fasted Cardio"-Study Falsifies the Myth of Superior Long-Term (4 Week) Fat Loss on a Moderate Energy Deficit

If we go by the convincing results of the study at hand, the fasted cardio myth is obviously busted.

Sometimes the day you've been waiting for comes faster than you'd thought... no, I am not talking about a teen's eighteens birthday or Christmas (reminds me, I still have to buy a ton of presents), but rather of the recently hinted at "fasted cardio study" by Brad Jon Schoenfeld, Alan Albert Aragon, Colin D Wilborn, James W Krieger and Gul T Sonmez.

The study of which I wrote only 2 days ago in my article about the 50% increase in fatty acid oxidation in fasted vs. fed morning cardio (learn more). And it is in fact the study which may finally solve the "Is fasted cardio good for your weight loss?"-question.

In contrast to the previously discussed paper, Schoenfeld et al. who started with the common hypothesis that "performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat" (Schoenfeld. 2014), did not content themselves with measures of acute fatty acid oxidation. What they did was a study to investigate the actual changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted versus fed aerobic exercise in young women adhering to a hypocaloric diet.

Want to get stronger, bigger, faster and leaner? Periodize appropriately!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

Needless to say that this study has the potentially to give us reliable insights with respect to the previously formulated question, because their subjects, twenty healthy young female volunteers were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups,

• a fasted training (FASTED) group that performed exercise after an overnight fast (n =10) or
• a post-prandial training (FED) group that consumed a meal prior to exercise (n =10)

not for one or two testing days, but for 4 weeks! The training itself consisted of 1 hour of steady-state aerobic exercise on a regular treadmill (0% incline) and was performed for 3 days per week for the previously mentioned total study duration of 4 weeks.

"Subjects performed a warm-up for the first 5 minutes at an intensity equating to 50% of maximal heart rate (MHR), determined by the formula 220 - age, then increased intensity to 70% MHR for the next 50 minutes, and finished with a 5 minute cool down at 50% MHR. Heart rate monitors (model F7U, Polar Electro Inc, Lake Success, NY) were used to ensure that exercise remained at the appropriate intensity." (Schoenfeld. 2014)

To ensure that (a) the subjects actually trained and they would (b) only do the prescribed standardized volume of exercise, all training sessions were supervised by research assistants who were upper level undergraduate students in exercise science and the subjects were instructed to refrain from performing any additional structured exercise for the duration of the study.

One thing to consider: I would not fully discard fasted cardio, yet. Even if the resulrs of the study are convincing. It's one study that simulates a specific scenario. In a real world scenario you will often have people, who do shorter fasted cardio sessions, extend the fast and thus reduce their overall energy intake. This is similar to breakfast skipping, which works magic if you don't compensate for the lack of energy intake in the AM (learn more). In the study at hand this "side effect" of morning cardio didn't exist, because of the standardization of the dietary intakes of the female participants. This is perfectly correct from a science perspective, but may still be a reason the real world results you or your clients see may differ from the null-result in the study at hand.

Subjects were provided with customized dietary plans designed to induce a caloric deficit. In that, their total caloric intake was calculated on the basis of the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation, which yields adequate, but obviously not 100% precise measurements of the resting metabolic rate (max. 10% off in non-obese adults according to Frankenfield. 2005). Since the same method was used for both groups, any possible inaccuracies, due to which the real caloric deficit among the women may not be identical to the calculated one, should carry no real weight, though. And we can simply assume that all women were in the same ~500kcal/day energy deficit the researchers thought to create.

Figure 1: Nutrient composition and total energy intake of the subjects in both groups (Schoenfeld. 2014)

In addition to their regular diet, the adherence to which was monitored on a regular basis, the subjects received a meal replacement shake either

• immediately prior to exercise for the FED group or
• immediately following exercise for the FASTED group,

with this nutritional provision carried out under the supervision of a research assistant. The "Pursuit Recovery" (Dymatize Nutrition, TX) shake you could also buy at your local GNC contains 250 calories, total, and 40 g carbohydrate (from maltodextrin and organic cane sugar), 20 g protein (from whey protein isolate + added leucine), and 0.5 g fat (residues).

Let's  take a look at the results now

As you can see in Figure 2, both groups showed a significant loss of weight (P =0.0005) and fat mass (P =0.02) from baseline, but no significant between-group differences were noted in any outcome measure (which means, that all the differences you see are "random").

Figure 2: Pre- vs. Post-study body composition measures (Schoenfeld. 2014)

As Schoenfeld et al. rightly point out, their findings clearly "indicate that body composition changes associated with aerobic exercise in conjunction with a hypocaloric diet are similar regardless whether or not an individual is fasted prior to training" (Schoenfeld. 2014) - in other words, in this pretty realistic scenario (I hope nobody starves himself after a 1h morning cardio session for another 4-8h) the myth that morning cardio on an empty stomach would accelerate fat loss is thus busted.

Bottom line: The assumption that the consumption of an insulinogenic pre-workout meal as it was used in the study at hand and a subsequent reduction of fatty acid oxidation during the workout would induce a shift from fat to carbohydrate oxidation (not measured in the study at hand, but previous studies show that this is the case) and have significant effects on an individual's long-term fat loss on an energy reduced diet is thus falsified.

The study at hand shows that the 50% increase in fatty acid oxidation w/ fasted cardio does not translate into increased fat loss | more

You could still argue that it may be beneficial if there is no energy deficit involved, for example by improving glucose levels as it was reported by Van Proeyen et al. (2013) in a study with a hyper-caloric energy intake (~bulk), but that's a whole different story.

Or you could argue that there is an albeit non-significant trend for an increased loss of fat mass in the FASTED group (inter-group difference = 33%, but the latter was (a) paid dearly for by an almost 2x higher increase in lean mass loss (inter-group difference = 60%) and stands (b) in contrast to the non-significant greater reduction in abdominal fat in the FED group as it is signified by changes in waist circumference.

For the time being, the long-standing "myth" that fasted cardio would lead to a significant acceleration has thus to be considered "questionable", if you put 100% faith the statistical accuracy of the study at hand (with only 10 participants in both groups, I am inclined not to do that) even "busted". For so long, at least, until another study, maybe one with more participants (which would allow to really figure out how "significant" the difference actually was), but a similar strict standardization, will show that it works. In that case, we would have to find out could have been that made the difference - could be the sex or training status of the subjects, the extend of the caloric deficit, the total protein intake (which was comparatively low), the type of the pre-workout meal or the form of cardio training that was used... Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Frankenfield, David, Lori Roth-Yousey, and Charlene Compher. "Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105.5 (2005): 775-789.
• Van Proeyen, Karen, et al. "Training in the fasted state improves glucose tolerance during fat-rich diet." The Journal of physiology 588.21 (2010): 4289-4302. 
• Schoenfeld, Brad, et al. "Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.54 (2014)

Power Up Your Body Composition: 6 Week Power-Based Complex Training Cuts 8% Body Fat in Female & 3% in Male Trained Football Players Without Restrictive Dieting

When plyometrics are involved, trainees usually lose more fat than on regular RT regimen.

"8% Body Fat in 6 Weeks!" It sounds like the headline of one of the hilarious articles in women's magazines, but it's the result of an experiment that was conducted by researchers from the Lamar University and the Baylor University in the US and the Hallym University in China (Miller. 2014). An experiment that revolved around a supervised 6-week training which consisted of a variety of Olympicstyle and traditional weightlifting movements and plyometrics (see Table 1) and involved 12 female and 9 male football players between the ages of 18 and 23 years.

Before we get too excited about the results, let's first take a closer look at what exactly the study participants did or didn't do. What they didn't do was dieting. There is no mention of either the overall energy intake or the intake of particular foods, food groups or macros being limited or controlled.

Want to get stronger, bigger, faster and leaner? Periodize appropriately!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What was controlled, however, was the supervised power-oriented exercise regimen that included olympic-style weightlifting, traditional weightlifting, plyometrics, supplemental movements as they are done by many people in the gym and a cool down in form of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PF).

Table 1: Power-based complex training (PCT) program - Note. RDL = Romanian deadlift; PNF = proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (Miller. 2014)

The three supervised workouts per week were arranged in a way that ensured that the overall load would change from week to week according to a linear undulating periodization scheme (week 1: 70%, 1RM; week 2: 80% 1RM; week 3; 75% 1RM; week 4: 90% 1RM; week 5: 80% 1RM; week 6: 95% 1RM - obviously a power workout ;-) and the pre and post body composition values were measured by the means of a comparatively accurate, yet compared to DEXA scans still inaccurate (spec. with respect to the absolute values) body impedance system.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition (left) and performance parameters (right) after 6 weeks of power-based complex training (Miller. 2014).

As the results in Figure 1 indicate both the increases in strength and body composition were significant - a bit more impressive, though, for the female participants. An observation that goes for the increases in clean, incline press, and squat performance, as well. 

"Both males and females significantly improved upper and lower body strength following the 6-week PCT program: 1) clean [males: +10.47% or +12.53 kg (from 119.70 ± 11.73 to 132.22 ± 10.88 kg, p = 0.001) and females: +19.98% or +8.94 kg (from 44.74 ± 7.34 to 53.67 ± 7.35 kg, p = 0.001)], 2) incline press [males: +8.81% or +9.85 kg (from 111.87 ± 14.36 to 121.72 ± 15.50 kg, p = 0.021) and females: +8.93% or +2.84 kg (from 31.82 ± 4.33 to 34.66 ± 5.75 kg, p = 0.002)], and 3) squat [males: +13.17% or +19.95 kg (from 151.51 ± 16.31 to 171.46 ± 21.92 kg, p = 0.002) and females: +17.44% or +11.1 kg (from 63.64 ± 7.63 to 74.74 ± 10.26 kg, p = 0.001)]. A post-training percent change in clean for females was significantly greater (19.98 vs. 10.47%, p = 0.009) than males, whereas the other post-training percent changes in incline press and squat were not significantly different between males and females." (Miller. 2014)

Impressed? Well, this is not the first study to show that women respond particularly well to any type resistance training.

Cutting W/ Combined Resistance + Specific Plyometric Exercises: 15.7% Less Fat in 7 Weeks | more

In 2009 and 2012 Prestes et al. and Lima et al. were able to show that both recreationally-trained and untrained young women significantly changed body composition following the 12- week resistance training. More specifically, the recreationally-trained women in the study by Lima et al. lost -2.39 kg of pure fat and reduced their body fat percentage by 3.82%, while they increased their total muscle mass by +3.07 kg. Similarly, a significant decrease in % BF (up to 12.73%) and fat mass (up to 9.32%) and an increase in muscle mass (up to 4.73%) were observed in the untrained women following a 12-week resistance training, which was composed of multiple sets of muscular endurance training in the study by Lima et al.

As a frequent SuppVersity reader (shame on you if you are not here every day ;-) you will also know that 10-weeks of a crossfit-based high-intensity helped the male and female participants of a study by Smith et al. (2013) shred 8% body fat - and that despite the fact that they were, unlike the ladies & gents in the study at hand, already at a mean body fat percentage of only 16% (read up on that study)!

Why didn't this work for men? If you look at the data in Figure 1 you will realize that the protocol did work, but due to the fact that most of the male football players have been participating in some forms of heavy resistance program for several years, the growth stimulus was comparatively low - a hypothesis that would be corroborated by the principles outlined in the latest position stand of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM. 2009).

Step off the treadmill, ladies! If the previously cited evidence is still not enough to have you reconsider your cardio excesses, the results of one of the few review studies that focus specifically on young female athletes. The study by Wilmore et al. (1982) indicates that even athletic women can increase their muscle mass up to 1.5 kg (average of 0.3 kg) and decrease % BF up to -2.1% (average of -0.4%), when they drop the running and pick up the weights.

Obviously, men can benefit as well. For them Wilmore et al. report a maximal gain of 1.4 kg (average of 0.8 kg) and a -3.0 % (average of -1.7%) reduction in body weight - and that despite the fact that the majority of studies Wilmore et al. reviewed back in the late 1980s did not use what we today would call "highly intense, high volume" resistance training protocols.

Don't get me wrong, I don't say "drop the cardio altogether", but a training regimen without resistance training component is not going to yield the results both male & female trainees aspire | Comment on FB.

References:

• American College of Sports Medicine. "American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 41.3 (2009): 687.
• de Lima, C., et al. "Linear and Daily Undulating Resistance Training Periodizations Have Differential Beneficial Effects in Young Sedentary Women." International journal of sports medicine 33.9 (2012): 723. 
• Miller, Joshua, Yunsuk Koh, and Chan-Gil Park. "Effects of Power-based Complex Training on Body Composition and Muscular Strength in Collegiate Athletes." American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2.5 (2014): 202-207.
• Prestes, Jonato, et al. "Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 266-274.
• Smith, Michael M., et al. "Crossfit-based high-intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27.11 (2013): 3159-3172.
• Wilmore, Jack H. "Body composition in sport and exercise: directions for future research." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 15.1 (1982): 21-31.

Inflammation Is a True Fat Burner: BSO-Induced Glutathione Depletion Wards off Fat Gains on Hypercaloric Diet

Image 1: This little bugger obviously has too little inflammation going on ;-)

Are you "on fire"? Inflammation has been implicated as the root cause of almost all modern disease: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, you name it. Soothing the flames via natural and supplemental anti-oxidants has thusly been proposed and marketed as a solution for many of the aforementioned health problems.

Yet, despite tons of vitamins, anti-oxidants and all the other "healthy" stuff we are taking and consuming on a daily basis, the number of morbidly obese people, diabetics and heart attack patients appears to be ever-increasing... how can that be?

A possible answer to that question comes from scientists from the Saha Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine in Lexington, Kentucky, US (Findeisen. 2011) - we simply got everything wrong! The observation that insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction usually occur in the presence of large amounts so-called reactive oxygen specimen (ROS) lead scientists to propose that there was a causative relationship between these two events, of which the data only shows that they are corollary.

Image 2: Whenever there is a fire, the firefighters are not far away, but does this correlation indicate that all firefighters are firebugs? (img texarkanagazette.com)

Despite the fact that the distinction between correlation and causation should be obvious, correlations have a long history of being mistaken as causative factors in the history of science. The corollary elevation of total cholesterol in heart disease patients, for example, is the reason that millions of well-educated people world-wide still believe that cholesterol would cause heart disease - an erroneous conclusion for which my friend, Carl Lenore, has coined a very fitting analogy (actually the analogy spans all those "corollary causation"): When there is a fire in down-town New York, it won't take long until the place is packed with firefighters, nevertheless, no sane observer would get the idea that the corollary appearance of firefighters on the scene would be the reason for the fire.

Here, at the SuppVersity, you have already learned that a group of researchers from Germany has invested a lot of work into research on the beneficial effects of inflammation (Ristow. 2010). Now, with the data from Hannes M. Findeisen (who unquestionably is a German or has German ancestors, as well ;-) et al., evidence begins to accumulate that the role of reactive oxygen specimen in glucose homeostasis could in fact be a beneficial and not a detrimental one. After all, Findeisen and his colleagues were able to show that the pharmacological depletion of glutathion, our natural broadband fire-extinguisher, made mice resistant to diet-induced obesity, increased energy expenditure and enhanced insulin sensitivity.

If you have listened to all the installments of the Amino Acids for Super Humans Series on Carl Lenore's Super Human Radio, you will already have heard me mention that a methionine/cysteine-free diet has been shown years ago to have profound fat-burning, or I should say, weight-reducing effects on mice - no wonder, with methionine and cysteine being essential substrates for mammalian gluthation production, a lack of these dietary sulfur-amino acids induced a similar glutathion depletion as the addition of 30mmol/l BSO to the drinking water of the mice in the Findeisen study (for more on the glutathion depleting effects of BSO, cf. Skapek. 1998; Mira. 2002; Cattan. 2008)

Even before the works of Ristow et al. and now Findeisen et al., it has been well-established that reactive oxygen specimen, the purported villains of the 21st century, enhance cellular signaling (Veal. 2007). About a year ago, Chang and Chang  reported that H2O2, in particular, is a potent activator of protein signaling pathways, including insulin signaling and can even mimic insulin's effects by the inhibition of oxidation-sensitive protein tyrosinases (Chang. 2010). With glutathion being the primary H2O2 scavenger in mammalian tissue, it is thus not surprising that the BSO treated and thusly glutathion depleted mice in the Findeisen study displayed a more favorable response to a glucose tolerance test after 6 weeks of treatment with BSO and a 45%(high)-fat diet (cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Glucose levels in mg/dl after oral glucose tolerance test in mice after 6 weeks on a high-fat diet (47% fat) with or without 30mmol/L BSO in their drinking water (data adapted from Findeisen. 2011)

These results are surprising, also because the daily food and water intake of the mice was identical. The latter cannot be said of their calorie-expenditure, daily activity level (cf. figure 2) and the activity of the "fat burning" uncoupling protein UCP2 (+100%), the elevation of which increases thermogenesis and energy expenditure.

Figure 2: Relative changes in energy expenditure and daily activity due to BSO induced glutathion depletion in mice on a high fat diet compared to non-treated control (data calculated based on Findeisen. 2011)

Now, most importantly for you, as a physical culturist, may be that glutathione depleted mice did not simply fail to thrive or shrivel away - they were, as Findeisen points out...

completely protected from diet-induced obesity, despite similar food intake and water consumption. Analysis of body composition in mice fed a HFD diet confirmed significantly decreased fat mass in BSO-treated mice without significant differences in lean body mass, indicating that the difference in body weight was due to reduced fat mass in BSO-treated mice.

If you don't believe the words, I suggest you take a look at the data in figure 3 - while the control mice had a body fat percentage of whopping 32% the mice on BSO with their ~16% body fat were well within the normal range for lab-mice.

Figure 3: Fat and lean mass (in g) of mice from the control group and the glutathion-depleted group after 6 weeks on a hypercaloric high fat diet (data adapted from Findeisen. 2011)

Even the researchers appeared to be surprised by the profound effects glutathion depletion had on the rodent's ability to accumulate body fat. As far as the underlying reasons are concerned, they speculate that it was ...

[...] possible  that  the  observed  increase in the expression of UCP-2 and UCP-3 in BSO-treated mice induced  mitochondrial  uncoupling [...] Alternatively, the enhanced energy expenditure in BSO-treated mice  might  be  the  result  of  increased  locomotor  activity.  In skeletal muscle, ROS are necessary for optimal contractile function, force production, and exercise-induced adaptations. Furthermore, particularly H2O2 is increasingly recognized as
a potent neuromodulator. It is therefore conceivable, that glutathione depletion may lead to activity-stimulating changes in the redox environment of muscle or brain.

Now, it is however questionable in how far any of these three phenomena would occur in human beings, as well. While the lack of large amounts of UCP-sensitive brown adipose tissue would decrease the UCP induced thermogenic response to glutathione depletion, locomotor activity is something that appears to be completely blocked in the modern couch potato, anyways. It would thus warrant further research (and studies into the general safety of this approach) before it would appear warranted that you take a spoon of BSO with every meal to counter the negative effects of your last binge ;-)