.

.
marylin monroe
Showing posts with label low carbohydrate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label low carbohydrate. Show all posts

Minimal Carb Reduction, Maximal Results? Study Compares 60% vs. 40% CHO Diets + 6-Week 25% Energy Reduction

Does "moderate low carb" work? And if so how much of the usual triglyceride and glucose lowering benefits of walking the whole nine yard are you going to miss?
I know that 40% carbs is not what you consider "moderate", but for most of our fellow countrymen and women, cutting back on at least one serving of their beloved pasta and bread is already more than you can ask for if you want a compliance that's beyond 1%. Against that background it is all the more important to know whether even small changes in the overall carbohydrate intake have to offer obviously less pronounced, but still significantly beneficial health benefits to overweight and obese individuals -- small changes like the 20% reduction in carbohydrate intake in the "moderately-restricted carbohydrate diet" (MRCD) arm of the most recent study from the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in Teheran, Iran (Rajaie. 2014), for example.

1/2 low carb = 100% adherence, but at which costs?

The experiment was conducted by Somayeh Rajaie and colleagues. The results will be published in the January 2014 edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nutrition. Results of which the authors say that they are particularly relevant, because...
"[...e]arlier studies on the management of metabolic syndrome (MetS) have mostly focused on very low carbohydrate diets" whereas long-term adherence to such diets is difficult for apparently healthy people."(Rajaie. 2014)
I can already hear the first people arguing that this was bullshit. What is bullshit, though, is to close your eyes and ignore the real world problems people encounter, when they go from years of sugar, sugar, sugar, sugar and fat to diet that have almost no sugar in them. I mean, come on low carb boys and girls, ask your non-fitness-infected friends about going without pasta and pizza for the rest of their lives. What are these people going to answer? ... You see: long-term adherence to very-low-carb diets is difficult for the average "apparently healthy people", the Iranian scientists are talking about, here ;-)
Figure 1: Number of servings from different food groups (left) and macronutrient composition (right) of the basleine diet of the 39 overweight study participants (Rajaie. 2014)
While it may not be as straight forward as it is with rodent studies, we still have to take into account that the baseline diet could render the significance of the data from a human study similarly questionable as that from rodent studies. Figure 1 does yet tell you that these aforementioned "average apparently healthy" man or woman in Iran eats pretty much the same sh*t as his / her American or European counterparts: a diet that's a "perfect" mixture of fats and sugar that will blow you up much more effectively than a really high carbohydrate + low fat, or a really low carbohydrate + high fat diet.

Apropos "high carbohydrate": The basline carbohydrate intake is actually so "low", that the subjects in the high carbohydrate group of the study at hand had to increase their carbohydrate intake to get it up to the recommended 60% of their total energy intake. By implication, this means that the subjects in the "moderately restricted carbohydrate" group didn't reduce their carbohydrate intake by 20% (as the abstract appears to imply), but only by 10% vs. baseline.

Adding or subtracting 10% carbs - what's better when you're dieting?

Ok, enough of the number games. Basically what I am trying to say was that the effective reduction in carbohydrate intake during the 6-week intervention period is only 10% - not 20%, as the difference between the high carbohydrate and the "moderately restricted" carbohydrate group (MRC) would suggest.
Figure 2: Macronutrient composition of the diets during the 6-week intervention (left) and changes in macrontrient composition (right) expressed relative to baseline (Rajaie. 2014)
As I already pointed out, this implies that the high carbohydrate group effectively increased their relative carbohydrate intake (see Figure 2, right). In contrast to what the increasing number of carbophobs out there would probably have expected, this outrageous increase in carbohydrate intake did not result in weight or fat gain.

Small changes make a difference! But that's small changes in energy, not carbohydrate intake

As the data in Figure 3 goes to show you, both groups lost almost exactly the same amount of body weight (1.72kg HC vs. 1.70kg MRC), they also gained the same ~800g of lean mass and lost 1.3kg of body fat.
Figure 3: Changes in body weight, BMI and body composition after 6 weeks (Rajiae. 2014)
In other words: From a body composition perspective the 20% difference in carbohydrate intake obviously didn't make a difference - and the "trend toward greater reduction in waist" in the MRC group, the authors highlight in their abstract could be mediated by the baseline difference (1 cm larger waists in the MRC group).

A very similar image emerges for the often advertised beneficial effects "real" low carb diets have on the serum triglyceride (TG) levels. In the "moderately restricted carbohydrate" group, they were simply not there. With a p-value of p = 0.07 for the inter-group difference, these changes were even more "random" than the previously cited effects on the waist line. And if the "greater reduction of systolic blood pressure (−8.93 versus −2.97 mm Hg; P = 0.06) and diastolic blood pressure (−12.7 versus −1.77 mm Hg; P = 0.001)" in the MRC group was not simply a result of a (in the long term) not necessarily beneficial reduction in the sympathetic tone is similarly difficult to tell.

Read: " Two Days A Week High Protein, Low Carb Fast Cuts >10% of Body Fat in 4 Months" | more
Bottom line: Hovering around in the "comfort zone" is not going to help you make huge changes. When you run a 25% energy restriction you will lose body weight. As the study at hand shows, even without sacrificing muscle tissue. Whether you do that with a 40% or 60% carbohydrate does not appear to matter for the average overweight individual.

Long story short, if you don't go to the extremes and adhere to a sane energy deficit (>20%, but <35%), it really doesn't matter whether you eat some more carbs or some more fats. And let's be honest, brutally honest: For an increasing part of the ever more obese inhabitants of the Western obesity belt, it would already be a remarkable achievement not to get fatter every day. If these people managed to lose ~1.3kg of pure fat while increasing their lean mass by almost 1kg that would be a major success.
Reference:
  • Rajaie, S., Azadbakht, L., Khazaei, M., Sherbafchi, M., & Esmaillzadeh, A. (2014). Moderate replacement of carbohydrates by dietary fats affects features of metabolic syndrome: A randomized crossover clinical trial. Nutrition, 30(1), 61-68.

Adelfo Cerame: Carbophobia a Thing of the Past - How a Love-and-Hate Affair Turned into a Productive Friendship

The very latest progress pictures from "Your's Truly"; Adelfo Cerame Jr. posted only a couple of hours ago on Facebook - I guess there is no doubt about the success he has with his old fiend and new friend - in "moderation" as he says ;-)
It's Thursday and about time for another update of "Your's Truly" Adelfo Cerame Jr. from the photo Adelfo posted on facebook earlier today (see image on the right), you can see already that he actually not approaching, but more or less already in contest shape, but before I hand the virtual microphone (actually I should type keyboard ;-) over to Adelfo, here is the brief primer on today's SuppVersity Science Round-Up on Super Human Radio.

As you should really know by now, you have three options (not listenting to it is not among them ;-)
  1. listen live at 1PM EST,
  2. download the show ~2h later either from the "Physical Culture for Your Ears" menu in the sidebar of the SuppVersity, or
  3. download the podcast load it right over right over at www.superhumanradio.com
And just to make sure that you know that it will be well worth it, here's the sneak peak on the topics Carl Lanore and I have lined up for you, today:
As you should know by now, additional topics and things I mentioned that ended up not making it into the show due to time constraints will be part of tomorrow's SuppVersity Science Round-Up Seconds... that's it. Let's go Adelfo!

Fully and completely getting over my phobia of carbohydrates

It's plain to see and hard to deny: Me + Carbs a.k.a. Mrs. Jones = Got a Thang Goin’ On…
In light of some of the comments I’ve been getting on FB about my carbohydrate intake being very high, I thought it would be prudent to address the issue in my weekly blogpost. Firstly, this saves me hours of precious time, since I don't have to answer the same questions dozens of times, and secondly - my gut tells me I would have benefited, if someone had written a post like this in the past: an article that would have had me rethink my own nutritional regimen, which and this is something I want to point out before I even get into any details clearly isn't "high carb"! With 150-200g of carbohydrates and thus <800kcal of my daily energy intake from carbs this may be high for a "carbophob", as I've been one myself before, but it would still be considered "low carb" both, in the mainstream, as well as in the context of classic bodybuilding diets. Be that as it may, I personally feel a huge relief now that I have finally liberated myself from my personal fears of carbohydrates and have learned to embrace "carbs" in all its forms - my diet has become more flexible, I have a greater variety and - what's most important - I see nothing but benefits from it.

I’ll be the first to tell you that Mrs. Jones (I’ll refer to her as that because this is how I felt about carbs for a while) and I were not on the best terms. It was a 3-year love hate relationship. Just like cash, I thought she was the root of all evil. The first time I ever downloaded and read Dr. Mauro DiPasquale’s Anabolic Solution, I for sure thought I found the Holy Grail to dieting and bodybuilding (true story!), and that’s where my phobia and our tragic love-hate relationship actually began. I thought that I would be shredded year round if only I lived the low carb lifestyle. It worked for a while but then eventually the magic I thought I was experiencing, when I started out, didn’t work any longer. 

Even during my bulk I thought I would still manage to look ripped because I was on low carbs, but again I was wrong! Lol. But I still insisted that carbs were evil just because… honestly, I don't even know why!? Probably because for 2 years I had avoided my Mrs Jones like the plague and only devoured her on my refeeds, cheat days and special social events, which eventually turned into binge fests and late nights in my bed being in a fetal position because I would eat myself silly.

No, carbs just had to be bad,... otherwise I would have had to admit that I'd a mistake, yet not only once, but 365 days a year!

Suggested read: Adel's old post "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleoland" The article explains pretty well why 150g CHO is something any not 100% sedentary diabetic can easily handle.
If you have a closer look at Not until last year did my opinion start to change towards carbohydrates. My relationship with Mr. Jones gradually improved ever since I started using Intermittent Fasting a la Leangains last year to prepare for my 2012 bodybuilding shows. But even then I still shied away from breads, oats, grains and even rice and just stuck to your typical sweet potatoes and yams. I guess you could say that she and I were at a truce, but not necessarily friends, like secret lovers we knew our boundaries and kept our distance… I stayed away for the majority of the week with the exception of 1-2 days of debauchery out of the week (refeeds).

During the last year, however, a revelation started to dawn on me. Finally, I began to understand the importance of carbohydrates, when it came to performance and the importance of performance, when it comes to making progress - regardless of whether we are talking, cutting, bulking or becoming stronger! More and more foods I had avoided or restricted, because I deemed them "bad" or "extremely detrimental" for my physique found their way back in my diet and not one of my fears about what would happen, when I consumed them more than maximally once per week materialized.

Me + Carbs = Best Friends

Though carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient like fats and amino acids; I’ve realized when it comes to performance and bringing in your best physique… carbs are necessary.
I really kept an open mind when approaching my 2012-2013 contest preparations. Just as I had an open mind with giving intermittent fasting a go last year for my prep, I’ve also had an open mind with giving IIFYM a try this year and combining the two, and needless to say I am very happy that I did. I thought that I enjoyed the perks of Intermittent fasting last year?... Well I’m really enjoying the perks of applying both IF & IIFYM this year! A

Admittedly, it certainly helped to have a coach I can trust. It gave me a lot of reassurance in keeping an open mind – especially when you’re still trying to grasp the fact that all foods are OK to eat in moderation - and yes this includes ice cream, beer and bacon (before some of you new readers out there go nuts and tell me how unhealthy my new protocol is, please refer to my last article and the follow up discussion, so you’ll understand what I’m taking about).

My Take Away: As I always say, balance, moderation & consistency are the keys to a long-term successful diet. Though carbohydrates and I are pals now, I still show the same amount of love to protein and fats as I did before; the only difference is that carbohydrates is treated as an equal now ;-)

"Keto" Diet in Taekwando Athletes: Good for Performance, Less Beneficial for Body Composition - Non-Sign. Higher Muscle & Lower Fat Loss in 25% Deficit vs. Balanced Diet

Ketogenic dieting will help to preserve performance, but in contrast to what the hype on the Internet says, it won't help already lean taekwondo athletes to improve their body composition.
Only recently Volek et al. have published an article in the European Journal of Sport Science discussing role as "fat as a fuel for endurance exercise" in which they highlight that ketones do not simply provide "a stable source of fuel for the brain", but may also "act as a signalling molecule capable of altering gene expression [...] that could extend human physical and mental performance beyond current expectation" (Volek. 2014).

If you look at the outcomes of a recent study from the Jungwon University and the Seoul Women’s University in Korea it would appear as if Volek, Noakes and Phinney were actually up to something.
The best way to shape your body? Build muscle, Ladies & Gents!

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Hula Hoop Yourself to a Slim Waist!

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!
The purpose of said study was to investigate the effects of the weight loss through 3 weeks of ketogenic diet on performance-related physical fitness and inflammatory cytokines in Taekwondo athletes.
Figure 1: Macronutrient composition of the two 25% energy reduced test diets (Rhyu. 2014)
"The subjects selected for this research were 20 Taekwondo athletes of the high schools who participated in a summer camp training program. The subjects were randomly assigned to 2 groups, 10 subjects to each group: the ketogenic diet (KD) group and the non-ketogenic diet (NKD) group. Body composition, performance-related physical fitness factors (2,000 m sprint, Wingate test, grip force, back muscle strength, sit-up, 100 m sprint, standing broad jump, single leg standing) and cytokines (Iinterleukin-6, Interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α) were analyzed before and after 3 weeks of ketogenic diet." (Rhyu. 2014)
In contrast to what you'd expect based on the hype around ketogenic dieting in the bodybuilding and fitness community,  the ketogenic diet that contained 55.0%, 40.7%, and 4.3% of the daily energy intake in form of fat, protein and carbohydrates respectively did not experience greater improvements in body composition than their peers on a 30%, 30%, and 40% fat, protein, carbohydrate diet.
If you want to do a keto diet, say goodbuy to tons of protein: What may not be obvious to all of you is the fact that the diet at hand is low in carbs, but not high enough in fat to be truly ketogenic. With 40% protein you are not going to go into ketosis. That's simply too much protein to be converted to glucose in the liver - specifically if you get some of the protein from fast digesting protein sources like whey, which will spike the blood amino acid levels and kickstart hepatic gluconeogenesis. Unfortunately, the study does not list the absolute protein intake, but if we assume a baseline intake of 2800kcal per day for the subjects, they would have consumed 210g of protein per day - that's 3.2g/kg for these lean guys - and still lost muscle.
What is particularly interesting in this context is that the diet is as Jacob Wilson pointed out in a comment on my facebook page, probably not even "ketogenic". As he says, they found in their studies that "subjects generally need to have fat near 70 % or above to reach nutritional ketosis". The diet in the study at hand is thus too high in protein - just like the diets of 90%+ of the people in the fitness world who believe they were following a ketogenic diet, when they are in fact only eating a high protein diet with some fat and low carbohydrates in it.
Figure 2: Effects of ketogenic vs. non-ketogenic diet w/ 25% reduced energy intake on body composition (left) and performance marker, i.e. 2,000m sprint times and wingate peak & mean power, as well as anaerobic fatique during wingate test (Rhyu. 2014)
Rather than at an advantage, the athletes on the keto diet appear to be at a visible, albeit statistically non-significant disadvantage, when it comes to the effects of the -25% calorie-reduced diet on their lean and fat mass. Against that background it is all the more surprising that the scientists found significant decreases in 2,000 m sprint time in the ketogenic diet group that were not present in the non-ketogenic dieters. In addition, the "high carbers" felt significantly more fatigue after a standardized Wingate test and had higher levels of tumor necrosis factor-α - an indicator of increased inflammation compared to the "no-carb" keto-genic diet.
The surprising data from a 2011 study by Mendes-Netto et al. shows that an almost fat-free diet yields leaner gains than a low(ish) fat diet | learn more.
Bottom line: Overall, the results of the study at hand suggests that ketogenic diets can have significant performance conserving effects in taekwondo athletes and others who have to cut weight periodically.

The commonly heard claim that ketogenic dieting would lead to significantly more beneficial improvements in body composition in dieting athletes, on the other hand, is clearly falsified by the results of the study at hand. If anything, the loss of muscle mass is more and the loss of fat mass less pronounced than it would be with a balanced medium-to-high carbohydrate diet | Comment on Facebook.
References:
  • Rhyu, Hyun-seung, and Su-Youn Cho. "The effect of weight loss by ketogenic diet on the body composition, performance-related physical fitness factors and cytokines of Taekwondo athletes." Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation 10.5 (2014): 326-331.
  • Volek, Jeff S., Timothy Noakes, and Stephen D. Phinney. "Rethinking fat as a fuel for endurance exercise." European journal of sport science ahead-of-print (2014): 1-8.

No-Carb Foods, Artificial Sweeteners & The Cravings: In The End, It's The Glucose, Not The Taste Our Brains Crave

Despite the fact that candy is per definition (literally) made of sugar, you can buy "no carb candy" at every corner. The results of this study tell you why these aren't worth the money.
I have written extensively about artificial sweeteners in the past and would thus hope that it's not necessary to recount all the information about how they interact with insulin, potential toxicity risks, their (non-existent) effects on satiety... ah, well actually I do want to talk about the last point, because it is highly relevant to understand the implications of the results of recent Yale study (Tellez. 2013).

I know, it's just a rodent study, but I guess you will feel reminded of yourselves during your diet, when I tell you about the observations Luis A Tellez, Xueying Ren, Wenfei Han, Sara Medina, Jozelia Ferreira, Catherine Yeckel and Ivan E de Araujo made an experiment that is the first to demonstrate that the lack of glucose utilization in the brain makes artificial sweetener totally unattractive to mice.

Did you ever realize that sweeteners just won't cut it, when you're hungry?

Many of you may know that: You are dieting and you are craving - food in general, but pasta, candy and all the other carbohydrate-laden foods even more so. You've been training hard and feel that your blood glucose levels are right in the no-man's land between "just high enough to keep standing" and "already so low that you have to sit down". This is the time when you will begin to feel cold. You are sweating or getting shaky (these symptoms vary from person to person), get moody or feel like you had to run even more just to abstain from doing the one thing of which you know that it would solve all your problems (temporarily): Heading over to the kiosk next door and buying the next best Snickers or Mars bar.

Yes, Adelfo Cerame is a professed, but reformed carbophobic. Learn more about how reintroducing carbs into his diet finally got him his pro-card in this and his other guest posts
The poor critters in the study Tellez et al. conducted did not have a kiosk available. What they did have, though, was glucose and artificially sweetened water. Now, the scientists conducted the same experiment in two conditions.
  • During condition one, the rodents were fed, satiated and happy (fed). 
  • During condition two, however, they had been glucose deprived and were in a similar state as you may have been after the previously described workout. 
What's quite telling (and by the way new) is that the glucose availability had a major impact on their sweetener preferences. When fed and happy, the mice went for the super-sweet sugar- and calorie-free artificially sweetened water.

The disgustingly sweet but glucose-free water did however lose all its appeal once the mouse brains realized that the glucose supply was becoming tight:
"Consistently, hungry mice shifted their preferences away from artificial sweeteners and in favour of glucose after experiencing glucose in a hungry state." (Tellez. 2013)
And what's more, this deliberate(?), or probably instinctive, decision to turn their back on the fake sugars and avail themselves of the "real sweet deal" of which they new it would deliver what the mice needed was immediately rewarded. Rewarded in the most physiological sense of the word: with a whopping dose of dopamine, the very hormone that entrains stimulus < > response relationships like these.

Sugar will increase dopamine, sweeteners won't

You can tell how real this "conditioning" effect was from another observation the researchers made, when they analyzed the brain activity of their lab animals and found that a big gulp from the sugar water did not just bring the blood glucose of the sugar-deprived animals back up, it
"was [also] found to produce significantly greater levels of dopamine efflux compared to artificial sweetener in dorsal striatum" (Tellez. 2013)
When the scientists artificially disrupted the oxidation of glucose directly at the level of the dorsal striatum, which is also known as the neostriatum or striate nucleus that is activated by stimuli associated with reward and aversive, novel, unexpected, or intense stimuli, the sweetness preferences of the mice remained the same. This observation directly supports the conclusion that we are in fact dealing with a fundamental food-reward effect here; and effect, of which you can be certain that is is also involves in "past addiction" ;-)

So what does this tell you about fake foods?

Suppversity highly suggested read: "Science Round-Up Seconds: The Pro-Insulinogenic Effect of Artificial Sweeteners + Mechanisms & Consequences" | read more
As the researchers themselves point out, their results demonstrate that glucose oxidation controls the intake levels of "sweet tastants"  (=umbrella term for everything that stimulates the sweet taste receptors) by modulating the extracellular dopamine levels in dorsal striatum.

For you, this means that you know better than believe that you could get away with that low carb, sugar free candy bar, chewing gum or whatever else it may be that you are using to soothe your sweet tooth you are effectively cheating yourself. It works only in conjunction with your free will to avoid the carbs and usually only for so long as you allow yourself planned and controlled refeeds.
Note: When you are in full ketosis, things may be different; although the effects of ketones on dopamine levels are - afaik - not well researched, yet.
Let's finally try to draw some more general conclusions about carbohydrate intake in general - I mean beside the real sweet stuff, like candy, etc. Let's take the no-carb noodles you or hopefully not you, but your obese neighbor just bought, for example. They may taste just like the real deal. In the absences of the (expected) subsequent influx of glucose and its oxidation in the brain, they will yet never provide the hedonic response you are looking for. They are fake, a good one that may fool the first line of nutrient sensors, but a fake that's not good enough to reproduce the expected downstream effects on neurotransmitters.

Now, the good news is: No-carb noodles are probably non-addictive. The bad news, however, is: No-carb noodles are also highly, or I should say utterly unsatisfying replacement for real pasta, because the lack of carbohydrates, or rather the glucose that would get oxidized right in your brain, when you consume a bowl of real pasta is the critical physiological signal that makes pasta what it is: A highly addictive comfort food. For the average pasta junky, a "no-carb noodle" is thus never going to cut it, unless he or she is willing to cure him- or herself of her sugar addiction first.

SuppVersity suggested read: "Coke vs. Diet Coke vs. Milk - The "Unhealthy Beverage Shoot-Out": Milk Reduces, Coke Increases Visceral Fat. Dreaded Diet Coke on Par With Plain Water" | read the complete article
Bottom line: Unlike "zero carb candy" or "no-carb noodles" an effective "diet aid", or let's rather say, one of the foods you should select, whenever you are trying to rid yourself of body fat (low GI starches, fruits and even vegetables (*I write "even" because the amount of carbs in some veggies borders zero)) can offer this "second line" effects in your brain; effects, none of the fake foods you buy at the supplement store, the super market and as of late even some kiosks will ever be able to produce. These real foods are the ones that will have you feel satisfied and they are the ones that should make up more than just the figurative lion's share of your diet - not the calorie, carbohydrate and nutrient free no-carb noodles and their low-carb brethren that will just have you crave the "real deal" even more.

Restore & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity - Basics: Turn Your Lifestyle Upside Down With These 5 "No-Quick-Fix" Tips

It is hard and it takes time, but as long as it's "only" insulin resistance and not full-blown diabetes (=pancreatic failure) most people can get rid of it by turning their lives upside down.
I am sure people are going to misunderstand this, but in the end, insulin resistance was, is and will always be a consequence of "obesity". Maybe not in the way it is currently understood with the BMI determining whether you are "normal" or "obese", but certainly if you define being obese as being fat and storing the most part of the fat in the visceral adipose tissue and the liver.

Thus our definition of what I would like to call "metabolically relevant adiposity" instead of "obesity" can apply to lean and "obese" people alike. In fact, the number of people with a "normal body weight" and insulin resistance is ever increasing. So, if you don't want to be one of them, you better keep the following five DOs and avoid the corresponding "DON'Ts", which would be sitting or lying around all day, eating and drinking sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, consuming alcohol (and other hepatoxic substances), smoking cigarettes, staying up late, eating 24/7, missing your daily time-outs and abusing stimulants.
Details on the optional use supplements & medications will follow next Sunday. What I can already tell you, though, is that can get rid of insulin resistance without a single supplement or pharmacological agent, but you will never get off the diabesity track, if you are unwilling (don't you ever tell me you are "unable") to change the way you eat and increase your daily activity levels.

And yes, lifestyle modification is all it takes for most of us to regain insulin sensitivity and rid ourselves of type II diabetes (in the early stages): With 50% of the subjects being able to normalize their blood glucose levels and more than 50% of the type 2 diabetics in the study being in remission on the follow up, he Malmö study was the first, but is not the only the large scale intervention study that demonstrated the potent anti-diabesity effects of diet and exercise (Eriksson. 1991).
I. Work out anaerobically, aerobically and frequently

Workout evolution: It goes without saying that I don't expect you to start working out 5x per week "cold turkey", i.e. if you have been sitting around 364 out of 365 days of the year for the most part of your previous life (I don't have to repeat that this is over, now, right?). On the other hand, I would be lying if I told you that you can actually make measurable progress without at least 3 workouts per week. I would thus suggest you start with a 2 + 1 strategy using 2 full body workouts and one light intensity cardio training, after a month you add another cardio session and after 3 month you will add in the additional strength training session. After 6 months you switch to a split routine and increase the intensity on your cardio sessions by 15% - this should not feel more intense now that your fitness has improved than the original regimen you've taken up 180days before.
There is nothing that helps your body clean up the mess like working out. Researchers from the University of Verona and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona have just published a paper on the differential effects of strength and aerobic training on the liver fat content in type 2 diabetic subjects with NAFLD. The results were pretty amazing.

After only 4 months in the course of which the subjects ate according to the (imho not exactly optimal dietary recommendations for type II diabetics; i.e. low fat) and 3 workouts per week, both the subjects in the 3x9 exercise in a circuit training fashion and their peers in the 60min aerobics @ 60-65% of the max. heart rate had lost 32.8% and 25.9% liver fat.
"Additionally, hepatic steatosis (defined as hepatic fat content>5.56%) disappeared in about one-quarter of the patients in each intervention group (23.1% in the AER group and 23.5% in the RES group." (Bacchi. 2013)
While there is no study that measured the effects of training fasted on the liver directly, I guess you can take it for granted that esp. the group doing the aerobics could have improved their results even further, if they had performed their 60min of cardio on empty.

Bottom line: Get active or stay active. Combine resistance and aerobic training. Get serious and start working your way up to 5 workouts per week with 2x aerobic (steady state walking on an incline treadmill or taking a fast walk for 45min) and 3x resistance training sessions (either a circuit training or a pull, push, legs, 3-way split; don't train to failure in more than one set per exercise, keep the reps in the 8-10 range, increase the weights appropriately, do max. 18 sets per workout, in & out of the gym in <30min) to get rid of your insulin resistance and at least 3 workouts (2x weights, 1x LISS) if you just want to keep your insulin sensitivity is already high and you want it to stay just there.

II. Minimize your sugar intake, control your carb intake

In case you wonder where the 120g come from and if this is just some random number, I suggest you go back to a previous SuppVersity post, namely "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land: New Data for A Scientific Outlook at the Low-to-No Carb Paleo Confusion. Will More Than 125g of Carbs Make You Fat?", you may also want to reread my interview w/ Sean Casey at CasePerformance.com
Sugar, irrespective of whether its plain table sugar or HFCS is a no-go from now. The same goes for all products that contain significant amounts of it. And no, you are not going to cut back slowly on your Coke, you know that you've failed miserably before and you will fail again. You simply won't buy and drink any sugar containing beverages (including "healthy" juices which have only recently been associated with an almost 25% increased risk of developing type II diabetes) and foods.

At the same time, you will reduce your carbohydrate intake to 120g per day with a 40g limit on a per meal basis. It should not be necessary and may even be detrimental to go further down, because you won't ever learn how to walk without a crutch if you sit in a wheelchair - or to leave the metaphors behind: Unless you intend to stay insulin resistant and metabolically unflexible for the rest of your life, you better not go "no carb", as this will effectively require a high degree of (physiological) insulin resistance to work (for the morbidly obese it may yet be necessary to take the ketogenic route).

Moreover, the "gray area" between 120g and no-carbs sets you up to hypoglycemic episodes as your body will not effectively switch into ketosis, which would be necessary to supply a steady amount of energy. This problem will become even more pronounced, when you try to make up for the lack of carbs by consuming exorbitant amounts of protein.

Unless you are "skinny fat" (normal or low BMI + insulin resistant) you will use the reduction in carb intake to generate a -15% to -20% caloric deficit to shed a couple of pounds of fat weight - and no, this is NOT going to happen without a caloric deficit.

Bottom line: 120-150g is an amount of carbs you should aim for as an intermediate goal. With <50g of carbs per serving you should be able to handle that without major blood sugar excursions, as long as you stick to your workout regimen and totally cut out processed foods with simple sugars. Also, fructose from whole fruit is not your enemy! You just have to make sure you account for it in your daily carb allowance. The latter is not the case for the minimal amount of carbs in green leafy veggies and co (broccoli, calliflour, zuccini, asparagus etc. you can safely fill yourself up on those)

III. Limit your alcohol intake, quit smoking and avoid medications

Contrary to its name, which is "non-alcoholic fatty liver disease", alcohol, does still play a major role in the etiology of NAFLD. It may not be the sole reason, but the way it inhibits the normal function of your liver makes it more susceptible to the junk-food assaults it's exposed to on an almost daily basis. The same goes for all medications / "supplements" with hepatoxic effects.

Compromised liver health as in beginning or full-blown (N-)AFLD is a totally underestimated risk factor for gyneco- & lipomastia as it hampers the not only the glucose, but also the hormone metabolism in the liver (learn more)
Cigarettes on the other hand may not be directly damaging your live, but they stimulate the central nervous system, promote gluconeogenesis and impair it's shut-down, when your blood sugar is already high, so that your liver will actively and acutely contribute to the deterioration in blood sugar metabolism. At the same time the increased efflux of free fatty acids (FFA) from the adipose tissue to the liver increases your risk of developing NAFLD.

Moreover, nicotine does also increase the chronic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/p70S6 K activity and insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1) Ser636 phosphorylation and will thus directly promote skeletal muscle insulin resistance (Bajaj. 2012).

Bottom line: While the chronic ingestion of more than 1 glass of wine per day is going to give you alcoholic liver disease, regular weekend binges precipitate and accelerate the development of NAFLD and insulin resistance. Cigarettes will compromise your insulin sensitivity in multiple ways and the use of medication, let alone performance enhancing drugs with detrimental side effects on the liver will exponentially increase the negative impact of any dietary glitch on your insulin sensitivity.

IV. Sleep, de-stress and control your stimulant intake

Please remember: Sympathetic overtraining from heavy lifting can cause sleeplesness while para-sympathetic overtraining from training too much (you can easily make the transition from sympathetic to parasympathetic overtraining), will leave you exhausted 24/7 - the 5x/week scheme above is only sustainable if you stick to the given volume and intensity limits and light intensity steady state cardio training (if you want on empty early in the morning). The latter is a better complement to restistance training than HIIT for improving insulin resistance because there is less overlap between the metabolic pathways they target).
Not getting enough sleep, alone will hamper you ability to handle glucose. This is mostly due to changes in the hormonal profile with chronically elevated cortisol levels esp. in the evening, a lack of nightly growth hormone stimulation and a desynchronization of the central (brain) and peripheral (liver, muscle, other organs) clock.
Figure 1: After 6 nights with only 4h of sleep (left) your glucose insulin response to breakfast deteriorates compared to 6 nights with 12h spend in bed (not necessarily 12h sleeping; Spiegel. 1999)
Even if you are sleeping enough constant psychological stress will have very similar effects on your insulin sensitivity.

The latter is also true for the use of stimulants. It's scary to see how many of us depend on them to even make it through the day. Aside from circadian shifts, they will have the same detrimental effects on the FFA metabolism and gluconeogensis as cigarette smoking (see discussion under item III).

Bottom line: Plan your sleep and time-outs across the day as rigorously as your workout & nutrition. Spend 8h in bet every night (if that does not help try 1-10mg of melatonin; learn more). Close the curtains and use ear-plugs if that helps you sleep. Schedule at least 15 minutes of idleness every 3h. That's about as much time as it takes to brew and drink a cup of tea. The emphasis here is on "a" (=a single) cup of tea. If you feel too tired to make it through the day without >400mg of caffeine, this is a clear cut sign you got to revise your sleep & destress routine.

V. Fast, get enough protein and watch your omega-6 intake

US childhood obesity map. Go back to the "Insulin Resitance Saga" to learn about the roots diebesity in the kindergarten.
I am aware that the general advice is different, but if you eat every 1-2 hours even the blood glucose levels of a normal person will hardly ever go back to those levels, where you want them for AMPK to go up and initiate the "decluttering" process in your liver and the rest of your body (learn more).

Also try and to get ~2x the RDA, i.e. 1.6g of protein per kg of body weight from food (learn why) and spread your protein intake across your meals in a way that ensures that you'll get at least 30g or quality protein per meal (find out why this is important). Consider using a protein shake after your resistance training sessions.

If possible include fatty fish in your diet on one, better two days of the week and keep an eye on your overall omega-6 intake. Try to reduce it to achieve a 5:1 omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (or lower; learn why). If you cannot force yourself to eat fish, consume 1-2g of fish oil in capsules every other day.

Too much of a good thing? Micrograph of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, caused by the same kind of lipid accumulations M-Shirazi et al. observed in rats after receiving high dose fish oil supplements in a 2011 study (learn more)
Don't discard the value of ALA (=short chain omega-3 fatty acids) and don't fool yourself to believe that saturated fats were totally benign. Increased levels of palmitic acid in the hypothalamus and skeletal muscle, for example, are mechanistically linked to local insulin resistance (Benoit. 2009; Hirabara. 2010). Everything in moderation!

In this context it is also worth mentioning that you do not want to totally eliminate omega-6 fatty acids from your diet. A 2012 study by Sawada et al., for example, showed that the allegedly bad arachidonic acid (ARA, the end-product of the enzymatic conversion of short-chain omega-6 fatty acids) is a 75x more potent activator of skeletal muscle glucose uptake than oleic acid and on par with it's omega-3 cousin DHA (Sawada. 2012).

Bottom line: Don't eat 2h before bed, and / or skip breakfast to extend your daily fasting period to at least 10h, but no more than 16h (you need that 8h window to fit in 2-3 meals). Get enough protein in your diet, but make sure you are not living off protein alone. Try to normalize your omega-6:omega:3 ratio. Strive for an 5:1 ratio of n-6:n-3 or less. Don't be fooled by the "saturated fat is not the problem"-lie and keep in mind that palmitic acid, not arachidonic acid is the bad guy, when it comes to skeletal muscle insulin resistance (things may look different when we are talking about endothelial inflammation, but this guide is about the remission of insulin resistance).
Dont forget to come back next week for Part II of this two part series.

References:
  • Bajaj M. Nicotine and insulin resistance: when the smoke clears. Diabetes. 2012 Dec; 61(12):3078-80. 
  • Benoit SC, Kemp CJ, Elias CF, Abplanalp W, Herman JP, Migrenne S, Lefevre AL, Cruciani-Guglielmacci C, Magnan C, Yu F, Niswender K, Irani BG, Holland WL, Clegg DJ. Palmitic acid mediates hypothalamic insulin resistance by altering PKC-theta subcellular localization in rodents. J Clin Invest. 2009 Sep;119(9):2577-89.
  • Eriksson KF, Lindgärde F. Prevention of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus by diet and physical exercise. The 6-year Malmö feasibility study. Diabetologia. 1991 Dec;34(12):891-8
  • Hirabara SM, Curi R, Maechler P. Saturated fatty acid-induced insulin resistance is associated with mitochondrial dysfunction in skeletal muscle cells. J Cell Physiol. 2010 Jan;222(1):187-94.
  • Sawada K, Kawabata K, Yamashita T, Kawasaki K, Yamamoto N, Ashida H. Ameliorative effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids against palmitic acid-induced insulin resistance in L6 skeletal muscle cells. Lipids Health Dis. 2012 Mar 12;11:36. 
  • M-Shirazi M, Taleban FA, Abadi AR, Sabetkasaei M. Fish oil increases atherosclerosis and hepatic steatosis, although decreases serum cholesterol in Wistar rat. J Res Med Sci. 2011 May;16(5):583-90. PubMed PMID: 22091279; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3214368.
  • Spiegel K, Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Impact of sleep debt on metabolic and endocrine function. Lancet. 1999 Oct 23;354(9188):1435-9.

How Much Carbohydrates Can You Eat Before a High Fat Diet Becomes Unhealthy? Increasing Carbohydrate Intake Turns Physiological Into Pathological Insulin Resistance

High carb + high fat, that's one "high" too much for your health.
As a SuppVersity reader you should be aware that the average "high fat diet" that's fed in rodent (and human) studies to prove how bad dietary fat is for us contains almost as much carbohydrate as it contains fat sources.

Against that background a study like the one a group of scientists from the Gillings School of Global Public Health at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have conducted recently has actually been long overdue: A study to clarify how much carbs are too much carbs when they're consumed on top of a high fat diet.

The conflicting results of previous studies, some of which "have shown that carb-rich diets promote development of insulin resistance and T2DM, while others have shown that high-carb diet is protective against insulin resistance and T2DM compared to HFD" and the fact that there's plent of evidence that shows that "low-carb diet is not necessarily protective against insulin resistance and diabetes" (Mei. 2014), were occasion enough for Shuang Mei and colleagues to readdress the roles of dietary fat and carbs in insulin resistance and T2DM.
You can learn more about high fat / low carb diets at the SuppVersity

False! Adding Fat to Carbs Doesn't Lower Their GI

Minimal Carb Reduction, Max. Results?
2 Days A Week High Protein Low Carb Fast

No Carb Foods Don't Satify Your Cravings

5 Tips to Improve & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity

Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land
The scientist goal was to answer several key questions: (1) First, are dietary carbs necessary for the HFD-induced insulin resistance? (2) Second, how much carb is too much or sufficient to promote the HFD-induced insulin resistance? (3) Third, is fat essential for insulin resistance?

To find the corresponding answers to these questions, the scientists conducted a combined in vitro and in vivo study, in the course of which they kept a group of C57BL/6 mice on chow (ad libitum diet) that contained 0.1, 5%, 10%, and 25.5% carbs on top of 58% fat but dissimilar amounts of protein, i.e. 41%, 37%, 32% and 16.5% of the chow (vs. 23.1%), for 5 weeks. They tracked the calorie consumption, body weight and fat gains, insulin sensitivity, intra-tissue insulin signaling, ectopic fat, and oxidative stress in liver and skeletal muscle of the muscle and determined the role of hepatic gluconeogenesis in the HFD-induced insulin resistance.
Figure 1: White body fat (x10) and energy intake (kcal) relative to body weight (left); body weight at the end of the study, expressed relative to the body weight of the standard chow control group (Mei. 2014)
In addition, Mei et al. examined the effects of fatty acid exposure in cultured cells (not shown) and confirmed that the presence of  fatty acids "is essential for the development of insulin resistance induced by chronic exposure to insulin." (Mei. 2014)
Figure 2: Fasting glucose (left) and fasting insulin (right) values - carbs exacerbate the effects of HFD (Mei. 2014)
Against that background it's not surprising that data in Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows that the rodents became insulin resistant even at 0.1% of carbohydrates in the diet. The degree of insulin resistance, on the other hand, was "dramatically elevated", when the carbohydrate intake was increased to 5% and 10% - with the 10% carb + high fat diet being "sufficient to induce a maximal level of insulin resistance." (Mei. 2014)
Physiological insulin resistance: Insulin resistance is not always bad. When you're low on glucose, as it would be the case when you're dieting (=being in a caloric deficit) and consuming only a relatively low amount of carbs, the downregulation of your bodies insulin sensitivity can stabilize your blood sugar levels by helping to maintain adequate hepatic gluconeogenesis (the production of glucose mostly from amino acids) and avoiding an "uncontrolled" uptake of the scarce glucose from your blood. In the absence of exuberant amounts of carbohydrates, this physiological form of insulin resistance is thus a way to cope with the energy- and macronutrient availability and not generally bad.
A very similar effect was observed for the accumulation of ectopic fat and oxidative stress in liver and skeletal muscle, which was present and significant on the low carbohydrate + high fat diet, but became "dramatically enhanced", only when the amount of carbs in the diet was increased.

In this context it's interesting to mention that the insulin resistance was mediated primarily by an increase of the hepatic expression of key gluconeogenic genes - an increase that was most dramatic by HFD with little carbs. This, as well as the previously cited fact that the occurrence of muscular and hepatic insulin resistance in a cell study depended on the the presence of fatty acid lead Mei et al. to conclude that (a) "dietary carbs are not necessary for HFD to induce insulin resistance but can aggravate insulin resistance in a dose-dependent manner"; and (b) "HFD [in this case really high fat, low carb] alone causes insulin resistance in liver and skeletal muscle with or without dietary carb." (Mei. 2014)
Study says: If you go high carb, you better go really high carb (learn more) - and the study at hand may actually prove why.
Bottom Line: Despite the fact that I have no doubt that the aggravating effects of high(er) carbohydrate intakes on the metabolic damage due to high fat dieting is relevant to human beings, as well, it remains to be seen, if these will occur at the same relatively low amounts of carbohydrate intakes in humans, as they did in the mice in the study at hand (I assume esp. athletes can tolerate more).

If we assume this was the case, many people who are currently jumping aboard the low carb craze, would be ruining their health unless they this form of dieting only while being in a caloric deficit - a state that precludes the accumulation of ectopic (visceral) and liver fat and benefits from an increase in insulin resistance and gluconeogenesis, since both processes contribute to higher and more stable blood sugar levels - and yes, this is what we call physiological insulin resistance!
  • Mei, Shuang, et al. "A Small Amount of Dietary Carbohydrate Can Promote the HFD-Induced Insulin Resistance to a Maximal Level." PloS one 9.7 (2014): e100875.

Pseudo-Low Carb Diet With Low Fat (55g/d) Content Sheds 0.5kg/Week W/Out Muscle or Performance Loss in Athletes

If you stick to the information in the abstract it sounds like a "low carb" diet intervention. Don't be fooled!
I am not a low carb enthusiast, but I don't close my eyes to the proven benefits the modulation of one's carbohydrate intake. Benefits as they are described by Hovinen et al. (2015) in their latest paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. In the corresponding study, the researchers from the University of Jyvaskyla and the University School of Physical Education in Wrocław in Finland and Poland, respectively, investigate the effects of a high energy deficit diet (~750 kcal/day) and a moderate one (~300 kcal/day) in athletes just before their actual competitive season.

The statement that they were evaluating the "functionality of an optimal gradual weight reduction (GWR) diet with high protein and low carbohydrate (CHO) to optimize jumping and sprint running performance while maintaining fat-free mass (FFM)," (Hovinen. 2015) is however, as the following elaborations, graphs and stats are about to show, grossly misleading, because what they really did was to evaluate the effects of a high carbohydrate, high protein, low fat diet... but we will get to that in a minute.
You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Timed Ingestion for Better Gains

Less Fat, More Muscle!
For their experiment, which lasted only 4 weeks, the scientist recruited 20- to 35-year-old national and international level Finnish track and field male athletes from jumping and short distance running events (e.g., 100–200 m). The participants had at least 5-year background in competitive athletics. All participants were advised to keep their training program consistent during WRP, which was also controlled and monitored for volume and intensity each week by the researchers and the athletes’ coaches

The athletes were randomly divided into 2 groups: high weight reduction (HWR; energy deficit 750 kcal/d; n = 8) and low weight reduction (LWR; energy deficit 300 kcal/day; n = 7).
"Nutritional intake before and during WRP is presented in Table 1. Significant differences between groups in nutritional intake during WRP were observed in fat (p <= 0.05), total energy intake (p <= 0.05), and CHO (p <= 0.05), which were lower in HWR than in LWR without differences in protein intake (~2.1 g·kg-1·d-1 in each situation) as planned.
Table 1: Nutritional intake before and during weight reduction period. †Significant difference vs. before, p < 0.01; ‡Significant difference vs. LWR, p < 0.05 (Huovinen. 2015).
A significant time effect for energy intake and CHO per body mass (2 × 2 ANOVA) was observed (p <= 0.01), and although the total energy and CHO intake decreased in both groups during WRP, these changes were significant only in HWR (p <= 0.01)."
If you scrutinize the changes in the individual groups you will see that the relative reductions in protein, carbohydrate and fat intake were 0%, 15% and 14% for the LWR and 22% and 35% for the HWR group.
Figure 1: Changes in body composition over the 4-week study period (Huovinen. 2015).
Since the LWR diet had not effect on the body composition and body weight of the subjects (see Figure 1), we can focus on the HWR group, which did not - as the abstract to the study would suggest solely reduce their carbohydrate intake.
This is not a classic low carb, let alone a ketogenic diet! Rather than just cutting back carbs, the track and field athletes in the study at hand reduced their already low fat intake from 72.27 g/day to 54.67 g/day which is lower than any of the low-carb advocated would ever go. Furthermore 46% of the total energy during the dieting phase come from carbs (23% from protein, the rest from fat). We are thus talking about an energy reduced high carbohydrate high protein diet, here where a higher fat intake was associated with lower fat loss (see figure in the bottom line).
If we do the math for the relative contribution of the three large macronutrient groups, i.e. protein, fats and carbohydrates, you can easily see that the diet which produced allegedly impressive weight loss results is the diametrical opposite of a ketogenic diet.
Figure 2: Macronutrient composition of the baseline and energy reduced diets (Huovinen. 2015).
It is, as the data in Figure 2 tell you, both high in protein and high in carbohydrates. At the same time it is so low in fat that I personally am surprised that the researchers did not observe changes in any of the hormonal parameters they measured:
"There were no differences between the groups in serum hormone concentrations before and after WRP except cortisol, which was greater (p <= 0.05) in HWR than in LWR before WRP. Hormone concentrations did not differ significantly after the 4-week WRP" (Huovinen. 2015).
So, cutting your fat intake to from low to marginal, obviously cannot be that bad for highly active individuals as some of the low carb enthusiasts claim. Take a parting look at the performance data in Figure 3 (values are calculated based on the body weight at the beginning and end of the study, respectively):
Figure 3: Pre vs. post (%) changes in relevant performance markers, i.e. counter movement jump (cm) and 20m sprint times - please note that a reduction in sprint times which is by the way significant for the HWR group is a highly desirable performance increase not an unwanted performance decrease (Huovinen. 2015).
Which athlete would be pissed if dieting increases parameters that are as essential for his athletic performance as sprint performance and counter movement jumps are for a track and field athletes? Right. No athlete would. If anything the increase in pH and the marginal loss of bone mass may be of concern (see figure in bottom line for correlation).

The latter, i.e. the reduction in pH and the correlating loss of bone mass, would yet probably not be compensated by an increase in fat intake. A more effective approach that has been shown to protect the bone mass in women on high protein diet is the ingestion of potassium or sodium bicarbonate (Lutz. 1984; Sebastian. 1994).
Fat intake vs. jump performance (top) & fat free mass changes (middle) and pH change vs. bone loss (bottom).
Beware of improper interpretations of this study! Without even having read another write-up or news update mentioning this study, I can already tell you that it is going to be misinterpreted as evidence for the superiority of "low carbohydrate dieting" for athletes. Yes, the carbohydrate intake was reduced, but carbs still made up the lions share of the energy intake.

As a SuppVersity reader you are yet (hopefully) too smart to fall for bullshit claims like this. A brief glimpse at the macronutrient ratios in Figure 2 is after all enough to prove that anyone who claims the impressive fat loss results in the study at hand had been achieved by a low carb diet either hasn't read the whole publication or is simply ignored the actual macronutrient composition. Speaking of which, the latter is certainly lower in fat than what I have recommended previously on the SuppVersity. If you look at the correlation between fat intake (%) and changes in fat free mass in the graph to the right, a bit more fat probably wouldn't have hurt any of the athletes, even though it correlates with reduced counter movement jump performance. What is in line with the 9 rules of sensible dieting is the energy deficit which ~24% below maintenance | Comment on Facebook!
References:
  • Huovinen, H. et al. "Body Composition and Power Performance Improved After Weight Reduction in Male Athletes Without Hampering Hormonal Balance." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: January 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 1 - p 29–36.
  • Lutz, Josephine. "Calcium balance and acid-base status of women as affected by increased protein intake and by sodium bicarbonate ingestion." The American journal of clinical nutrition 39.2 (1984): 281-288.
  • Sebastian, Anthony, et al. "Improved mineral balance and skeletal metabolism in postmenopausal women treated with potassium bicarbonate." New England Journal of Medicine 330.25 (1994): 1776-1781.