.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label brain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brain. Show all posts

Intelligent Weight Loss Workouts: 45 Min of HIT'14 = "High Intensity Thinking" Help Resolve HIS New Year's Resolution

High intensity thinking - intelligent weight loss workouts
It's almost 2014! Actually it is already 2014; at least for my friends in the "Far East" (HAPPY NEW YEAR!) and thus almost too late for the annual "I want to lose weight" new year's resolution. Ok, you as a SuppVersity reader should actually know better, but just in case you are still planning to make the weight loss happen solely by increasing your workout volume, I would suggest that you replace some classic HIT training with the revolutionary HIT 2.0 - high intensity thinking regimen (warning: doing this too often may actually build more brain than muscle mass ;-). 

Well,... now that I take a closer look at the results of this recent study from the University of Quebec here,  I have to realize that this will only work if you are a man. But don't worry, I am pretty sure there is something to be learned for the ladies in the last SuppVersity article of 2014, as well ;-)

All jokes aside, your brain is a sucker for energy!

I guess you will be familiar with the over-cited fact that "the human brain is only 2% of the weight of the body, but it consumes about 20% of the total energy we need every day"... I know that's boring, but actually that's quite an important point, because it tells you that your brain is not just a sucker for energy, but also a sucker for new information, which will in turn increase the energy requirements of the insatiable heap of neurons in your skull. Why? Well, our brains need energy to process each and every of these information chunks - max. 30W per opeartion, if the currently heralded estimations are correct. I know that sounds tremendously much, but if we performed only one of these operations per minute, you would hardly burn the energy equivalent of 1/25 of a 70-85% chocolate bar during your high intensity thinking sessions.

Against that background it's all the more impressive that Emilie Pérusse-Lachance and her Canadian colleagues were able to measure a significant increase in energy expenditure, when they had their 35 subjects (22 men and 13 women; aged 24 ± 3 years) read a 10-page text and write a summary of approximately 350 words using a computer in the "mental work condition" of their study.
Figure 1: Energy expenditure in kcal/45min in the control and the mental work condition, left; energy intake during the buffet ca. 15min after the control and mental work condition, right (Pérusse-Lachance. 2013)
If you take a look at the data in Figure 1, you will also notice that the scientists original hypothesis, which was that they would observe a similar hyperphagic (=hunger ➲ increased energy intake) response to in the "mental work" condition as Chaput et al. who conducted two very similar studies in 2007 and 2008.  The actual study outcome does yet tell a different story: While the female study participant did in fact supercompensate for the extra-energy they had to spent, when they were not watching TV and lolling around like in the control condition, the men were probably so immersed in their thoughts that they simply forgot to eat... ok, I guess you already realized that this was an ad-hoc hypothesis to make sure you don't realize that neither I nor the scientists have any clue what the underlying reasons of this sex-difference were.

I would even guess that the women did not even notice that they were overcompensating. If you take a look at the subjective hunger scores that have been assessed by seven visual analogue scale questionnaires the participants had to fill...
  1. at the beginning (T-60/60 minutes before the buffet), 
  2. after the experimental session (T-15/15 minutes before the buffet), and 
  3. after the buffet-type meal (T0, T60, T120, T180, and T240).
...those will tell you that the ladies either claimed to, or actually weren't more hungry than in the control condition. In view of the irrefutable evidence that they still ate more (see Figure 1) this may look awkward. When it's all said and done, these contradictory result does yet only confirm that you cannot trust people, when they tell you "I am never hungry and actually don't eat that much.... I have really NO clue where that belly comes from". This may even be their own perception, but that does not change that it is usually not in line what happens at the buffets, dinner tables and - most importantly - during the snack breaks people take during not after their high intensity thinking regimen all over the world.
Figure 2: Change in energy balance (kcal) in the "exercise" condition in the course of which the subjects walked on a treadmill for 45 min, waited for 15 minutes and were then allowed to avail themselves of as much food as they wanted at the buffet - further evidence that the "exercise just makes you hungry" hypothesis is bunk.
Bottom line: By now you should have realized that this article must not be taken too seriously. Though,... if this type of heavy brain lifting would have women eat 15.3% (=121kcal/day) more and men 16.1% (=267kcal/day) less every day it would probably have a non-negligible impact on your chances of living up to your new year's weight loss resolution in 2014.

But don't worry, ladies. Life is not so unfair as it may seem. All you have to do to achieve an almost level playing field is to convince him that a 45 min walk in the park with you is much more fun than 45 min of high intensity thinking. And if that's  not convincing enough, show him the data in Figure 3 and tell him that real exercise (in the study 45min of paced walking) will help both of you improve your energy balance - his by -31% (-516kcal) and yours by -23% (-184kcal).
References:
  • Chaput, J. P., & Tremblay, A. (2007). Acute effects of knowledge-based work on feeding behavior and energy intake. Physiology & behavior, 90(1), 66-72.
  • Chaput, J. P., Drapeau, V., Poirier, P., Teasdale, N., & Tremblay, A. (2008). Glycemic instability and spontaneous energy intake: association with knowledge-based work. Psychosomatic medicine, 70(7), 797-804.
  • Pérusse-Lachance, E., Brassard, P., Chaput, J. P., Drapeau, V., Teasdale, N., Sénécal, C., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Sex Differences in the Effects of Mental Work and Moderate-Intensity Physical Activity on Energy Intake in Young Adults. ISRN Nutrition, 2013.

A Cup of Coffee in the Bluelight District: Synergistic Effects of Caffeine + Blue Light on Psychomotor Effects. Plus: Yerkes-Dodson and U-Shaped Dose-Response Curves

This could be your new wake-up routine: Strong coffee and a bath in blue light.
"The abuse of ADHD drugs in people from all social classes is on the rise..." I guess you will have heard or read news like these several times over the past 12 months and in an article over at Forbes.com that was published on St. Nicholas' Day, Todd Essing even claimed: "Adderall use at work by the healthy to enhance cognitive performance is back in the news." Essing cites, among others, Stephen Petrow whose article over at The Atlantic is what Essing calls "a love letter to his 2-3 times per week Adderall use" - and a scary one for Petrow who is a psychologist by trade and says of himself that he "treats lots of hard-driving career-focussed 20- and 30-somethings". (Essing. 2013)

I guess Essing, whose previous article "When ‘Study Drugs’ Kill" took a reasonably critical stance towards the use of Adderal and similar drugs by healthy individuals, will be delighted by the results C. Martyn Beaven and Johan Ekström present in their latest paper in the peer-reviewed open access journal PLOS|One (Beaven. 2013). The intention of their experiment was ...
"[....] to compare and contrast the physiological responses to blue light and caffeine, administered both separately and conjointly. Measures of cognitive function, reaction time and wakefulness were assessed and it was hypothesized that similarities would be observed with the administration of 240 mg of caffeine and a 1 h dose of ~40 lx blue light." (Beaven. 2013)
Moreover, Beaven and Ekström assumed that combining the caffeine equivalent of two small or one large, strong coffees with the 'enlightening' power of a r  ~40lx  blue light LED light source (Techlight® RGB, 3W,  λmax = 470 nm) would induce alerting and psychomotor effects greater than either intervention in isolation.
What exactly did the scientists test for? The study participants had to complete a computer-based psychomotor vigilance test protocol (PVT) that consisted of 20 trials of a visual and audio Go/No-Go test, an Eriksen Flanker test, and 5 trials of a visual reaction time task (all tasks are available online at www.cognitivefun.net, so just try them out and judge for yourself how significant they are).
In view of the fact that you will probably have read the "Sunlight à la Carte" (read more) article I published as part of my Circadian Rhythm Series, you shouldn't be surprised by either, ...
  • the experimental design that involved the ingestion of a gelatine capsule containing either 240 mg of caffeine or a visually indistinguishable sugar placebo with a small glass of water (CAF), the exposure to ~40 lx of blue light from a LED light source (Techlight® RGB, 3W, λmax = 470 nm) or a white light alternative (~100 lx) for 1 h (BLU) or a combination of both, or
  • the assumption that caffeine and blue light should exert additive effects on both physical and psychological measures of alertness
... the effects of both caffeine and high frequency (=low wavelength) light have after all been discussed at length, here at the SuppVersity. What struck me (and maybe you, too) as odd, initially, though, was the assumption that "eye colour would influence the degree of the psychomotor and physiological responses to blue light" (Beaven. 2013), as well.

Figure 1: Eye color determines the extent of the melatonin suppressing effects of 2h of bright light exposure during the night. The effect is significantly stronger in "dark-eyed" Asians vs. "light-eyed" Caucasians (Higuchi. 2007)
The assumption that light-eyed participants would show a more pronounced reaction to light exposure is based on observations by Higuchi et al. (2007) who observed a direct link between eye color and the decrease in melatonin secretion in response to light, when they compared the effects of 2h of nightly light exposure in "light-eyed" Caucasians "with blue, green, or light brown irises" to Asians with "dark brown irises" (Higuchi. 2007).

Contrary to what you may have expected, the suppression was increased for the Asians (see Figure 1), not the Caucasians, of whom you'd argue that their ancestors lived at a latitude, where sun is scarce in the winter time, so that you'd have to make the most of it, when it shines.

If we now turn to the results of the study at hand, we'll see that Beaven and Ekström observed a very similar trend in their study, where he increase in visual reactions in the blue light only condition was significantly more pronounced in the blue-eyed, non-shift worker, non-smoking, low to moderate caffeine and alcohol consuming study participants (13 men, 18 women) than in their darker-eyed peers.
Figure 2: Effects of placebo (Pla), blue light (BLU), caffeine (CAF) or blue light + caffeine (BCAF) on psychomotor performance in 24 (13 male, 11 female) healthy subjects with a mean age of 26 ± 4 years; as it is common in science changes that were statistically significant are marked with letters, i.e. "a", "b", "c" (Beaven. 2013)
When they took a closer look at the caffeine (CAF), blue light (BLU) and caffeine + blue light (BCAF) treatment induced performance boosting effects you can see in Figure 1, the researchers from the Mid Sweden University observed a baseline advantage in reaction times in the visual reaction time task in male vs. female study participants (255 vs 274 ms; p = 0.0172). If you scrutinize the data in Figure 2, you will also realize that Beaven & Ekström are generally correct, when they state that their experiment is the first demonstration of distinct effects of caffeine and blue light on aspects of psychomotor function - it's after all hard to deny that (a) both worked and that (b) they did not have identical effects.

Beware of the consequences of the Yerkes-Dodson law

The researchers go on to explain that "[b]oth blue light exposure and caffeine ingestion improved accuracy in the visual Go/No-Go task", but that their combination "did not result in enhancement in the number of correct responses" (see Accuracy in incongruent task in Figure 2). For caffeine alone similar effects have been observed. These observations form the basis of the"Yerkes-Dodson law", in which it is postulated that the relationship between arousal and performance follows an inverted U-shape curve (Fredholm. 1999). Consequently, Beaven & Ekström suspect that
"[...], it is possible to rationalize that the combined treatment of blue light and caffeine dose exceeded the optimal state of arousal and consequently resulted in impaired accuracy." (Beaven. 2013)
At first sight, this hypothesis appears to conflict the improved fast reaction time the researchers observed in the visual Go/No Go task, but when you come to think about it, the stimulating effect of caffeine + blue light that is an advantage, when it comes to relatively simple tasks, may well be too pronounced for an exercise that requires a higher degree of mental focus / contentration.
Learn how to use light to modulate or realign your circadian rhythm.
So what we learn from the results? Actually there are two things you can take away from the study.
  • It may well be worth to add a blue light lamp to your list of birthday, not Christmas presents. You do after all you want to have it before Fall 2014.
  • You would be well-advised if you remembered "Yerkes-Dodson law" and the futility of a "more helps more" approach to cognitive enhancement.
Considering the fact that it's Christmas Eve this certainly isn't too bad as far as the total amount of subject matter or its quality is concerned - right? Apropos: Merry Christmas!
References:
  • Beaven, C. M., & Ekström, J. (2013). A comparison of blue light and caffeine effects on cognitive function and alertness in humans. PloS one, 8(10), e76707.
  • Essing, T. (2013). Managing The Risks Of Taking Adderall To Enhance Work Performance. Forbes.com. Dec. 06 2013 < http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2013/12/06/managing-the-risks-of-taking-adderall-to-enhance-work-performance/ > retrieved on 12-24-2013.
  • Fredholm, B. B., Bättig, K., Holmén, J., Nehlig, A., & Zvartau, E. E. (1999). Actions of caffeine in the brain with special reference to factors that contribute to its widespread use. Pharmacological reviews, 51(1), 83-133.
  • Higuchi, S., Motohashi, Y., Ishibashi, K., & Maeda, T. (2007). Influence of eye colors of Caucasians and Asians on suppression of melatonin secretion by light. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 292(6), R2352-R2356.
  • Petrow, S. (2013). The Drugs of Work-Performance Enhancement. The Atlantic. < http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/the-drugs-of-work-performance-enhancement/281055/ > retrieved on 12-24-2013.

Fit Kids = Smart Kids, Creatine & Muscle Repair, Epigenetic Transfer From one Leg to Another. Plus: Fat Effects of Anti-Psychotics, Larger Muscle = Greater CNS Impact, Rhodiola a Natural Opiate, Hawthorn for More & Thicker Hair

It's never too early for your first push-up ;-)
"10" is this week's SuppVersity figure of the week. Ten as in "ten push-ups" which is the mean number of push-ups the 12 year-old boys and girls from the Coe study you can read about in one of the items of today's news mash-up aka "On Short Notice". I am honestly not yet sure what to make of it, it's not as bad as what I had expected based on a couple of observations I have made as of late, but it still goes to show you that you cannot take the most fundamental feats of physical fitness for granted, when it comes to pre-/peri-pubertal kids in today's sedentary society.

Now, while I am still trying to make up my mind I would suggest we take a look at the actual outcomes of the study. The 10 push-ups were after all only part of the subject characteristics and not the reason Coe et al. actually conducted their study.

Fit Kids are smart kids - Strength and cardio both matter!

You can hardly start your career as a physical culturist too early, there are simply way too many benefits from giving your body the nutrients and the exercise it needs and therefore it is actually not surprising that conclusion of a recently published paper in the Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness reads:
"Students with the highest fitness level performed better on standardized tests and students with the lowest fitness level performed lower in class grades" (Coe. 2012)
Interestingly enough, this effect was associated with both cardiorespiratory fitness and strength, which brings us back to yesterday's news about the PGC-1 alpha isoforms (read the comments as well) and the detailed follow up I just decided to post on the whole matter, tomorrow.
Figure 1: Spearman rank correlations and achievements cores in terms of grades (0:min, 80:max), test scores (% of max) and combined (% of mean of all kids; data based on Coe. 2012)
Since this is the first study of its kind to investigate all five established parameters of health-related fitness (HFR), it should also be mentioned that body composition, flexibility and muscular endurance did not show the same statistically significant correlations the scientists observed for cardiorespiratory endurance and muscle strength in the kids (52% boy, 48% girls; all from the same age group ~12 years). Now, it would be nice if the people who design the curricula would keep that in mind, when they add junk after junk to the syllabus and regard sports and being active as an unnecessary diversion from the constant intellectual drills.

Creatine can do much, but it can't accelerate skeletal muscle repair after a workout 

The results of a recent study from the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada (McKinnon. 2012) , in the course of which  a total of 27 male (n = 15) and female (n = 12) participants between the ages of 18-24 completed an experimental training protocol with either
  • 2x creatine monohydrate (20g) and a carbohydrate supplement (20g) in order to blend consistency and taste (CREA),
  • 2x 40 g of maltodextrin only in 500mL of water (MALTO), or
  • no supplementation at all (control)  
The supplement was consumed over a 5-day period (check out the "Pharmacokinetics of Creatine" posts and you will learn that this dosage regimen is an unnecessary overkill - even if you insist on "loading") after which the participants participated in a baseline strength test that was followed by a muscle-damaging protocol that consisted of maximal force eccentric contractions:
Suggested read: "Creatine a Proven Non-Anabolic Agent: It's the Increase in Training Intensity that Will Give You the Hypertrophic Edge (read full story)
"Subjects performed 60 maximal eccentric contractions that were divided into 6 sets of 10 repetitions, with a 45 second rest period between repetitions.  The velocity of eccentric contractions was varied between sets (2 at 75°/sec, 2 at 90°/sec, and 2 at 120°/sec). This protocol has been used in previous studies and has been shown to be an effective means of inducing skeletal muscle damage (Cooke et al., 2009). The researchers also provided verbal encouragement to the subjects to help maintain maximal effort throughout the protocol." (McKinnon. 2012)
After adequate rest, the first of 5 post-tests was conducted. The results (figure 2) clearly show that despite the overall greater force recovery in the creatine group, the relative rebound after an allegedly higher drop was seen in the MALTO group while it was minimal in the no-supplement group.
Figure 2: Force recovery and muscle soreness at 0h, 24h, 48h, 72h, 96h in the control, maltodextrin and creatine groups subsequent to a 5-day suppelemtation regimen (nothing,  2x 20g crea + 2x20g malto, or 2x40g malto (McKinnon. 2012)
Overall the scientists are yet still right, when they say that "creatine supplementation failed to significantly influence indices elbow flexor muscle damage or rate of muscle recovery following eccentric muscle contractions." After all, there were no statistically significant differences between either the muscle force loss and rate of recovery or muscle soreness (small figure in figure 2) between the groups - and it is unlikely that this would change after the initial 96h of recovery.

Additional suggested reads:
  • DHEA Blunts Muscle Damage During 5 Days of Combined Endurance, Strength and HIIT Training in Young Men (read more)
  • Speed Up Your Regeneration and Propel Your Gains by Taking a HOT Bath Bath 2-Days Before Arduous Workouts (read more)
  • Overtraining, Inflammation, Insufficient Repair: Scientists Shed Some More Light on the Counterproductive Triad of Ups & Downs in Testosterone, IL-6, IL-10, COX II & Co (read more)
Ah, I almost forget to mention, you see that the mean isometric peak torque is not even back up to 100% after 96h, right? Remember that whenever you decide that it would be a good idea to do "yet another set of forced reps". It is possible that the seasoned strength training veteran you are, you recover faster than the subjects in the study at hand who had not trained for at least 4 months, but it stands out of question that eccentric forced reps will increase the time you need to regenerate, let alone to see what we are all striving for, i.e. super-compensation effects (see suggested links on the right for more on "doing too much" and faster recuperation after workouts).

Working out one leg changes genes in the other leg as well 

The progress research in the area of epigenetics, i.e. the changes of gene methylation and thus activity in response to nutrition, exercise and other variables you can easily control is actually amazing. With the recent publication of a study into what you may call epi-genetic cross-reactivity further contributing to our insights into the relations of the local and system epigenetic effects of exercise and their respective metabolic downstream effect (Catoire. 2012).
Figure 3: Graphical summary of the study design and selected results (Catoire. 2012)
As you can see in my graphical mini-summary of the study design (top) and outcomes (middle + bottom) in figure 3 there was a whole lot going on... and that despite the fact that I did already spare you a complete page with font 10 lists of genes that changed (you do have the numbers, I guess that shall suffice) and paired them in groups. What's funny is that, when it's all said and done, this does yet again tie in to yesterday's news on PGC-1 alpha 4 - how? Well, let's hear (or read), what the scientists have to say in the discussion of their results:
"Many of the observed exercise-induced changes in gene expression are likely part of an acute stress response related to disturbances in homeostasis elicited by exercise. The most highly induced genes in the exercising leg were all members of the NR4A family, a subgroup of orphan receptors within the nuclear receptor superfamily. NR4A1 and NR4A3 have been reported to be upregulated shortly after acute exercise and during recovery in rat, pig, and human [24], and this upregulation likely occurs locally by contractile stimuli. This finding was confirmed by our study in which we observed an upregulation of NR4As in the exercising, but not in the non-exercising leg. NR4A transcription factors are also known to be induced by adrenaline and noradrenaline. Circulating adrenalin and noradrenalin levels were increased in our study but must exert only a minor effect as NR4As were exclusively induced in the exercising leg,. [...] NR4A1 and 3 are thought to play a key role in regulating energy metabolism and early adaptation. [...] The results may imply that NR4A family might play an important role in the regulation of metabolic responses after exercise." (Catoire. 2012)
The study at hand does thus add yet another puzzle piece to the image of the crossroads of the endocrine (from one tissue to the other) and intracrine (in this case in the exercised muscle) effects of energy and metabolic changes on the one hand and muscular contraction and local stress, on the other hand. As closely interwoven as they are, we are now - thanks to the novel gene essays - able to see through the complex network, understand what exercise does to our physiology and can then, in the next step, come up with ways to modulate these effects for our own benefit.

It is clear that this is not going to be easy and the presence of two "mutants" among the 12 relatively old  study participants (52 year; "old" only for studies like this, of course!) suggests that any cookie cuter solutions are probably about to fail. I mean, if you have got two guys out of twelve where the overall magnitude of gene expression changes in the exercising and non-exercising leg were very similar, it is more than likely that you would see these and other anomalies very frequently; and each of them would have to be considered if you wanted to design he optimal workout (nutrition and supplementation) regimen for an individual (good news for personal trainers, if you know what you are doing, no sciency compendium is ever going to replace you ;-)

In rehab, doctors and therapists use the neurological stimulation a stiff leg receives, when you move the other while looking into a mirror that fools you into believing that the stiff leg would be moving as well.
In that it does not even really matter, whether the observed anomalies were actually due to genetic differences or, as the scientists suspect simply the result of unconsciously performed isometric contractions in of the non-exercising leg. The ensuing neuronal activation could have brought about similar effects as they are observed (and intended) during mirror therapy (see image on the right), where an involuntary neural stimulation of the muscles in a stiff leg occurs, when the mirror fools you into believing that you actually just moved your stiff leg, or other body part, when it was in fact only the counter-lateral limb that moved (note: one of the latest reviews of the literature says about its efficacy in stroke rehab would facilitate the recovery of "motor function, activities of daily living and pain" and could be recommended "at least as an adjunct to normal rehabilitation for patients after stroke"; cf. Thieme. 2012).

With the effects of neural stimulation, which has already been shown to induce gene expression changes via increased calcium concentrations in the skeletal muscle as well as via other mechanisms (Long. 2007; Kanzleiter. 2009; Chin. 2010, we do thus have a third player in the epigenetic / protein regulatory exercise orchestrate that does now consist of a metabolic, a contractile / stress mediated and a neuronal component. As far as skeletal muscle hypertrophy is concerned, the local expression does still appear to be the major determinant of adaptation and thus growth - to train your left leg only expecting that the other will grow due to "bystander effects" is therefore almost as hilarious as skipping leg day with the lame excuse that your legs would grow from training your biceps ;-)

On ultra short notice

With that I'll call it a day as far as the detailed posts are concerned and invite you to come back tomorrow, when I am going to pick up on this discussion in a detailed post on the Roa study on PGC-1 alpha 4, muscle growth, myofiber composition, strength development, workouts and the whole megillah. For the time being here is a bunch of unsorted other things I considered newsworthy:
  • Anti-psychotics increase lipid synthesis by depressing it!? What sounds totally counterintuitive, is actually the main message of an editorial to the latest issue of the Journal of Lipid Research, in which Skreede, Steen & Ferno argue that a paper by Canfrán-Duque et al. clearly suggests that the obesity and hypercholesterolemic effects of 2nd generation anti-psychotics such as clozapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone are brought about by the counter-regulatory upregulation of cellular lipogenesis in response to their suppressive effect on cholesterol synthesis. (Skreede. 2012)
  • The greater the muscle group you work, the larger the impact on the central nervous system will be (Rossmann. 2012) -- In the end everybody will know that intuitive, back and leg days are the hardest and most taxing to the whole system. Based on a trial involving eight young men who performed exhaustive large (cycling – BIKE) and small (knee extensor – KE) muscle mass dynamic exercises at 85% of the modality-specific maximal workload, scientists from Salt Lake City did now provide further experimental evidence that supports the notion that the CNS tolerates a greater magnitude of peripheral fatigue and likely a greater intramuscular metabolic disturbance when the pertinent afferent signaling comes from small vs. large muscle groups . 
  • Rhodiola Rosea turns out to be an opiate (Lee. 2012).-- In a recent study scientists from the Chi-Mei Medical Center in Yong Kang, Tainan City, Taiwan were able to show that the popular but questionable (as far as the significance of its effects are concerned) adaptogen rhodiala decreased the systolic blood pressure of spontaneously hypertensive rats. Intriguingly the effect was blunted by the administration of the selective opioid μ-receptor antagonist, cyprodime, but not by naloxonazine, an antagonist specific to opioid μ1-receptor, which suggests that a direct effect on the opiate receptor. Moreover, the level of mood enhancing and relaxing beta-endorphins rose in both wild type and hypertensive rodents (with the effect being more pronounced in the latter)
  • Chinese hawthorn for the hair, not the heart (Shin. 2012) -- I guess if you hear hawthorn or Crataegus you will probably think of its purported beneficial effects on heart health. Now if the results from a recent rodent study are applicable to humans, as well, you will soon have to establish a novel neuronal connection between (Chinese) hawthorn and your scalp, or rather the hair on your scalp . With its beneficial effects on the initiation of the anagen phase in mice in teloge and the ensuing increase in skin color, thickness of the hair shafts, and density (number and size) of the hair. Oral C. pinnatifida extract (at a human equivalent dose of ~320mg/day) could soon be all the rage among men and women who fear for their superb head of hair.
I think this is enough for today. There is a life beyond the SuppVersity not for you, of course, but for me - so while you head over to the SuppVersity facebook page for even more news, I am going to enjoy Saturday night ;-)

    References:
    • Canfrán-Duque, A., M. Casado, Ó. Pastor, J. Sánchez-Wandelmer, G. Peña, M. Lerma, P. Mariscal, P. Bracher, M. Lasunción, and R. Busto. Atypical antipsychotics alter cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism in vitro. J Lipid Res. 2012 [in press]
    • Catoire M, Mensink M, Boekschoten MV, Hangelbroek R, Müller M, et al.  Pronounced Effects of Acute Endurance Exercise on Gene Expression in Resting and Exercising Human Skeletal Muscle. PLoS ONE 7. 2012; 11: e51066.
    • Chin ER. Intracellular Ca2+ signaling in skeletal muscle: decoding a complex message. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2010 Apr;38(2):76-85. 
    • Coe DP, Pivarnik JM, Womack CJ, Reeves MJ, Malina RM. Health-related fitness and academic achievement in middle school students. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2012 Dec;52(6):654-60. 
    • Kanzleiter T, Wilks D, Preston E, Ye J, Frangioudakis G, Cooney GJ. Regulation of the nuclear hormone receptor nur77 in muscle: influence of exercise-activated pathways in vitro and obesity in vivo. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009 Aug;1792(8):777-82. 
    • Lee WJ, Chung HH, Cheng YZ, Lin HJ, Cheng JT. Rhodiola-Water Extract Induces β-endorphin Secretion to Lower Blood Pressure in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Phytother Res. 2012 Nov 28.
    • Long YC, Glund S, Garcia-Roves PM, Zierath JR. Calcineurin regulates skeletal muscle metabolism via coordinated changes in gene expression. J Biol Chem. 2007 Jan 19;282(3):1607-14.
    • Rossman MJ, Venturelli M, McDaniel J, Amann M, Richardson RS. Muscle mass and peripheral fatigue: a potential role for afferent feedback? Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2012 Dec;206(4):242-50. 
    • Shin HS, Lee JM, Park SY, Yang JE, Kim JH, Yi TH. Hair Growth Activity of Crataegus pinnatifida on C57BL/6 Mouse Model. Phytother Res. 2012 Nov 12.
    • Skrede J, Steen VM, Ferno J. Antipsychotic-induced increase in lipid biosynthesis: activation through inhibition? Journal of Lipid Research. December 7, 2012 [Epub ahead of print] 
    • Thieme H, Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Behrens J, Dohle C. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;3:CD008449.

    Aspartame's Anti-Insulinogenic Effects During a Workout; Optimal Protein Intake on a Diet is Relative. Plus: Folate Fortification, Spirulia, Succinate, Sucrose, Pork Brain & the Low Cholesterol-Suicide Connection Reviewed!

    Unbelievable: The results of the latest study from the University of Western Sidney appear to suggest that you could keep your insulin levels at bay, if you mixed your sugary intra-workout supplement with aspartame-laden diet coke instead of water! The mechanism that's behind this phenomenon does yet still have to be elucidated.
    You may be surprised to see a long headline, a long post and a couple of bullet points: "Looks like On Short Notice, reads like On Short Notice, but is not published on Saturday? What's that?" The answer to this question is easy. Lot's of interesting stuff I have come across as of late! And while some of them, like the study on the marginal utility of higher protein intakes on a diet would actually deserve their own post, I decided to give you the "long(er) version of a short notice" in order not to miss any of them... and yes, this means there is going to be more than today's news on the unexpected anti-insulinogenic effects of aspartame, the only partly expected outcomes of the US folic acid fortification program, the aforementioned protein study, the usefulness of spirulina, succinate and sucrose supplements for athletes and physical culturists and some brainy insights into a possible connection between low cholesterol, depression and suicide risk in men and women... ah, ok I see, you are already reading the aspartame item - well, go for it!
    • The astonishing anti-insulin effects of intra-workout aspartame consumption Meanwhile even bodybuilders who are injecting and "supplementing" with all sorts of unquestionably unhealthy stuff are so afraid of the hitherto still rather vaguely established pro-carcinogenic effects of aspartame that supplement companies place huge stickers on the boxes of their products saying "ASPARTAME FREE!" Now, I am pretty sure that a recently published study that was conducted by scientists from the School of Science and Health at the University of Western Sydney in Campbelltown, Australia (Siegler. 2012), won't do much about that, but you will probably have to agree that it is still remarkable, to say the least, that the co-administration of an artificial sweetener which has not produced any glucose, insulin or whatever response in previous trials (cf. "Sweeter than your tongue allows") would do that!?
      Figure 1: While the mechanism is still unknown and the results need to be repeated in a second experiment, there is no question that the drop in insulin during the workout (see arrow(s)) which occurred during the carbohydrate + aspartame trial in the presence of identical glucose ingestion and blood glucose levels warrants further investigations (based on Siegler. 2012)
      During the four trials, which were separated by 7-10 days of rest, the 9 healthy, recreationally active males (age: 22±2 years; height: 180±9 cm; weight: 78.6±8.5 kg; participating in regular physical exercise at least twice per week) who had volunteered for this (in the eyes of some aspartame extremists, probably unethical undertaking ;-) cycled fasted for 60 minutes in a climate controlled laboratory. The only difference between the four sessions was the "intra-workout nutrition" the participants were fed, with...
      1. carbohydrate - 2% maltodextrin and 5% sucrose (figure 1, C),
      2. carbs + aspartame - 0.04% aspartame with 2% maltodextrin and 5% sucrose (figure 1, CA),
      3. water - plain water, only (figure 1, W), and
      4. aspartame + malto - 0.04% aspartame with 2% maltodextrin (figure 1, A)
      As it is common practice in studies like this, "all participants were instructed to follow the same diet and training schedule for the three days prior to each experimental trial." (Siegler. 2012, my emphasis)
      The respective intra-workout beverages were to be consumed in boluses of 4ml/kg body weight before and at 15-minute intervals throughout the trial. For the CHO groups this summed up to a total carbohydrate intake of 104.4±11.3g per participant and did - probably not to your surprise - cause a corresponding increase in insulin levels... with one exception, however: the intraworkout period in the CHO + Aspartame group (figure 1, red), when the insulin level dropped, during the exercise sessions and bumped back up to the same level as in the carbs only control afterwards (see figure 1).
      As the researchers point out, we do not yet have a mechanistic explanation for this phenomenon... nor can we even be sure that this was not some sort of strange artifact, so that
      "the disparity between insulin levels [does not only] warrant further investigation with a larger cohort of clinically relevant subject populations (e.g. metabolic syndrome, diabetes, etc.) [, but must also] be considered when designing nutrition-based, exercise intervention studies [in the future]" (Siegler. 2012
      That this observation could actually have very practical implications, both, in view of its potentially compromising effects on blood glucose levels in diabetics, where any insulin blocking effect of aspartame would probably reduce the already compromised glucose uptake even more, as well as in view of the anti-lipolytic (=blocks the release of fat from the cells) of insulin during a workout, which could actually be blocked with a minuscule amount of aspartame ... but alas, until the results have been confirmed and the mechanism behind this effect has been elucidated, what we are doing here is more or less intellectual masturbation - nothing to feel bad about, but still not the real deal ;-)
    • Figure 2: This is what the USDA expected to happen - more folic acid in food = higher intake (here in the elderly) = lower homocysteine levels; the reality looked pretty different, though, at least in adolescents the folic acid intake went up, but the homocysteine levels did not go down; moreover the B12 levels have declined as well... how much of this is related to confounding factors still has to be elucidated, but as of now it does not seem as if the fortification program was the success the USDA wanted it to be (Mc Bride. 2007).
      US adolescents and their "healthy grains" are now folic acid fortified, but are they also healthier? According to a study that has just been published in the Journal of Public Health, the great idea to put another artificial vitamin into our the food chain and fortify "healthy" cereal-grain products with folic acid, was so "successful" that the average US teen (14y at the time the fortification program began, 18y now) does now have 16% higher folate and 14% higher B6 concentrations.
      Instead of the expected decrease in homocysteine levels, of which scientists still believe that it plays in imminently important role in the development of heart disease, its serum levels did likewise increase by 17%, while the serum concentrations of vitamin B12 decreased by 11 % post-fortification. The additional ~118 μg folate/d the subjects ingested from the fortified food products, appeared to be particularly useless (or even detrimental?) for boys / young men whose total homocysteine (tHcy) levels increased by 24%  to a much greater extent than in the girls / young women.
      Honestly, I don't really know what to make of these results at the moment, ... at least nothing better than to shake my head over the hilariousness of trying to turn junk(-food) into (good) food by simply enriching it with artificial vitamins. On the other hand, I am happy that even Daniel A. Enquobahrie and his colleagues feel that it is "warranted to investigate the significance of these improvements in folate status on clinical outcomes, in the post-fortification era." (Enquobahrie. 2012) - and that not just because the fortification program did not produce the desired results, but also because the folic acid intake already started to exceed the RDA in many of the subjects. This, and the alarming decrease in B12 levels of which Katherine L. Tucker had cautioned in the 2007 interview with Judy Mc Bride, already, that "better diagnosis for B12 deficiency should be given high priority"(Mc Bride. 2007) do not "warrant", imho, they rather make it imperative to follow the effect of this "nationwide health program" very closely.
    • Figure 3: The principle of relativity for protein based body recompositioning diets - When it comes to weight los, the word "high" in high protein diets must always be seen in the context of habitual protein intake and to whom we are comparing our dieters; or put simply: The average SAD dieter benefits from every gram, the average bodybuilder will hardly benefit from the 7th whey shake.
      Effectiveness of high(er) protein diets for weight loss depends on spread / change vs. baseline not on total protein intake That's basically how you could summarize the conclusion of the latest review of the existing data on the influnece of (high) protein intakes on changes in body composition by John D. Bosse and his colleagues from the University of Utah. To find out whether either the protein change (=high protein diets are only effective when the change in protein intake from baseline to intervention is large enough) or the protein spread theory (=those dieters within a cohort with the highest protein intake will see the most beneficial changes in body comosition) could explain the different outcomes of previous studies best, the researches collected an impressive dataset comprising 51 peer-review studies the analysis of which yielded the following two main results (Bosse. 2012):
        1. The 35 successful dietary interventions had on average 58.4% higher average protein intakes than those trials in which the authors had not been able to observe an additional beneficial of going high protein over the standard calorical restriction approach
        2. The 17 successful (=greater anthropomorphic changes than with calorie restriction alone) of the 25 studies, where the baseline protein intake of the subjects was available, the increase in protein intake was 28.6% (if you ate 100g protein per day before, that would mean you would eat 128.6g while you are dieting), minimal increases in 4.7% range, on the other hand, did not provide any additional benefit over energy reduction, alone.
        Overall, the review does therefore support the original hypothesis of the researchers that there are certain thresholds which have to be surpassed before dieters will see any benefits from an increase in protein intake. This does yet also mean, that for someone who is already eating 200g of protein on a daily basis, the addition of a protein shake with 20g of protein is probably not going to make so much of a difference as it would be way below the 28.6% change in protein intake, the protein change theory would prescribe (see [2] in the list above). As a matter of fact going higher and higher (e.g. like eating 300g of protein per day), will, if anything stall, not propel your progress, after all, there will be too little room for other nutrients, when you are already getting the lions share of your daily energy intake from protein... and NO you cannot lose weight without being in a caloric deficit, even if that is not readily calculable by the idiotic "calories-in-vs-calories-out" equation.
      • The BMJ Supplement Review says: Thumbs up for sucrose, thumbs down for succinate and undecided  for spirulina In installment #36 of the A-Z of Nutritional Supplement Supplements, a series dedicated to review the pros and cons of purported ergogenic aids, the authors conclude that ...
        Figure 4: In view of the fact that the TCA or citric acid cycle is one of the #1 aerobic source of cellular energy (APT) and succinate is one of its intermediates it makes sense that supplementation could improve exercise performance, but hitherto this has not been confirmed.
        • ...the studies on spirulina fail to "study well-trained individuals", to use appropriate standardization regimen with relevance for physical culturists and athletes, identify the active ingredients and their effect on the antioxidant status, of which the respective scientists speculate that it would be the underlying mechanism of the observed ergogenic effects on chronic low-intensity exercise regimen
        • ...the research on succinate (only) supplementation is basically non-existent and claims with respect to its permanence enhancing effects is mostly based on theoretical considerations about its role in the TCA cycle 
        • ...despite the general trend within our society, where the overconsumption of sucrose (table sugar) is one of the major offenders to public health, "there may be value in, or at least room for, its inclusion in sports products targeting the provision of carbohydrate fuel during exercise"
        Nothing exciting, but a realistic and educative analysis, which has all the classic elements you should keep in mind, whenever you try to find out whether a product is worth its money: What research is there? What are the results? Are the positive results significant for me as a person? And... in the case of succrose: Could the use of this ergogenic aid be an obstacle for another goal of mine? I mean, you can benefit from guzzling tons of sugary drinks during your workouts, but if "looking good naked" is your primary goal and your performance only a means to an end - it is probably not wise to do so ;-)
      • Figure 5: Suicide risk in psychiatric patients /w (SA) or w/out (PS) prev. suicide attempt and surgical control (SC) in lowest, 2nd and 3rd cmp. to highest quartiles (Olié. 2011)
        Can pork brain in milk tell us something about suicide? Those of you who are on the SuppVersity Facebook news RSS channel will already know the image on the right. I only saw it today, but as Mark mentioned on my Facebook wall, he has used it (the image not the brain) in lectures before... be that as it may, that reminded me of an older study on the highly significant correlation between cholesterol levels and suicide attempts Emilie Olié and her colleagues observed in a 2010 study on the reliability of serum cholesterol levels as a predictor of the suicide risk in 3207 subjects [510 patients with a history of suicidal attempts (SA), 275 patients with no history of suicidal attempts (PC), and 2422 surgical controls (SC); Olié. 2011].
        The exact mechanism for the highly significant increase in suicide risk, esp. among women with previous suicide attempts in the lowest (1st quartile) is still not fully elucidated, Olié et al reference previous studies which suggest that low serum cholesterol levels, a "potentialmarker of central nervous systemcholesterol", impair the serotoninergic activity and" increase impulsivity" and thus precipitate to severe depression and the tendency and ability to pot a premature end to your life.
        In view of the fact that this and similar results were derived exclusively from analysis of psychiatric patients and considering that the cholesterol levels in the SA group were already significantly lower that in the PC and SC control (178±36 mg/dL vs. 217±43 mg/dL and 219±52 mg/dL, respectively) we should be very wary of transferring these results 1:1 to the "normal" people. 
      I guess this is enough for today. After all, news are not so different than protein, it's the relative intake that makes all the difference - in other words: If I keep flooding you with those awesome posts, you won't appreciate each and every of them the same way you do now... and we don't want that to happen, do we? 
        References:
        • Bosse JD, Dixon BM. Dietary protein in weight management: a review proposing protein spread and change theories. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2012 Sep 12;9(1):81.
        • Enquobahrie DA, Feldman HA, Hoelscher DH, Steffen LM, Webber LS, Zive MM, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Osganian SK. Serum homocysteine and folate concentrations among a US cohort of adolescents before and after folic acid fortification. Public Health Nutrition. 2012; 15: 1818-1826.
        • Mc Bride. Foods To Be Fortified With Folic Acid. USDA ARS. News. February 7, 2007. < http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/jun97/folate0697.htm > retrieved on September 14, 2012.
        • Olié E, Picot MC, Guillaume S, Abbar M, Courtet P. Measurement of total serum cholesterol in the evaluation of suicidal risk. J Affect Disord. 2011 Sep;133(1-2):234-8.
        • Siegler J, Howell K, Vince R, Bray J, Towlson C, Peart D, Mellor D, Atkin S. Aspartame in conjunction with carbohydrate reduces insulin levels during endurance exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2012 Aug 1;9(1):36.
        • Zemski AJ, Quinlivan RM, Gibala M, Burke LM, Stear SJ, Castell LM. A-Z of nutritional supplements: dietary supplements, sports nutrition foods and ergogenic aids for health and performance: Part 36. Br J Sports Med. 2012 Sep;46(12):893-4. 

        Bigger Belly, Shrinking Brain - Each Additional Inch on Your Waist Comes With a Reduction in Gray Matter Volume

        Fans of Homer Simpson knew it all along: Abdominal hypertrophy = brain atrophy.
        Let me just say something in advance: Neither I, nor the researchers from France, Germany and China who conducted the study at hand and found a correlation between abdominal obesity and the volume of our gray matter are suggesting that all obese men and women are dumb. What we both would probably agree on, though, is the fact that their observations do support a causal relationship between abdominal obesity and a reduced gray matter volume (GMV): "Our findings also provide some evidence that the inverse association between abdominal obesity and brain volume is particularly prominent for GMV, and that it is not mediated by vascular brain injury." (Debette. 2013)
        Sneak Peak #2 - SuppVersity Science Round-Up: DHEA Special! I hope you are not mad at Carl and me for not broadcasting the Science Round-Up last week. We will do our best to make it happen today - so make sure you tune in in time for the live(!) show at 12PM EST, if you have any interest in DHEA for performance, longevity, general and metabolic health and improvements in body composition.
        As you can see in figure 1, it is - just as usual - not the BMI that determines the risk of brain-atrophy, but the location and tissue type where the extra-weight is stored.
        Figure 1: Association between anthropometric variables and magnetic resonance imaging markers of brain aging; the association with Brain infarcts was not found to be statistically significant (Debette. 2013)
        Debette et al. also point out that these associations are not mediated by reverse causation, for instance due to atrophy of brain regions that regulate food intake - a commonly heralded hypothesis in the pertinent literature, by the way.
        "The present study, showing a strong inverse association between anthropometric markers of central adiposity and total brain volume, provides further evidence that abdominal fat distribution may be a more powerful predictor of structural brain aging than global body mass, and extends thesefindings to a larger sample of 1779 older persons (mean age 73 years) in the community." (Debette. 2013)
        Being abdominally obese is however not the only risk factor for being subject to brain shrinkage. The international team of researchers was also able to confirm a significant association with a certain gene type in women. In view of the fact that this does not change that it's being / getting obese that triggers the brain atrophy, I am yet not willing to waste another word on the "it's not your fault" *bs* - you are not a victim of faulty genes! If anything, you are a victim of flawed information and nutritional advice... but I am digressing.

        If we discard the genes, what are the underlying causes?

        If you don't want your brain to shrivel away before you are in a coffin six feet under, I suggest you don't miss this post: "Restore & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity - Basics: Turn Your Lifestyle Upside Down" | learn more
        Up to now we are not sure, what the exact biophysiological processes may be, but previous research including evidence from longitudinal measurements of brain volumes in overweight or obese individuals undergoing caloric restriction or bariatric surgery suggests that the GMV atrophy can be reversed by caloric restriction - even in the absence of surgery, as a 2009 monkey study by Colman et al. would suggest.

        These improvements may be downstream effects of the amelioration of the currently heralded triggers of gray matter volume reductions:
        • inflammation,
        • insulin resistance and
        • adipose-tissue derived hormones, such as leptin
        Funny how things will always come down to the usual suspects, isn't it?

        Apropos, I did not list it with primary suspects, but actually research by Canessa, et al. (2011), Carnell, et al. (2012) and Morrell, et al. (2010) appears to suggest that sleep apnea, which happens to be correlated with inflammation, insulin resistance and an overabundance of leptin and is about as rampant (yet rarely diagnosed, as obesity) could turn out to be heavily involved in the etiology of brain shrinking, as well.

        Did you know that DHEA is suspected to be the earliest trigger of brain neuronal remodeling in adolescents (Blakemore. 2010) No? Well, maybe this is not the only thing you should know about DHEA, so listen to the Science Round-Up, today!
        Bottom line: If you are stupid enough to let your waist line expand only 0.5cm every year, you better get accustomed to the idea that your brain will be shriveling away faster than your skin. Moreover, this process appears to start early in life, as a study Gunstad et al. who observed similar trends in health individuals from a much broader age spectrum (17-79y) appears to suggest.

        And last but not least, a 2005 study by Enzinger et al. confirms that increased HbA1c levels and thus, as Debette et al. suspect insulin resistance and diabetes are likewise significantly associated with an increased risk of brain atrophy.

        So in case you haven't done so already, I suggest you read both the information about lifestyle modifications and supplements to improve and maintain insulin resistance.

        References:
        • Blakemore SJ, Burnett S, Dahl RE. The role of puberty in the developing adolescent brain. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010 Jun;31(6):926-33.
        • Canessa N, Castronovo V, Cappa SF, Aloia MS, Marelli S, Falini A, Alemanno F, Ferini-Strambi L. Obstructive sleep apnea: brain structural changes and neurocognitive function before and after treatment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 May 15;183(10):1419-26.
        • Carnell S, Gibson C, Benson L, Ochner CN, Geliebter A. Neuroimaging and obesity: current knowledge and future directions. Obes Rev. 2012 Jan;13(1):43-56.
        • Colman RJ, Anderson RM, Johnson SC, Kastman EK, Kosmatka KJ, Beasley TM, Allison DB, Cruzen C, Simmons HA, Kemnitz JW, Weindruch R. Caloric restriction delays disease onset and mortality in rhesus monkeys. Science. 2009 Jul 10;325(5937):201-4.
        • ebette S, Wolf C, Lambert JC, Crivello F, Soumaré A, Zhu YC, Schilling S, Dufouil C, Mazoyer B, Amouyel P, Tzourio C, Elbaz A. Abdominal obesity and lower gray matter volume: a Mendelian randomization study. Neurobiol Aging. 2013 Aug 31. [ahead of print]
        • Enzinger C, Fazekas F, Matthews PM, Ropele S, Schmidt H, Smith S, Schmidt R. Risk factors for progression of brain atrophy in aging: six-year follow-up of normal subjects. Neurology. 2005 May 24;64(10):1704-11.
        • Gunstad J, Paul RH, Cohen RA, Tate DF, Spitznagel MB, Grieve S, Gordon E. Relationship between body mass index and brain volume in healthy adults. Int J Neurosci. 2008 Nov;118(11):1582-93.

        Organ Specific Resting Metabolic Rates and Diet-Induced "Metabolic Damage". Plus: At Rest Heart, Liver & Kidney Consume 83x More Energy/kg Organ Mass Than Muscle

        No, your muscles are not the primary gas guzzler in your body.
        The problems arising as a consequence of a diet-induced reduction of the metabolic rate are among the recurring themes here at the SuppVersity. For a good reason, as I would say. After all, they are the #1 reason for weight loss plateaus and the yoyo effect. Although the notion that "calories count" is not very popular these days there is no debating that an energy deficit is a necessary prerequisite for weight loss. The problem however is that you cannot determine your energy balance with a calculator, a body fat caliper and a scale. There are way too many other factors involved - the amount, macro- and micronutrient composition, timing, frequency, volume, texture and palatability of the ood you eat, stress, hormonal factors, etc - all of which will affect the amount of energy you expend and subvert the results of over-simplistic calories-in vs. calories-out calculations.

        What are the most notorious gas guzzlers in our body?

        Things would actually already be complex enough, if we focused solely on that "input" <> "output" recursion, but unfortunately, even the notion of a "global" (=valid for the whole body) metabolic rate is nothing we can really rely on. If we wanted to have a somewhat more accurate estimate of our basal energy requirements, i.e. the amount of energy we need if we don't move all day (which is basically what the average Westerner does, these days ;-), we would have to know the individual energy requirements of all our major organs and add them up, using a formula like this:
        The more you eat, the more you burn. You can find more evidence that men & women are no bomb-calorimeters here
        240x brain mass in kg

        + 440x heart mass in kg
        + 200x liver mass in kg
        + 440x kidney mass in kg

        + 13x skeletal muscle mass in kg
        + 4.5x adipose tissue mass in kg

        + 12x residual mass in kg
        This formula, which was developed based on studies of Elia et al. in 1998, assumes that the metabolic activity of an organ increases linearly with its mass and that the specific metabolic rates (ki-values, i.e. 240 for the brain, 440 for the heart, etc.) are accurate. In the average, normal weight non-dieting individual these values are constant and have been confirmed lately in a set of experiments that were conducted by Wang et al. (see figure 1)
        Figure 1: ki-Values of adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, liver, brain, heart, kidneys, residual volume from the Wang studies; all values expressed relative to the reference values from Elia (1998)
        These studies, which were published subsequently in 2010, 2011 and 2012, also reported that there are distinct trends for decreasing ki-values and thus lower resting energy expenditures at identical organ masses in both obese / lean and older / younger individuals - an effect which can be explained by either lower cellularity or lower specific metabolic rates of the respective organs and tissues. In light of the fact that the "organ weight x ki-value"-calculations are very accurate and that
        "there is only a small and nonsignificant difference between REEm [measured resting energy experience] and REEc [the energy experience calculated based on ki-values and organ masses] of about 13 to 80 kcal/day" (Müller. 2013b)
        it should be obvious that both aging and already being obese put you at a higher risk of weight gain in a society where energy dense foods and large portion sizes are the rule, not the exception.

        Is there something like organ specific metabolic damage?

        A couple of recent studies have investigated the effects of weight loss and regain on organ-specific energy expenditure in order to find out if this may be the, or at least one of the underlying reason for the reduced resting energy expenditure in formerly obese individuals (Müller. 2013a; Bosy-Westphal. 2009 & 2013). These studies support the idea of a fall in the organ size and weight and the corresponding ki-values of high metabolic rate organs (heart, kidney, liver) with weight loss. Bosy-Westphal (2009), for example report a -136kcal/day reduction in resting energy expenditure (REEm = measured) with 4-6% loss of liver, heart and kidney mass in obese women after 9.5kg body weight loss (2.6% fat free mass).
        Figure 2: Difference between measured and calculated energy expenditure in MJ/day at baseline, after weight loss and regain in  47 obese men and women who lost 12kg (weight stable) and 9kg (weight regainers) in a study by Bosy-Westphal et al. from 2013
        "In addition, the effect of weight loss and weight regain over a longer follow-up period of 6 months had been studied in 47 obese males and females (Bosy-Westphal. 2013). There were considerable differences between weight-reduced/weight-stable individuals compared with weight regainers. Over a period of 6 months, weight-reduced/weight-stable individuals had lost 12 kg body weight, the weight change-associated changes in the REEm - REEc values were 33 and 45 kcal/day, with initial weight loss and with long-term follow-up (i.e. between 12 weeks and 6 months). By contrast, weight regainers regained 6.3 kg body weight after an initial loss of about 9 kg. The corresponding data on the weight changeassociated changes in the REEm - REEc values were 69 and 10 kcal/day, respectively. Individual data for the group ‘regainers’ at basal before and after weight loss, as well after weight regain, are shown in [figure 2]. The changes in the REEm- REEc values argue for changes in specific metabolic rates with weight changes." (Müller. 2013b)
        What? Ok, I have to admit that this paragraph from Müller's 2013 review of the literature is not actually easy to understand. So let's take a look at the data in figure 2 again. The main message here is that the weight loss narrows the natural spectrum of REEs down to the minimal requirements of your organs. In other words, the body is running on low fumes and is thus particularly prone to weight regain which can - but does not have to - lead to an increase in the per pound organ weight energy expenditure that would then become obvious in the form of a larger difference between the measured (REEm) and calculated (REEc) resting energy expenditure (green and red circles in figure 2). With the pre-post weight regain difference being 69 vs. 10, it is yet unfortunately more common that the initial organ energy expenditure is not being restored (red circle in figure 2) and the energy expenditure remains low although people regain a lot if not all of their weight.

        Suggested read: "Do Chronic Energy Deficits Make Athletes Fat? The Longer & More Severe You Starve, the Fatter You Are. Irrespective of What the Calories-in-VS-Calories-Out Formula May Say" | read more
        What can you do with this information? Not that much, I have to admit. If anything the major contribution of non-muscle tissue to the diet induced reduction of the resting metabolic rate should remind you that it may be at least equally important to spare the mass of the organs in your splachnic bed as it is to maintain as much lean muscle tissue as possible when your dieting.

        I don't know if you remember the recent study about citrulline and it's effect on the maintenance of muscle and visceral tissue mass (see figure 1 in the respective article) or previous SuppVersity posts on other non-essential amino acids, such as glutamine or arginine? All of them are primarily "organ food" and an adequate provision of these conditionally essential amino acids should be considered as important as the provision of the purportedly muscle-protecting BCAAs if you want to keep the loss of organ mass at a minimum and your resting metabolic rate up. Whether and how you can influence the individual metabolic rate, of these organs is yet a totally different question to which no one has found a definitive answer, yet.

        References:
        • Bosy-Westphal A, Kossel E, Goele K,et al. Contribution of individual organ mass loss to weight-loss associated decline in resting energy expenditure. Am J Clin Nutr 2009; 90:993–1001.
        • Bosy-Westphal A, Schautz B, Lagerpusch M,et al.Effect of weight loss and regain on adipose tissue distribution, composition of lean mass and resting energy expenditure in young overweight and obese adults. Int J Obes 2013.
        • Elia M. Organ and tissue contribution to metabolic rate. In: Kinney J, Tucker HN, editors. Energy metabolism: tissue determinants and cellular corollaries. New York: Raven Press; 1992. pp. 61–79
        • Müller MJ, Bosy-Westphal A. Adaptive thermogenesis with weight loss in humans. Obesity 2013a; 21:218–228.
        • Müller MJ, Wang Z, Heymsfield SB, Schautz B, Bosy-Westphal A. Advances in the understanding of specific metabolic rates of major organs and tissues in humans. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013b Sep;16(5):501-8.
        • Wang Z, Ying Z, Bosy-Westphal A,et al.Specific metabolic rates of major organs and tissues across adulthood: evaluation by mechanistic model of resting energy expenditure. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 92:1369–1377.
        • Wang Z, Ying Z, Bosy-Westphal A,et al.Evaluation of specific metabolic rates of major organs and tissues: comparison between men and women. Am J Hum Biol 2011; 23:333–338.
        • Wang Z, Ying Z, Bosy-Westphal A,et al.Evaluation of specific metabolic rates of major organs and tissues: comparison between nonobese and obese women. Obesity 2012; 20:95–100.

        Amino Acids for Super Humans, Part IV - Purported Ergogenics (2/3): L-Carnitine, ALCAR, LCLT, GPLC & Co.

        Image 1: Even bought in bulk,
        the carnitines are not exactly
        cheap, so you better read on
        to gather whether ALCAR,
        L-CAR, P-LCAR, L-CLT & Co
        are worth spending money on.
        Despite the fact that even my grandmother has heard of the miraculous energizing and fat-burning abilities of carnitine, most people - and even those who are buying those carnitine-enriched functional, or should I say disfunctional foods are not even aware that L-3-hydroxy-4-N,N,N-trimethylaminobutyric acid (l-carnitine) is a naturally occurring amino acid, all mammals (humans included) can synthesize from l-lysine or l-methionine in their livers and kidneys.

        Necessary co-factors for carnitine synthesis are
        • ascorbic acid (vitamin C), 
        • pyridoxine (vitamin B6), 
        • niacin (vitamin B3) and 
        • S-Adenosyl methionine (SAMe)
        Interestingly, supplementation of the EAA substrates and co-factors failed to raise carnitine synthesis and or serum levels in respective studies. Gamma-butyrobetaine, a down-stream metabolite in carnitine synthesis from lysine, on the other hand, doubled plasma, brain, kidney and liver levels of carnitine in juvenile mice; cf. Higashi. 2001).

        Note: This is the detailed transcript of my show notes to "Amino Acids for Super Humans Part IV"
        click here to download the podcast if you want to listen before / during / after you read the rest of the notes
        In view of the limited capacity for endogenous biosynthesis of carnitine, it is not very surprising that mammals obtain the heat sensitive (at 284°F ~ 140°C carnitine starts to decompose) amino acidprimarily from their diet (Vaz. 2002); and in that, it is probably no coincidence that colostrum and breast milk are particularly high in l-carnitine, as the need for this essential metabolite in the mammalian energy metabolism increases in phases of rapid growth.
        Did you know? The first soy-based baby formulas were low in carnitine, so that neonates who were fed respective products had 1/3 lower carnitine levels than babies who were breast-fed or received milk-based products. Even in the absence of symptoms of overt carnitine deficiency, sub-optimal carnitine levels put these children at risk of early or late metabolic complications (Olson. 1989). Consequently, almost all soy-based infant formulas are enriched with l-cartinine, today.

        Vegetarians and Vegans generally have lower plasma carnitine levels
        Table 1: Amount of carnitine in food;
        meat, fish and dairy are particularly
        good sources of dietary l-carnitine
        (data adapted from wikipedia.org)

        That's unfortunate news for all vegetarians and vegans out there, because as the data in table 1 shows, meat, fish and dairy are the richest dietary sources of l-carnitine. "Omnivorous humans generally ingest 2-12 µmol of carnitine per day per kg of body weight" (Vaz. 2002), which is up to 10x the estimated amount of our endegenous production (1.2µmol /kg/day). So that 75% of the well-stocked carnitine stores of meat-eaters come from dietary, and only 25% from de novo biosynthesis. Needless to say that, with an average daily carnitine intake of <0.1µmol /kg body weight, vegetarians and vegans are usually significantly lower than those of their omnivores fellow men (Rebouche. 1992).

        Symptoms of overt carnitine deficiency, such as cardiomyopathy,
        hepatomegaly, myopathy, recurrent episodes of hypoketotic

        hypoglycaemia, hyperammonaemia and failure to thrive have yet not been observed in the absence of CDSP (primary carnitine defiency), a pathology that has been mapped to human chromosome 5q and is characterized by excessive renal and intestinal wastage of carnitine.
        Attention Atkins dieters! In a German study (Liebhaber. 2006) the long-term effects of ketogenic diets on epileptic children, carnitine deficiency was detected in 57% of the patients who did not receive supplemental l-carnitine. There was a large interpersonal variety as far as the onset of carnitine deficiency was concerned. On average subjects developed carnitine defiencey after about 32 weeks, one subject was however carnitine deficient after only two days and one subject maintain sufficient carnitine levels for 248 weeks before carnitine deficiency was diagnosed. These observations stand in line with results of Stadler et al. (Stadler. 1999) who had previously established that a high fat intake increases carnitine excretion. Taken together, this data suggests that people who follow a high fat (not the high protein low carb diet everybody is on these days) would generally benefit from carnitine supplementation.

        How carnitine facilitates "fat-burning"

        Illustration 1: Carnitine is like the man who
        shovels the coal. It's just a small wheel in the
        mitochondrial fat burning machinery. Without
        lipolytic activity (= free fatty acids floating aroun) and
        a sufficient number of properly functioning
        mitochondria, increased carnitine levels
        won't translate into fat loss (picture in the back-
        ground from Ptak Science Books. 2009)
        The previous remarks on potentially low carnitine levels suggest the assumption that their diet puts this group of people at risk of high triglyceride levels, obesity and all other sorts of metabolic pathologies related to suboptimal fatty acid oxidation. There is however very little evidence that plasma l-carnitine is - under normal conditions - rate limiting in mitochondrial beta-oxidation. If you think of coal-fired steam engines of the Titanic, would the ship have been faster and thus be able to take the safer route and still win theBlue Riband of the Atlantic if there had been more workers to fire up the ovens? Probably not, because the engines were already running at full throttle... the same is true for your mitochondria, just because there is an overabundance of carrier molecules that does not mean that your "ovens",... pardon me..., your mitochondria will be able to oxidize more fat.

        The commonly touted "fat burning" effects of l-carnitine (and all other forms of carnitine) thusly belong to the realms of advertismental oversimplifications, or should I say frauds? Even taken poundwise carnitine by itself will neither empty, nor burn the contents of a single of your unaesthetic fat cells. On the other hand, a profoundly lowered carnitine levels as they were reported for elderly and obese patients by Noland et al. (Noland. 2009) could lead to or exasperate existing weight problems by compromising the transport of fatty acids from the cytosol, i.e. the intracellular fluid, into and back out of the mitochondria.

        Figure 1: Free and bound (esterified) carnitine content in mg/kg of different meat products
        (data adapted from Seline. 2007)

        In and out that's the way things have to go

        Image 2: Lipofuscin accumulation (fine
        brown / yellow granular pigment)
        in liver cells (photo by Nephron).
        The latter, the transport of partly oxidized, "damaged fats", so called lipofuscins out of the mitochondria, may in fact be about as important for your overall metabolic health as the well-known transportation of esterified fatty acids into the mitochondria. Mitochondrial malfunction and failure aside, a way more visible effect of lipofuscin accumulation are the brown stains on old peoples skin. Of greater significance are yet the negative effects of lipofuscin depositions in the brain, which have been shown to be ameliorated by acetyl-carnitine supplementation (Kohjimoto. 1988). And it is likely that many of the established benefits of (acetyl-)l-carnitine supplementation stem from the clearance not the the entrance of fatty acids into the cells.

        Inter-cellularly, carnitine also functions as a temporary buffer for the unused acetyl-CoA. The accumulation of respective acyl-carnitines within the mitochondrion, which goes hand in hand with a depletion of unbound l-carnitine that would faciliate the transport of fatty acids into the mitochondria, has been implicated as one of the confounding factors in the etiology of the metabolic syndrome. 

        Figure 2: Simplified illustration of the underlying mechanism of carnitine mediated fatty acid transport in and out of the mitochondrion (The AOCS Lipid Library)

        L-Carnitine as a selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator & useful tool in hyperthyroidism

        Beside its effects on mitochondrial health, l-carnitine also exhibits anti-inflammatory properties by directly interacting with glucocorticoid receptors on immune cells (Manoli. 2006). In experiments Manoli et al. conducted back in 2006, l-carnitine in a glucocorticoid-like fashion "suppressed the lipopolysaccharide-stimulated release of tumor necrosis factor α and interleukin-12 from primary human monocytes". Despite its ability to stimulate glucocorticoid receptors (GR), and to reduce binding of the cortisol analogue 3H]-dexamethasone to GRs, LCAR apparently lacks the deleterious side effects corticosteroids have on other organs/tissues in the human body.
        Moreover, a study by Benvenga et al. in which women received supraphysiological doses of the synthetic thyroid hormone levothyroxin (T4) to induce symptoms of hyperthyroidism confirmed previous observations that l-carnitine even at doses as low as 2-4g/day "antagonizes hyperthyroidism-related [...] symptoms and biochemical responses of thyroid hormone target tissues". Data from cell culture experiments suggest that it is the property to inhibit T3 and T4 entry into cell nuclei, which it at the heart of the anti-(hyper-)thyroid effect of l-carnitine, since l-carnitine supplementation does not substantially affect thyroid hormone levels or radioactive iodine uptake by the thyroid.
        Did you know? Both full-blown hyper- as well as hypothyroidism have been associated with muscular carnitine depletion (Sinclair. 2005), as a consequence of insufficient synthesis (hypo-) and increased usage (hyper-) of carnitine.
        In that, it is interesting to note that, vice-versa, thyroid hormone also influences the rate of carnitine synthesis (Galland. 2002), which, again, brings up the idea of tightly regulated, feedback-control mechanisms intended to keep the metabolic rate (including the mitochondrial beta oxidation of fatty acids) in a narrow physiological range, so that in people with high levels of thyroid hormones (not necessarily hyperthyroidism) and increased carnitine production, or in people with low levels of thyroid hormones (not necessarily hypothyroidism) and decreased carnitine production the respective ratios of carnitine / thyroid hormone could lead to similar cellular T3 / T4 uptake in the presence of fundamentally different serum levels of these hormones.

        Carnitine intake and clearance - does supplementation make sense at all?

        In healthy human beings, on the other hand, the main regulatory mechanisms take place in the kidney and a basic understanding of the relation of carnitine intake to urinary loss is of fundamental importance for anyone who does not want to feed his expensive carnitine supplements to sewer rats.
        Figure 2: Free and bound (esterified) carnitine content in mg/kg of different milk products
        (data adapted from Seline. 2007)

        In general, dietary l-carnitine has a bioavailability of 54%-84% and is thusly much better absorbed than supplemental carnitine in powdered or capped form, for which Rebouche et al. report a bioavailability of meager 14%-18% (Rebouche. 2006). Ideally, you would thus get about 1.28g of carnitine from 1kg of Kangaroo steak, which turns out to be by far the best source of dietary l-carnitine.
        Note: According to the data from Rebouche et al. you wanted to get the same 1.28g of carnitine from a supplement, instead of a 3-4 dilicious steaks, you would  have to consume 7-9g of supplemental carnitine in pill or capsules for the same amount of l-carnitine to hit your blood stream!
        A vegan, who abstains from eating meat, fish and dairy, on the other hand, would have to eat his share of 60kg of mushrooms to get an equal amount of 1.28g of carnitine. Although the act of eating 60kg of mushrooms would already border the supernatural, the of 320kg of carrots you would have to eat, alternatively, are merely hypothetical.
        Figure 3: Free and bound (esterified) carnitine content in mg/kg of different mushroom, vegetable and fruit products
        (data adapted from Seline. 2007)
        Unfortunately things do not turn out to be that easy as the above calculations would suggest, because, as we physicists use to say, bioavailibilty B(m, C, F) "is a function of body weight m, carnitine availability C and the form of carnitine F" and thus depends on how much you weight, how much carnitine you eat in a single sitting, how much carnitine is already floating around in your blood stream and what form of carnitine (free l-carnitine or esterified carnitines, such as acetyl-l-carnitine or (glycine-)propionyl-l-carnitine, you ingest. Add to that some interpersonal variability and plot the total ingested and absorbed amounts of l-carnitine from a previous study of Rebouche et al. (Rebouche. 1999) in a graph and you get something that looks like this:
        Figure 4: Total ingested (full bars) and absorbed (blue part of the bar) amount of dietary carnitine in mg/kg body weight
        (data adapted from Rebouche. 1999 & Rebouche. 2006)
        It's quite obvious that - despite all interpersonal variety among the 12 test subjects - the relative amount of carnitine that actually hits the circulation decreases with increasing amounts of carnitine in the diet.
        Did you know that multiple small doses of carnitine are way superior to a single large dose if your aim is to persistently increase serum carnitine levels? In contrast to Rebouche et al. (Rebouche. 2006), who achieved relatively stable carnitine levels >50% above baseline by having their subjects take their 2g of carnitine in three divided doses (at 8am, 12pm, and 6pm) trials using a single, large bolus of l-carnitine (orally and even intraveniously) did not produce sustainable elevations in plasma carnitine levels. Furthermore, the addition of carbohydrate (96g glucose in addition to 3g l-carnitine/day) and the concomitant insulin release have been found to decrease uriniry carnitine clearance, or, converesely, increase carnitine retention by ~40% (Stephens. 2007).
        The decreased absorption of dietary carnitine from the gut goes hand in hand with a decreased reabsorption of  carnitine in the kidneys. At low to normal serum carnitine levels the latter conserve 90-99% of the circulating carnitine. When carnitine levels increase, however, the clearance rate increases way beyond the 1-3 mL/min that would leave your body in the form of urinary losses under "normal" circumstances. Thusly, increased carnitine levels, as they are the result of an intravenous infusion of 0.5g of carnitine, return to baseline in less than 12h, with a rapid decline (-80%) in the first hour after administration. Whole body turnover, i.e. the "renewal" of creatine stores, in slow (muscle) and fast turnover (liver, kidney, and other tissues) stores is estimated to take about 38-119h (Rebouche. 2006).

        On the different forms of carnitine

        The absorption issue immediately reminds me of the bro-scientific mambo-jambo about the bioavailability of different forms of carnitine you can find wherever L-CAR, ALCAR, P-LCAR, LCLT & Co are sold.  In most cases the the individual bioavailibility appears to depend on the venue the respective vendor will get from the different forms of carnitine. In that, supplement manufacturers cash in on the lack of scientific studies comparing the absorption kinetics of the various commercially available forms of carnitine in a single objective model. In this context it is also noteworthy that both commercially available carnitine-esters, i.e. acetyl-l-carnitine (ALCAR) and (glycine-)propionyl-l-carnitine (PLCAR, (G)PLC), are no invention of the supplement industry, but naturally occurring forms of carnitine, the pharmacokinetics of which have been studies by Cao et al. after oral administration of 2g of l-carnitine to 12 healthy volunteers (Cao. 2009).
        Table 2: Pharmacokinetics of l-carnitine (L-CAR), acetyl-l-carnitine (ALCAR) and propionyl-l-carnitine (PLC) after oral administration of 2g of l-carnitine to 12 healthy volunteers (data adapted from Cao. 2009)
        As it was to be expected both, the maximal, as well as the absolute plasma concentration of l-carnitine of l-carnitine are greater than that of its esters. Yet despite the sudden spike in l-carnitine levels, the clearance rate for ALCAR and PLC were greater. Conversely, the carnitine-esters have a -40% (ALCAR) and -57% shorter half-life than the free form of carnitine. In that, the high 24-h urinary excretion of ALCAR, which equals about 2x the area under the curve suggest that both long PLC esters that have previously been broken down to shorter acetyl-esters, as well as "used" and thus esterified l-carnitine are excreted as acetyl-l-carnitine.

        The results of Cao et al. stand in line with findings of Eder et al. (Eder. 2005), who used a pig model ( which is pretty reliable when it comes to modeling the human digestive system) to estimate the bioavailability of various L-carnitine esters (acetyl-L-carnitine and lauroyl-L-carnitine) and salts (L-carnitine L-tartrate, L-carnitine fumarate, L-carnitine magnesium citrate) and found that
        AUC [aera under the curve] values, calculated for the time interval between 0 and 32 hours, for both free and total carnitine were similar for base of free L-carnitine and the three L-carnitine salts (L-carnitine L-tartrate, L-carnitine fumarate, L-carnitine magnesium citrate) while those of the two esters (acetyl-L-carnitine, lauroyl-L-carnitine) were lower.
        In that, it is of particular interest that l-carnitine-l-tartrate (LCLT), which is heavily promoted as the "best" carnitine supplement, did in fact "yield a higher plasma free carnitine AUC value for the time interval between 0 and 3.5 hours than [any] of the other compounds." The faster absorption of LCLT aside, the data of this (unfortunately) unique study would suggest that the fancy "L-carnitine salts have a similar bioavailability" as the way cheaper free form of carnitine (l-carnitine) and both appear to be better absorbed than any of the l-carnitine esters .
        Did you know? Gram per gram the tartrate salt of carnitine (LCLT) provides only 40% carnitine. If, for example, you wanted 2g of pure carnitine, you would have to take 5g of LCLT.

        Acetyl l-carnitine the one and only (?) brain booster

        In the case of ALCAR, for example, it is well established that its oral bioavailability is decreased due to increased hydrolysis. Oral bioavailability, on the other hand, is only one of the attributes the addition of the acetyl ester to the free form of carnitine changes. For example, it is often cited that ALCAR would be the only form of carnitine that is able to pass the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) in mammals. This statement is simply false! While it is true that the acetylated form of carnitine passes enters the brain more easily, i.e. it takes lower concentrations outside the barrier to achieve the same levels of carnitine within the brain, the difference in K(m) values, which area a measure of the concentration of substrate required to produce 50% of the maximal uptake, is only 5% (K(m)Alcar=31.3 vs. K(m)Carn=33.1, cf. Kido. 2008).

        Anyway, at least those of you who have some sort of cognitive / neurological problem, probably won't really care if ALCAR is actually the only, or maybe just the favorable form of carnitine to treat neurological diseases, as long as it will help mitigate your problems - and indeed, ALCAR appears to be a formidable "brain nutrient" which has been used succesfully in a variety of brain-related clinical conditions (Alternative Medicine Review. 2010):
        • Alzheimer's disease
        • Depression
        • Attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Fragile X Syndrome
        • Peripheral (diabetic, antiretroviral and chemotherapy-induced) neuropathy
        • Cerebral ischemia and reperfusion
        • and others
        The underlying mechanisms of action most likely are:
        • Increasing neural energy production
        • Protecting neurons from toxins
        • Maintaining neuron receptors
        • Increasing availability of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine
        • Decreasing accumulation "damaged fats" (lipofuscins) in brain tissue
        If administered orally, dosages usually range from 2.0-5.0g of ALCAR, mostly taken in divided doses. Reports on side effects are scarce, and generally limited to agitation, nausea and vomiting, so that ALCAR is generally considered safe, even wit long-term administration  (Spagnoli. 1991).
          (Glycine) propionyl l-carnitine the one and only (?) nitric oxide booster

          Image 3: Molecular structure
          of the bulky 3-Propanoyloxy-
          4-(trimethylazaniumyl)butanoate
          molecule which usually goes by
          the name Propionyl-L-carnitine, or
          its abbreviations PLC or PLCAR.

          GPLC, i.e. glycine propionyl l-carnitine certainly is the fancier of the two readily available carnitine esters. I mean, who cares about brain health, if GPLC promises huge pumps? The target group of the colorful ads in the bodybuilding magazines probably doesn't. Yet while studies from the Department of Health and Sport Sciences at the University of Memphis (Bloomer 2007; Bloomer. 2009), the Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion at the Florida Atlantic University (Jacobs. 2009) support the claim that the combination of glycine and propionyl l-carnitine can increase nitric oxide production, decrease lactate accumulation and increase performance in high intensity exercises such as sprinting, the exact underlying mechanism remains questionable. Especially in view of the fact that Bloomer et al. (Bloomer 2007) administered glycine (1g) and the carnitine ester PLC (3g) in an unbound form, further investigation, whether co-administration of glycine and l-carnitine would not produce similar, yet more cost effective results, are warranted.
          Note: I assume, you have also heard of the paradoxical effect 4.5g of GPLC had on sprint performance in a 2010 follow-up study of Jacobs et al. (Jacobs. 2010). In contrast to what the scientists had expected based on previous results (Jacobs. 2009), long-term supplementation of a high dose (4.5g vs. 1.5g) of glycine propionyl l-carnitine did not only fail to improve sprint performance beyond what was achieved with 1/3 of the dosage, the huge pump, the athletes were complaining about, even compromised their performance. If you are an athlete, exceeding a dose 1-2g of GPLC per day would thus be more than a waste of money, it could actually cost you your victory. Remember: With most supplements taking more does not equal greater benefits!
          L-carnitine l-tartrate the one an only (?) testosterone booster

          Image 4: "Supported" studies make
          LCLT highly marketable (Lonza, Inc)
          Based on what you (should) have learned from the previous paragraphs, you should not be surprised to hear that l-carnitine l-tatrate at dises of 5g (equiv. to 2g of carnitine), just as his "brethren" l-carnitine, acetyl- and propionyl l-carnitine may be considered a scientifically proven ergogenic. Ester (ALCAR, PLC) or salt (L-carnitine L-tartrate, L-carnitine fumarate, L-carnitine magnesium citrate), after all, its all carnitine... that being said, I do not question any of the highly marketable results Kraemer, Volek and the other scientists from the Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology at the University of Connecticut have produced. I am just asking myself, why none of these studies compared the expensive tartrate salt, L-Carnipure® tartrate, the scientists received along with research grants from Lonza, Inc, to the much cheaper non-patented free form of carnitine. You do not have an answer, do you?
          Did you ever think of the remote possibility that the "subtle yet significant" effects l-carnitine l-tartrate had on androgen receptor expression and testosterone in the heavily cited 2006 study by Kraemer et al. (Kraemer. 2006), may come from the tartrate and not the carnitine? Me neither, but the idea Owner (pseudonym) from the Mind&Muscle boards brought up, back in the days, is not totally devious. Join the smartest BB-community on the net and revive the discussion, if you will!

          Conclusion

          Do you remember? This write-up started out with the purported fat-burning effects of carnitine, established that carnitine is a necessary, but not sufficient co-factor in mitochondrial beta oxidation and clearance of fatty acid, elaborated on the metabolic and neurological health benefits of carnitine and concluded on the true ergogenic value of what turned out to be a whole group of quite expensive amino acids, the use of which you should take into consideration only after you got your (carnivorous) diet, your training regimen and your basic supplement protocol (protein, creatine + facultative EAA/BCAA) in check.