Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting - Programing Success: Accept Your Weaknesses, Learn From Your Mistakes, Identify Your Strengths and Build a Better Body!

Image 1: You may call it "toning" or "shaping", but in the end it's bodybuilding in the literal sense.

Assuming that you are all "lean and mean" by now and thus ready to build some serious muscle (for those who missed it, read last week's installment on "Why you better lean out before bulking"), we can finally delve into your first steps on your way to ... wait. I hope you did not forget your "motivational elevator pitch" from the first part of this part of the Intermittent Thoughts, where I asked you to come to terms with what it actually is that you want to achieve. Now, the good news is that regardless of whether you are just sick of that lose skin on your upper arms or want to compete against Phil Heath at the 2012 Mr. Olympia, there are a few fundamental principles that apply regardless of whether you are striving for "toned" 11 inch arms or Coleman-esque 22 inch guns.

Gaining weight? Yes! Getting fat? No!

With that we have actually arrived at the very first of three key points, I promised to address in this issue (cf. end of last installment): effective ways to measure your progress. In the "weight loss installment" of this series you have already learned that other than the morbidly obese "King Size Homer", physical culturists and athletes who do not compete in weight-classes are ill-advised to step onto the scale too often.

Figure 1: Lee Priest's transformation is certainly amazing, but let's be honest, do you really want to run around like Michelin man in the off-season and then have to resort to extreme measures to get back in shape for a few days, only? (comparison posted by "Tibo" at the SRTrading Forum)

While dieters (here indicating people who want to lose fat), may get discouraged, because their weight-loss stalls, when they are actually just beginning to finally add some muscle to their increasingly lean physique, many self-proclaimed (hobby-)bodybuilders think that "gaining muscle" is all about increasing their off-season weight (interestingly, many of those people do not even compete and define their off-season as the time when they do not go to the beach to impress the ladies). What could make sense for a professional bodybuilder like Lee Priest (cf. figure 1) certainly is not an appropriate approach for the average gym-rat, whose "weight loss arsenal" is less well-stocked than the ones of a high level pro-bodybuilder ;-) Or put more simply, when former chubby, like Peter Griffin (cf. "Healthy Weight Loss") bulks up the way, Lee did, he will not (and I guarantee that) be able to drop that fat again and achieve the grainy look from figure 1 (right) within a few weeks time before a contest, by diet and exercise (and OTC fatburners), alone...

Figure 2: Other than for the "pros" with their versatile arsenal of "weight loss tools", the journey of the dirtily bulking average self-proclaimed hardgainer is a one-way street.

And even for the self-proclaimed "ectomorph" there is nothing worse than a dirty bulk, where the number on the scale serves as his / her yardstick of success. This is especially true, because many self-proclaimed "hard gainers" are lean mostly because they are still eating like a bird (or missing even the most fundamental basics like a sufficient protein intake of at least 1g/kg per day), even when they claim that would eat until they puke. If those people start forcing down tons of calories in form of sugary weight gainers, most of their weight gain will come from fat. Their initially low fat cell count will soon have to increase to provide enough storage capacity for the "valuable" energy, so that, rather sooner than later, the former "ekto" finds himself in a similar situation as Peter Griffin, who, no matter what he will do, will always have a harder time leaning out than his friends who have never gotten chubby in the first place.

Bottom line: Do not rely on the scale too much. Yes, you want it to go up steadily, but faster weight gain does not automatically equate greater muscle gain. Keep a close eye on your waist circumference and decide a priori when (no matter how close you may be to your superordinate goal, e.g. "achieving 20" arms") you need to cut back on calories to avoid "adipolateral damage" ;-)

Taking stock also implies coming to terms with yourself

Image 2: Just as when you are "dieting", the scale is not the best meter for your progress. A measuring tape, a notebook and a digital camera should be your tools of choice.

Assuming that you have decided that you could use some additional muscle on your scrawny frame, another often overlooked thing you will have to do even before you start "bulking" is to take stock of how "scrawny" you actually are - not by stepping on the scale, but by taking, or rather have someone take measures of your waist, your arms, your chest, your shoulder and thigh cicircumferences. Just like any good custom tailor would do. You will then take a camera and shoot photos, from the front, from the side and (don't neglect that!) from the back. Depending on how much progress you have already made, this may seem ridiculous or even embarrassing at first. After all, you probably do not look any of the cover models you are looking up to... but remember: You take these photos as a yardstick - your yardstick. It won't help you if you keep admiring the girls and guys from the magazine-covers and shy away from your own mirror image.

In order to make a change you must initially objectively assess and accept where exactly you are standing in order to decide what you want to change and by which means you can achieve that. As long as you keep thinking of you and your body as disconnected units, you will never achieve whatever physique it may be that you are dreaming of. So, this kind of  initial stock taking is way more than just setting the baseline reference. It is (at least for many trainees) also a matter of coming to terms with theirselves.

Bottom Line: You are your own yardstick. The figures on your measuring tape and your weekly progress pics are objective measures of your progress, which is defined against where you are coming from. 10" arms are an awesome achievement, if 8" where you are coming from!

Build on your strengths while working on your weaknesses

Start out with your strengths! What is that you like about your physique? What is your most developed muscle part? And if you are already training... ask yourself what it may have been that you have done right, here. I remember that I have always been pissed off that my legs appeared to grow like crazy, while my arms and "most importantly" (my perception at that time) my chest "just wouldn't grow". I looked at the figures and pictures and then peeked at my routine. "How on earth can my legs grow like that if I only train them once a week and do nothing like some warm ups on the leg extensions and some squats?" It was back then, when I eventually realized two things:

Image 3: Do you really think anyone would know Tom Platz, today, if he had decided to neglect his strength (obviously his legs)?

1. Everybody has certain strong and certain weak body parts. Part of this is genetics. Especially if you have not reached your "full genetic potential", an even more important factor is however what you do in the gym, at work or in your free time. If you are carrying beverage crates all day, chances are that your "strong" body parts are your neck and your back, no matter if those are the muscle groups with the greatest genetic potential. If, on the other hand, you are like I once was and have a reasonable training plan for your legs (because people say that you have to train legs ;-), but are so eager to grow your chest and arms that you totally overtrain them, you must not wonder if you grow tree-trunk legs, whie your arms and chest shrivel away.


2. Success comes from building on your strengths, and working on your weaknesses. It does not make sense to stop training legs, to "save the energy" for whatever other bodypart you feel is lagging behind. Not only will you run the risk that your former strength becomes your future weakness. You could also end up with two not one weaknesses by overtraining your weak and detraining your strong body parts.

For me that meant that I had to maintain my leg regimen and adapt my chest and arms routine by cutting out a lot of high volume auxiliary movements and focusing on improving my strength and technique on those movements of which I felt that they worked - and YES! This meant that the classic bench press was no longer a part of my routine!

Bottom line: Cherish your strengths and stop lamenting about your weaknesses. Analyze and build on what worked for you and acknowledge and learn from your own mistakes.

Hearing and listening to what your body is telling you

Image 4: Cable crosses certainly cannot replace the bench or dips, but they allow you to practice to flex your chest against resistance.

I see, that was a shocker. Dr. Andro does not do bench presses!? Well, not exactly, I have reincorporated them into my routine months later only to rotate them out again with the next change in my regimen. While the bench may have built massive chests like the ones of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Franco Culambo, but it just did not build mine.  

Sticking to what does not work, because people keep telling you that it does work is probably the most stupid and yet most common mistake I see in the gym.

If you read all the information in the "SuppVersity EMG Series", then you will be aware which exercises work best for the average trainee in the Boeckh-Behrens and Buskies study. You do not even know if these are also those exercises that work best for "the average trainee in general", but you can easily find out if these are the exercises that work best for you - and more importantly, if they are not, you should give a damn about how they rank in anyone's "Top List" (mine included!).

Bottom line: Never, I repeat, never(!) assume that what worked for someone else, or even the majority of the participants in a scientific study must also work for you. Listen to advice, build new routines based on scientific studies, experiment, but do not stick to a routine / exercise if, after 2 weeks, your body still keeps telling your that it ain't right for you.

Weight is important in weight lifting, posing is key in body+building

Image 5: If you want to maximize muscle gains, posing - or rather learning to flex your muscles against resistance is obligatory (img Johnny Jackson)

In case you are now wondering how on earth you can find out if the bench press or the dip (which is my favorite for chest) is right for you, when you do not have access to the complex measuring apparatus Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies used in their studies, I assume that you have never been posing or deliberately practiced the so-called "mind-muscle-connection" - have you? What? "Posing is ridiculous?" Well, that was what I thought as well, when I began training. I mean, I never even remotely thought about competing, so why on earth would I practice posing? The reason is simple and has little to do with the ability to showcase your muscles, but all with your brains ability to address the motor neurons on your muscle fibers.

If there is one thing I want you take away about goal setting for muscle building from this installment of the Intermittent Thoughts then it is that your primary goal in the gym must always be to work the muscle against resistance and not to break personal records. Here lies a fundamental difference between weight lifting (as in O-lifting or powerlifting) and bodybuilding. As someone whose primary goal is to improve his physique, the lifting weights is only a means to a completely different ends.

If all you want  is to build a bigger bench, fine! But don't expect to make similar gains as someone who understands that he is at the gym to work his muscles, not his ego. By practicing posing and doing what I like to call 1-2 "acclimatization sets" with ~50% of the weight you would use for 6-8 reps before every exercise, not as a warm-up but to memorize the movement pattern, to feel and flex the target muscle and to be able to transfer this pattern to your working sets, you will soon be able to decide which exercises are working for you, and which aren't.

Bottom line: You are not in the gym to move maximal amounts of weight, but to induce maximal muscular stimulation. This requires that you train your mind-muscle-connection and accept that the weights you are using are just a means to another end - the physique of your dreams. Remember: You increase your weights to keep challenging your muscle, and thusly to be able to record a new personal best in the notebook with your body measures, not the one where you keep track of your weights.

Preliminary conclusion(s)

Although, I did not get totally side-tracked this time, I still have to postpone the scientifically based considerations of the implications of the biological underpinnings of skeletal muscle "hypertrophy" (and maybe hyperplasia), at which I have been hinting in yesterday's blogpost, to another installment of the Intermittent Thoughts.

Note, in view of the pictures I have been using in this part of the series, I may have evoked the false impression that these rules apply exclusively to "bodybuilders". This is however not the case. There is no fundamental difference between training "to look good naked" and training for the "Mr. Olympia", as far as the take-home messages from this installment of the Intermittent Thoughts are concerned. Flexing your muscles, "posing" and practicing the mind-muscle-connection for example could be even more important for the ladies who want to "tone" their physiques than for the skinny ectomorph whose primary goal is to "get big".

For the time being, you would be well-advised to get yourself a measuring tape and a camera to take stock of where you are, physique-wise, to (re-)evaluate your strengths and weaknesses, to identify what worked for you and to get to know and learn to flex all the muscles in your body - and yes, there are more than biceps and chest, or chest and biceps ;-)

- 66% Body Fat! 7 Weeks of Intense (!) Exercise and Moderate (!) Caloric Restriction Transforms Biggest Losers into Healthy Winners. Improvements Persist 4 Month After.

Image 1: Coming soon
on NBC - the next season
of the Biggest Loser; this
time big couples

I don't know if you have followed the 'Biggest Loser" TV show. Other than the show itself, which I obviously must have missed (I still wonder how that could happen ;-), the recently published study (Ashmadi. 2011) on the effects combined intense exercise and moderate caloric restriction had on the 17 sedentary, morbidly obese contestants (32+/-11 years; 50/50 men/women), of which 3 were excluded from the study, because their arteries were not yet VERSTOPFT enough, really got my intention. After all, finally someone got the order of the words "intense" and "moderate" in relation to exercise and caloric restriction right... its no longer about starving yourself and walking from the couch to the refrigerator, when your weight has gone up into regions (>>300lbs+), where no man, god-beware woman, had gone before (I guess the introduction of high fructose corn syrup and trans-fats were to the average American what the Warp drive was for Captain Kirk ;-)...

In the three month, the show was aired, the participants who were voted off by their peers on a weekly base exercised 3.3 +/-2.1 h a day, of which only 50% were initially supervised. They received lectures on "exercise and general dietary measures" - which certainly did not match the quality of the information you are served on the SuppVersity on a daily base - and they were instructed to consume a diet with a macronutrient ratio of 30:45:35 (protein /carbohydrate / fat) that would provide them with at leas 70% of their resting daily energy expenditure (RDEE), which was (unfortunately) not measured but calculated by the following standard equation: RDEE = 21.6 x lean mass [in kg] + 370

Figure 1: Markers related to blood glucose, blood lipid, heart health and body composition of 14 morbidly obese participants of the "Biggest Loser" TV show 7 month after baseline (3 month after the show)
(data adapted from Ashmadi. 2011)

It really does not matter, whether you saw the visual results on TV or not, from the data I plotted in figure 1, alone, you can tell that the "big losers" really transformed their lives. Four months after the show was wrapped, the mean weight loss among the 14 subjects that were included in this study still amounted to >132lbs, of which more than 80% were fat - thank god, they got the order of intense and moderate right! What you could not see on the TV pictures, though, were the profound health effects:

serum insulin level (-52%), glucose (-21%), high-sensitivity CRP (-81%), HbA1c (-11%) [indicator of long term blood glucose levels], PAI-1 (-49%) [plasminogen activator inhibitor-1], TNFRII (-12%) [tumor necrosis factor receptor-II], and CIMT (-25%) [carotid intima media thickness]

Video 1: Stopping at 20s won't get you lean. Intensity in the gym, moderation in the kitchen. These are the keys to success - Bob, knew it all along. And you better don't make him angry ;-)

all decreased significantly, whereas the scientists recorded profound increases of positive markers of metabolic and heart health, such as a +132% improvement of the carotid artery distensibility index [CaDI], a whopping 344% and 94% increase in resistin and adiponectin, respectively and +73% higher levels of Lp(a).

While, as a diligent and well-informed student of the SuppVersity, you should not have learned anything completely new from the study, I bet you have a friend or relative who still has not got the attribution of intense exercise and moderate diet right and is just about to lose the last lbs of lean mass on the latest starvation diet from people magazine. In that case you better do it like Bob (see video 1) and tell him/her the way to go.

What Diogenes Has To Say About Weight Loss: Study Investigates "Optimal" Macronutrient Compositions for Weight Loss & Maintenance

Image 1: Diogenes, a critical thinker
of the ancient world and eponym of
a European research project; a man
right after my liking, who would not tire
questioning common "wisdom".

I must forewarn you: Being part of the pan-European Diogenes Project, the study I am going to tell you about in the following is not something you can read or understand in a few minutes. Aimed at elucidating the intricate relationship(s) between Diet Obesity and Genes [the acronym DIOGENES was aptly chosen, for there is little doubt that Diogenes, if he lived today, would certainly feel inclined to debunk many of the nutritional idiocies of our age, cf. image 1], the project that is financially supported by the European Union, is literally epic. Its newest spin-off, an investigation into the "blood profiles of proteins and steroids during weight maintenance with manipulation of dietary protein level and glycaemic index" (Wang. 2011), is no exception to this rule. I will thus try my best to summarize the study design along with the most important findings, as comprehensively as possible.

From the participants of previous weight loss trials, Ping Wang from the Department of Human Biology at the NUTRIM School for Nutrition in the Netherlands, and 15 colleagues from other European institutions that cooperate under the roof of the Diogenes Consortium selected 96 overweight/obese, but otherwise healthy female subjects (age 29-49y), who had experienced a pronounced, but not extreme weight loss and/or regain in the course of previous trials. According to the weight loss, respectively regain the subjects had experienced after an initial 8-week low calorie (800-1000kcal/day) weight loss phase, the group of participants was further divided into "continued weight losers" (WL; n= 48) and "weight regainers" (WR; n= 48). All subjects were instructed to eat ad-libitum, while trying to maintain their weight at a constant level for the subsequent 6 month weight maintenance phase. Each of these groups was then further subdivided into four groups, the participants of which were instructed to consume one out of four diets that were characterized by high, respectively low protein intake and high or low GI carbohydrate content (cf. figure 1)

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the 2x4 groups à 12 subjects whose endocrine responses during weight loss/regain after an 8-week low-calorie dietary intervention were analyzed in the study.

Despite the names of the groups, a closer look at the actual macronutrient composition consumed by the participants of each of the groups (cf. figure 2) does reveal a that the actual differences in protein intake (as measured by dietary questionnaires) in the low vs. high protein groups were modest, at best - a fundamental drawback of the study, which is also acknowledged by the authors, themselves.

Figure 2: Relative macronutrient composition of the diets of 'continous weight losers' (WL) and 'weight regainers' (WG) on low (LP) or high (HP) diets with reference to a standard 2.000kcal/day diet (calculated based data from on Wang. 2011)

As can be seen in figure 2, the difference in protein intake for the weight loss groups (LP(WL) and HP(WL)) amounts to about 23g, while the low protein weight regain (LP(WR)) group consumed only 11g less protein than the high protein weight loss group. Unquestionably, the conclusions about the effects of high vs. low protein content in the subjects' diets on the outcome of the dietary intervention would certainly have been more reliable, if the scientists had not been satisfied by these "modest differences", as they themselves describe them, but had specified an absolute or relative amount of protein the subjects in the high protein groups had to consume every day.

That being said, there were nevertheless certain differences in dietary success/failure and serum parameters that correlated well with the macronutrient compositions of the respective diets:

Figure 3: Overview of hormones and
peptides measured in Wang. 2011

• previous studies from the Diogenes Project had already established that "both a modestly higher protein content and a modest reduction in GI in the context of an ad libitum diet improve weight-loss maintenance" (Larssen. 2010); these results were confirmed in the study at hand
• in terms of the measured serum markers all groups experienced what the scientists label "a ‘return-back’ effect of the body to keep the homeostasis" in the course of the ad-libitum fed 6-month weight maintenance phase of the study, but...
• interestingly, "return-back regulation of IL-6 failed in the WR group", indicating that despite an increase in fat mass, the associated inflammatory marker remained relatively low
• on the other hand, "Leptin (LEP) and pancreatic polypeptide showed [the return-back effect] significantly more profoundly in the WR group", which would have been expected in view of the increase in fat mass these subjects experienced
• the observation that subjects who kept losing weight had "less increase in diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, TAG [triglycerides] and glucose" corroborates the undesirable side effects of weight regain (WR)
• a slight increase in C-reactive protein (CRP; a marker generally associated with increased risk of heart diesease) in the subjects who regained weight on a high protein diet, warrants further investigation [in view of the fact that the high protein WR group consumed about the same amount of protein as its weight loss counterpart, I do yet highly doubt that the protein intake is to blame for this]

Other results worth mentioning were that while high protein intake and a low GI diet were associated with more weight loss in the weight loss group, in the weight regain group group, however, only the protein intake had a exhibited an ameliorative effects on the amount weight the subjects regained. Overall, "[t]here was no analyte [cf. figure 3] for which the fold change did significantly reflect the dietary GI level", and "for fat mass, no significant dietary effect in both groups could be detected", at all.

In figure 4 I've also compiled the data on body composition changes in the course of the weight maintenance phase [indicated by parameter 'm' as in 'maintenance'] relative to the BMI, body fat and waist circumference after the initial 8-week low-calorie weight loss interference.

Figure 4: Changes in body composition during the 6-month weight "maintenance"-phase relative to BMI, body fat and waist circumference after the initial 8-week weight loss phase; abbreviations: LP=low protein, HP=high protein; LGI=low glycemic index, HGI=high glycemic index; WL=subjects who continuously lost weight, WR=subjects who regained weight (data calculated on the basis of Wang. 2011)

In view of the quest for an optimal [I am honestly asking myself whether this even exists] macronutrient composition, mentioned in the title of this post, the most intriguiging finding of this study may thus be summarized as follows:

A "high" (remember 18%, see above) protein low-GI diet is optimal for weight loss and at least as effective to ward of weight regain as the other diets evaluated in this study

In that, the most reasonable explanations for the beneficial effects on weight loss and regain are reductions in  glucagon and insulin, the promotion of an anabolic state and lipolysis via the upregulation of testosterone and generally lower plasma levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, a well known modulator of adipose tissue development on a high protein, low glycemic index diet.

Put the "A" to the "D": Very High Dietary Vitamin A (Retinol, not Beta Carotene!) Content Ameliorates Visceral Adiposity and Improves Insulin Sensitivity in Obesity Prone Rats

What's the first letter in the alphabet? "D"? Well if you look at current research on vitamins, you would think so. Vitamin D is everywhere, vitamin A - if anything - its toxic antagonist. You, as a faithful student of the SuppVersity know better anyway: balance is where the magic lies; and thus you probably won't be surprised that not vitamin D, but vitamin A supplementation improves insulin sensitivity and ameliorates weight gain in a group of obesity prone rats on their favorite fattening stock-diet (Jeyakumar. 2011).

Image 1: Molecular structure of all-trans retinol

In the Journal of Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, Jeyakumar et al. published the results of an early 3-months intervention with a vitamin A-enriched diet (129mg vitamin A/kg diet) on visceral obesity and insulin sensitivity in 50days old obesity prone (WNIN/ob strain) rats:

Compared to stock diet-fed obese rats, vitamin A-enriched diet fed-obese rats had reduced body weight gain, visceral adiposity and improved insulin sensitivity as evidenced by decreased fasting plasma insulin and unaltered glucose levels.

Image 2: WNIN obese (A) and normal rat (B)
aged 12 months (image from Reddy. 2009)

The scientists explain their observations by another observation they made. Compared to rats fed the standard stock-diet, the vitamin A group exhibited an increased phosphorylation of the insulin receptor on the soleus muscle (this was the one the scientists used to access muscular insulin sensitivity via measuring gene transcription). By decreasing protein tyrosine phosphatase1B (PTP1B), consequently increasing insulin receptor phosphorylation and thus locally increasing insulin sensitivity, vitamin A had a glucose repartitioning effect, shuttling blood sugar into the muscle instead of having it converted to triglycerides that would consecutively be stored in the form of unhealthy visceral fat depots.

Although news like this usually go unrecognized, this is by far not the first study showing beneficial effect in obesity prevention and even treatment. In a 2005 study published in the Journal of Molecular Endocrinology,  Jeyakumar et al. had already published similar findings, indicating that an increase in dietary Vitamin A intake resulted "in a significant reduction in the adiposity index and retroperitoneal white adipose tissue (RPWAT) weight in obese rats" (Jeyakumar. 2005).

Jeyakumar et al.'s results stand in line with previous largely unrecognized studies on the effects of low vitamin A levels on adipose tissue development about which Ribot et al. (Ribot. 2001) write in the research journal Obesity:

Vitamin A-deficient diet feeding led to a marked increase of adiposity and to a small increase of body weight. Hypertrophy of white adipose tissue depots correlated with enhanced PPAR-gamma-2 expression. Hypertrophy of BAT, in contrast, correlated with a decrease of PPAR-gamma-2 expression that may contribute to the known reduced thermogenic potential of BAT under conditions of vitamin A restriction. Treatment with tRA [trans retinoic acid =vitamin A] triggered a reduction of adiposity and body weight that correlated with a down-regulation of PPAR-gamma-2 expression in all adipose tissues.

And in July 2003 Felipe et al. (Felipe. 2004) submitted a paper to the American Diabetes Association describing how

RA [retinoic acid] administration to normal mice resulted in reduced resistin mRNA levels in brown and white adipose tissues, reduced circulating resistin levels, reduced body weight, and improved glucose tolerance

in mice. While there appear so be a difference in the localization of resistine expression in rodents and humans (in rodents it is mainly released by fat cells, in humans and primates primarily by immune and epithelial cells), the negative effects of high serum levels of resistin on insulin sensitivity appears to be same in both species.

After all, that seems not so bad for a "vitamin", the reputation of which is almost as bad as that of the most fundamental building block of all your hormones: cholesterol. And guess what, foods such as eggs, liver and other organ meats are high in both: Vitamin A (as retinol not beta carotene, which many people have a hard time to convert) and cholesterol! Wouldn't this be a good reason to (re-)introduce these traditional, once highly appreciated foods back into your diet? One or two eggs a day (of course including the yolk), some liver once a week and a lot of sun and outdoor activity to bolster up both your vitamin A and D levels - what more could you ask for?

Busting the 3,500kcal = 1lbs Weight Loss Myth! A Scientific Deconstruction of a Dumb Rule of Thumb Reveals that Women Need More, Men Less Than the "Rule" Predicts

Image 1: If you are still putting your Happy Meal on a scale, you should not wonder why your weight loss falls short of your "calculations" - especially if you happen to be a woman (img. elementsofwellness.com)

While I would hope that most of you have by now embraced the notion that a calorie is not a calorie (at least, when it comes to nutritional calories), I suspect that one or two of you have still just been reviewing how much "calories" they have already eaten, or how much "cardio" they will have to do to compensate for the piece of pizza they are going to eat tomorrow at a friends party... > "STOP!" < this is what you should tell yourselves whenever thoughts like that are passing your mind (well, unless you are in the end-stage of your prep for a bodybuilding contest, I guess ;-) After all, a very recent study that is based on the results of two large-scale weight-interventions (Heymsfield. 2012), i.e. the CALERIE study, conducted at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center and the Kiel study, which was named after the German town Kiel, where the 13-week weight loss intervention took place, confirms the fallacy of number games like that.

A physicists would know: A pound of fat weighs 500g, not 3,500kcal ;-)

In order to establish the "actual" energy deficit that was necessary to elicit the loss of 1lbs of body weight in the 98 obese subjects in the CALERIE and the Kiel studies (average initial BMI of ~35 (25-43) kg/m²; mean age of ~38y and ~34y for the female and male participants, respectively), Steven B. Heymsfield and his colleagues (re-)analyzed the detailed nutritional and weight loss data from the studies and came up with the more or, I should say, less surprising result that the still widely accepted rule that a caloric deficit of 3,500kcal would result in a 1lbs reduction of body weight has to be revised ...

Figure 1: Energy deficit (in kcal) that was necessary to shed 1lbs of body weight at different time-points (in weeks) of the -25% reduced energy intake and the 890kcal/day arm of the CALERIE study (data adapted from Heymsfield. 2012)

If you take a closer look at the data in figure 1, which shows the actual amount of energy (in kcal) that was necessary to shed 1lbs of body fat, it becomes obvious that there was actually not a single time-point in the 24week dietary intervention, when the men and the women on the -25% (figure 1, left) or 890kcal/day (figure 1, right) both lost 1lbs of body weight per 3,500kcal.

Women have a harder time losing weight than men, but retain more lean tissue

If we go by the logarithmic regressions (red and blue lines; coefficients of determination see figure 1), the following important trends become obvious:

Figure 2: (a) increase in calories necessary to shed 1lbs of BW from week 1 to week 24; (b) average calories necessary to shed 1lbs in men and women over the whole study period (data adapted from Heymsfield. 2012)

1. Independent of the degree of calorie reduction (low calorie = -25%; very low calorie = 890kcal per day) and the sex of the subject, the caloric deficit that was necessary to shed 1lbs of body weight (not fat!) increased from week 1 to the end of week 3 (cf. figure 2, a)
    
2. Both, the baseline, as well as the gradual increase in calorie reduction that was necessary to shed 1lbs of body weight in the course of the 24d study period was greater in the very low calorie arm of the CALERIE study (cf. figure 1 and figure 2, a). This, btw, is clearcut evidence for the fallacy of starvation diets.
    
3. On both diets, women had a significantly harder time losing weight than men. This was even more obvious in the low calorie (-25%) than in the very low calorie arm (cf. figure 2, b).

In that it is also important to note that the relation of fat free mass to total body weight loss (ΔFFM/ΔBW) was maximal (60% for men and 50% for women) at the beginning of the study, had a nadir after about 15 weeks (~40% for men and ~20% for women) and showed a trend to increase again at the end of the 24 week study period of the CALERIE study. In other words, while women have a harder time losing weight, they maintain more of their lean muscle mass, than men do. A results that was, at least with regard to total weight loss, supported by the results of the Kiel study (no data on body fat / fat free mass loss available).

My advice: Forget about the rule of thumb, about calories and body weight!

Other than Heymsfield et al. who obviously still believe that it will by whatever means be possible to calculate the exact amount of calories to shed 1lbs of body weight, my take home message from the results of this study is that all the calorie counting, the daily disappointment, when you step onto the scale and the notoriously unreliable dietary rules of dumb... ah,  pardon "thumb", are something you banish from your weight loss inventory, right away.

Feel lost without your calories? Don't know where and how to start? Afraid of throwing the scale out of the window? Then it's time to (re-)read the Intermittent Thoughts on Stocktaking, Goal Setting, -Tracking & -Resetting to Achieve a Healthy Weight & Shed Excess Body Fat

A food log, where you record food and not calories  (I mean I still eat food, you know, things like eggs, butter, a steak, potatoes... those things without nutritional information on it!), a general understanding of the macro-nutrient (fats, carbs, protein) ratios in those foods and a measuring tape to access your progress, is all it takes access and adapt your food (not energy!) intake and evaluate the success of your diet (which does not equal weight loss!)... and I guess I don't have to tell you that the results of the very low calorie (890kcal) arm of the CALERIE study clearly suggest that dieting on a single cup of broccoli and a single serving of chicken breast sprinkled with some olive oil, is not an option, regardless of your sex, do I?

Coke vs. Diet Coke vs. Milk - The "Unhealthy Beverage Shoot-Out": Milk Reduces, Coke Increases Visceral Fat. Dreaded Diet Coke on Par With Plain Water

Image 1: I guess plastic dolls don't care about "fat" anyway.. so why would they drink diet coke, then?

I assume that at least some of you have read the Ask Dr. Andro post from August, 21, 2010, "Are Colostrum and Milk Products Healthy Muscle Builders, a Waste of Money or Toxic Waste?" As the title already suggests, the focus of this article was on milk / milk products as muscle builders and before I came across a recent study that was conducted by a group of scientists from Denmark, I would have called anyone who tells overweight persons to drink skimmed milk instead of water a total moron ... well, I guess, learning never stops ;-)

The VAT burning effects of skimmed milk

The Danish researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effects of different non-alcoholic beverages on the body composition of 60 healthy, non-diabetic subjects with a BMI (kg/m²) between 26 and 40 (age 20-50y). In the absence of any other dietary (or exercise) interventions, 45 of the subjects had consume 1l of either regular Coca Cola (yes it was the original ;-), diet Coke or Milk in addition to their regular water intake. The remaining 15 subjects who consumed nothing but water served as a control.

Figure 1: Macronutrient (g/100ml) and energy content (kj/day) of the three non-water beverages in the study (data adapted from Maersk. 2011)

If you look at the macronutrient composition (I know it is a joke to talk about a "composition" in the case of coke and diet coke ;-), it appears be quite obvious that neither of the two "high caloric beverages" would be particularly helpful in losing weight... so that this would leave us with the question, whether diet coke is - as many people claim - more fattening than water.

Figure 2: Changes in fat mass of subjects who consumed diet coke, milk or water over the course of the 6 months trial expressed relative to subjects in the regular coke group; * p < 0.05 (calculated based on Maersk. 2011)

If we take a closer look at the real effect of the different beverages, we will yet have to admit that we may have jumped to conclusion, here. After all, milk not water or diet coke was the only beverage the consumption of which lead to statistically significant reductions in the size of the unhealthy visceral fat in the 15 subjects of the respective arm of the trial. And of the three "coke replacements" that were tested, it was also the one that induced the most profound reductions in liver fat.

Figure 3: Changes in body weight, total fat mass, subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (SAAT), visceral fat to SAAT ratio, lean mass and bone mass after 6 months (data adapted from Maersk. 2011)

If we now take a look at the overall effects on body composition and bone mass, it does yet become clear that the often touted general weight-loss effects of low-fat dairy consumption are not supported by the data, as there were no "statistical significant differences" in either total body, or total fat weight between the groups. If we do yet discard the statistical shenanigan and use eyes instead of our calculators, I would say that there is a certain pattern, which - aside from the VAT burning effects of skimmed milk - fits very well, with what we did expect: Regular Coke is fattening, especially in the ectopic visceral fat depots, water is the best option for overall fat loss and milk has the advantage of helping with the retention or even the accrual of lean muscle and bone mass.

"And what about diet coke? Is it really benign?"

I know that this question is preying on your minds, right now: "Could it really be that the aspartame sweetened poison is not fattening? I mean doesn't it spike insulin?" ... based on the body composition data, the answer would be "Yes! 1l of aspartame sweetened diet coke per day does not hinder weight loss." If we do yet also consider a few other variables and - once again - don't rely all too much on the power of statistics, it does appear as if there exists the remote possibility that the difference between diet coke and water is more profound than the 15kj energy difference would suggest.

Figure 4: Changes in markers of blood glucose management and blood pressure after 6 months (data adapted from Maersk. 2011)

While none of the blood sugar related effects you see in figure 4 reached statistical significance, the group averages would suggest that drinking diet coke is associated with a reduction in blood glucose, basal insulin levels, no increase in HOMA-IR - all markers of improved blood sugar management. Moreover, the blood pressure of the diet coke consumers decreased to a similar and statistically significant (compared to regular coke) extent as the blood pressure of the subjects who consumed skimmed milk.

Figure 5: Changes in leptin, total cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL after 6 months (data adapted from Maersk. 2011)

A similar picture emerges if we take a final look at the lipid panels of the subjects, though only the changes in total cholesterol and triglycerides reached statistical significance (for diet coke, milk, and water compared to regular coke), it does nevertheless go against the vilification of diet coke that the diet coke consumers were the only ones, where the leptin levels decreased, had the greatest decrease in total cholesterol (which also explains that they had the lowest increase in HDL) and a similar profound reduction in triglycerides as the water consumers.

"So diet coke is better than water?"

Before you do now start to pound liter after liter of diet coke every day, let me put out one, or rather two hypothesis that could well explain the previously mentioned differences:

1. Although the the lifestyle changes of the subjects regarding diet and physical activity were monitored at baseline, after 3 mo, and at the end of the intervention with the use of a 7 - d dietary record and a validated questionnaire concerning physical activity at work, during leisure time, and during sports, this was no clinical setting, where the scientists fed identical diets (except for the beverages) to every participant. The subjects in the diet coke group could have thusly simply have satisfied their sweet tooth by consuming the brown brew and could consequently have reduced their intake of sugary foods. That alone could explain the mostly statistically non-significant differences between the diet coke and the
    
2. The "no-calorie" issue aside, diet coke is also caffeinated and as a regular visitor of this blog you will be well aware of the beneficial metabolic effects of caffeine. And though the 1L of coke contain only 131mg of caffeine, this would probably go as a "statistical significant difference" compared to water - and I guess I do not have to repeat that the latter was not the case for the previously discussed "advantages".

In view of the fact that this study is not suitable to answer the question whether diet coke or similar artificially sweetened beverages would hamper weight loss or induce weight gain in subjects on absolute identical diets, it goes to show that a) 1L of coke light is way better than 1L of real coke and that b) the consumption of 1L of skimmed milk exerts an unexpected beneficial effect on visceral adipose tissue - and that in the absence of any other dietary intervention... that does now make me wonder what the results would have looked like if the milk had not been skimmed, but full-fat, but I guess it will still take a few years until the paradigms have shifted and we will eventually see scientists hypothesize that full-fat or even raw milk could in fact be healthy ;-)