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

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

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

From long-term to short time effects

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

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?

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

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

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

Experimental design and results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

The Overfeeding Overview: High Fat, Carb, Protein, MCTs, Leptin, Testosterone, T3 & Reverse T3 - Get an Overview of the Consequences of Short- & Long-Term Overfeeding

High fat + high carbohydrate foods like mini doughnuts are exactly what you should not eat on a refeed day, let alone during weeks of bulking.

Do you want to know what happens during days and weeks of gluttony? How the effects "bulking" will have on your body weight and composition, depending on where those extra calories come from? Have you wondered what the optimal nutrient composition on refeed days may look like. And are you concerned about the potential the health consequences of bulking?

Yes? In this case, I would suggest you take a closer look at the following overview of the research. An overview that is probably not complete, but it should suffice to provide preliminary answers to the aforementioned questions.

Learn more about the effects of your diet on your health at the SuppVersity

Only Whey, Not Soy Works for Wheytloss

Taste Matters - Role of the Taste Receptors

Dairy Protein Satiety Shoot-Out: Casein vs. Whey

How Much Carbs Before Fat is Unhealthy?

5 Tips to Improve & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity

Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land

• The amount of weight you gain depends on your genes: They are not the only determinant. That's for sure. A 1990 study by Bouchard et al. still leaves no doubt that your genes are one of the most important determinants of the quantity of weight you gain.
  
  In said study the researchers from the Laval University fed 24 sedentary young male twins 1,000kcal extra for six out of seven days of the week. In that the study is not the first to investigate the effects of overfeeding on weight gain in twins. It is yet the first and only one that did this over a period of 100 days and thus with a total energy excess of 84,000 kcal on a diet that contained 50 percent carbohydrate, 35 percent fat, and 15 percent protein.
  

  

  Figure 1: Comparison of the weight (left) and visceral fat (right) gains in twin pairs; high correlations were observed for both, but the correlation was significantly more pronounced for the unhealthy visceral fat than it was for the mere body weight (Bouchard. 1990).

  The data in Figure 1 does probably not need any extra explanations. In view of the fact that similar results have also been observed in previous studies like Poehlman et al. (1986), it should be obvious that the difference between the weight (left) and visceral fat (right) two identical twins gained was significantly smaller the difference between one twin from pair A and one twin from pair B. The statistical analysis of body fat and waist circumference data revealed similar correlations which were most significant for the visceral fat mass and the waist hip sizes, i.e. those quantities that predict the ill health effects of weight gain best.
  
  According to Ukkola, et al. (2001), the genetic differences may partly be mediated by differences in the genetic make-up of ones beta-2 adrenoreceptors with specific variants being associated with greater increases in insulin resistance, body weight and subcutaneous fatness. Other candidates are the cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) gene which appears to affect adiposity in response to long-term overfeeding (Terán-García. 2008). Other scientists use similar genetic polymorphisms to explain a general resistance to weight gain during overfeeding via genetically determined variations in nonexercise activity thermogenesis (Vanltallie. 2001).
• Overfeeding fat, carbohydrate or protein, does it make a difference? Studies that compare isocaloric overfeeding are quasi non-existent. What we do have are studies like the one by Horton et al. (1995) that compared high fat vs. high carbohydrate diets (see Figure 2 for macronutrient composition), where the additional energy came from fat or carbohydrates.
  
  In the Horton study this was a 50% extra that was added in form of fat or carbohydrates on top of the baseline diets of the normal-weight and obese subjects. A 50% extra that lead to significant weight gain.
  

  

  Figure 3: Weight gain (left) and increase in energy expenditure (right) in obese and lean subjects in response to carbohydrate and fat overfeeding (Horton. 1995).

  As you can see in Figure 3, both diets led to a rapid increase in body weight, but the trajectory was different. The main and maybe practically relevant difference, though, was that the rapid increase in water and glycogen in the high carbohydrate group was less resilient weight loss in the post-overfeeding period.

No! Carbs are not necessarily more fattening in the obese. It's a commonly held prejudice that carbohydrates are more readily coverted to fat and stored in the obese, but a study by Minehira et al. that investigated just this found that there was not just no difference in de novo lipogenesis with carbohydrate overfeeding between lean and obese individuals, there was also no increase in de novo lipogenesis, at all, when the when the obese subjects were overfed with a high carbohydrate diet for one day (Minehira. 2004).

• 

  Figure 4: Proportion of the energy that was stored as body fat (Horton. 1995).

  If we take a look at the proportion of energy that was stored as body fat in Figure 4, it is obvious why the fat gains lasted longer than the carbohydrate gains. Why? Well, simply because the 14-day overfeeding on fat lead to a significantly higher relative increase in body fat.
  
  Last but not least, it may also be worth mentioning that the the fat gain in the obese group was 89% and 57% higher in the carbohydrate and fat overfeeding group, respectively. An intriguing result that appears to stand in line with dieting studies, where high fat diets are superior to high carbohydrate diets in the obese, but not in lean individuals.
  
  What was not different for obese and lean individuals, though, was the the fact that the carbohydrate overfeeding lead to higher gains in lean mass than the fat overfeeding. A result that should remind you of a previously reported study here at the SuppVersity, in which a no fat bulk lead to significantly greater muscle and significantly lower fat gains than a low fat bulk (see "If You Go "High Carb", You Better Go Really High!" | more). Overall, "bulking", i.e. eating more than you need on any mixed diet, has repeatedly been shown to produce significant increases plasma Somatomedin-C/Insulin-like Growth Factor (SM-C/IGF-l) and testosterone concentrations as well as insulin, of which Forbes et al. speculate that they promote the lean mass increases that are particularly pronounced when overfeeding is combined with resistance training.
  
  In a more nutrient-type specific study b by Dirlewanger that did not focus on the weight gain or anabolism, but on the leptin response and the increase in resting energy expenditure the subjects experienced a significant increase in leptin (+28%) and resting energy only in the high carbohydrate, yet not in the fat overfeeding arm of their study in young, lean individuals (Dirlewanger. 2000). Other studies, without clear distinction between high carb and high fat overfeeding, indicate that fast food like burgers or fries is an effective short-term leptin stimulator, too - at least if it's consumed in a single binge (Kolaczynski,. 1996).
  

  

  Figure 5: Energy partitioning in young men upon overfeeding with ~5,000kcal per day - mostly carbohydrates, i.e. 1% protein, 3% fat, and 86% carbohydrate (Acheson. 1988).

  In the short run, like on refeed days, for example, carbohydrate overfeeding has another advantage over fat overfeeding, because it takes roughly 500g of carbohydrates (that's 2,000kcal) before even a single gram of those carbs is converted to fat and potentially, but not necessarily stored as body fat (Acheson. 1988) - at "only" 400kcal extra from carbs for one day there was no net lipogenesis at all (see Figure 5). This result is corroborated by data from McDevitt et al. (2000) who observed that the fat gain with fat overfeeding starts with day 1, while there is a time gap in the increase in body fat with carbohydrate overfeeding (McDevitt. 2000).

If you consume sugar on a refeed, should you prefer glucose, sucrose of fructose? In view of the fact that I don't suggest you refeed more than 1-2 days and considering the fact that you want to get the majority of your carbs from starches on a true bulks, it does not really matter. In fact, studies show no difference in de novo lipogenesis in 96h overfeeding studies between pure glucose and sucrose, which is a 1:1 combination of fructose or fructose in two studies in lean and obese women by (McDevitt. 2000 & 2001). In the long run, consuming amounts of fructose you could only get by drinking a couple of bottles of coke everyday, will yet not be favorable for your health - even if taking fish oil can blunt the increase in hepatic de novo lipogenesis, it won't blunt the insulin resistance (Faeh. 2005).

• 

  Figure 6: Schematic representation of the main lipid metabolic pathways affected in skeletal muscle during 4 weeks of fat overfeeding. Genes indicated in white boxes were down-regulated during the dietary study, whereas genes indicated in gray boxes were up-regulated (Meugnier. 2007).

  Fat overfeeding, on the other hand, has been show to favor fat storage not just because the dietary fat can be stored without being converted to triglycerides, but also because metabolic and genomic investigations show that the lipid oxidation rate tends to decrease, and 55 genes in the skeletal muscle were modified.
  
  Modifications of which Meugnier et al. show that they stimulate the synthesis of triacylglycerol, inhibit lipolysis and reduce the oxidation of fatty acid oxidation, while promoting the development of adipocytes with an excess of only ~550kcal/day from fat per day (see Figure 6).
  
  Another potential explanation is the change in thyroid hormones, of which the data in Figure 7 from an overfeeding study by Danforth Jr., et al. (1979) tells you that the high protein overfeeding despite a 29.8% lower total energy intake triggered the most, the carbohydrate diet the 2nd most favorable (=in favor of greater energy expenditure) effects on the thyroid hormone.
  

  

  Figure 7: Effects of overfeeding with carbohydrates, fats, and protein on thyroid hormones (Danforth, Jr. 1979).

  Accordingly, high protein diets, of which we know for sure that they are the most satiating hypercaloric diets (followed by high carb and high fat | Johnstone. 1996) and have the highest thermogenic effect (see Figure 8) and can help dieters avoid the yoyo effect after a diet (Lejeune. 2005), should have the least negative impact on your physique.
  

  

  Figure 8: Estimates thermic effect of carbohydrates fats, protein, and alcohol in % energy of the energy that's ingested in form of the respective nutrients (Joosen. 2006).

  And in fact, Jose Antonio et al. (2014) have recently been able to show that a diet that contains fivefold more protein than the FDA recommends (4.4g/kg | 307g/day) is not just benign but will, in conjunction with exercise, will have significant beneficial effects on the physique of healthy resistant trained men (learn more). Furthermore studies indicate that a high protein content may also ameliorate negative effects such as an increase in intrahepatocellular lipid deposition in humans (Bortolotti. 2009).

Beware of bulking the way you did in your twenties! It's almost certainly going to make you fat, because studies indicate that age correlates with a decreased increase in energy expenditure in response to overfeeding (Roberts. 1996). Since the difference is particularly pronounced on day 1 of the respective overfeeding period (see Figure on the left), I would also refrain from excessive "refeed days" if I were 60+ years old, like the subjects in the study by Roberts et al. from which I grabbed the graph that displays the energy expenditure on a diet that contained 956kcal extra per day (phase II in this study).

• Classic overfeeding studies with protein as a single nutrient are yet unfortunately rare. Even less, namely nothing, is known about the effects of ketogenic diets, which is why it's at the moment impossible to tell whether a hypercaloric high fat diet that is devoid of carbs and low enough in protein to actually induce ketosis will have the same negative effects as a high fat diet that still contains 15-30% carbohydrates and some protein.
  Based on the studies we have, it's yet quite certain that the combination of some carbs and a high amount of fat is the most obesogenic variety of "bulking" you could possibly select. Therefore - with the exception of ketogenic diets, where corresponding data is still missing, the rule of thumb is: The more fat in the diet, the more rapid the body fat, but not necessarily the body weight gain.

• MCT overfeeding is less obesogenic - The reason that rodents that are overfed with medium-chain triglycerides (Geliebter. 1983) and assumable human beings store less fat than on long-chain triglycerides as you will find them in your bacon, sausages, dairy & co is an increase in thermogenesis that has been observed in both rodent and human studies.
  

  

  Figure 10: Metabolic rate in healthy men after the ingestion of isocaloric fat meals containing MCTs or long chain triglycerides (Hill. 1989).

  As you can see in Figure 10, this effect does not diminish over time - at least, when only the effect of the infusion of MCTs versus long-chain fatty acids is concerned. In view of the rodent study by Geliebter et al. (1983) and the results of the study by Hill et al. (1989), it appears to be quite obvious that MCTs constitute a valuable addition to hypercaloric diets. The often-heard claim that they cannot be stored as fat is yet misleading - even if they are oxidized in the liver, the increase in available energy will increase the storage of energy from other nutrients. The dream of eating as much as you want without gaining weight does therefore remain a dream - at least for all of us who don't harbor a gene defect that blunts the storage of fat.
  
  Still, in theory it would appear as if using MCTs in a dieting context makes sense. In reality, studies have shown that using MCTs as a major source of your dietary fats does not lead to significant long-term improvements in  fat or general weight loss - even if 27% of an 800kcal/day starvation diet were pure MCT oil (Yost. 1989).

Fivefold More Than the FDA Allows: Extreme High Protein Diet (4.4g/kg | 307g/day) Benign & Non-Obesogenic. Plus: Macronutrient Prescription & Changes in Food Quality | more

Alright, so what's the bottom line, then? I guess, in view of the fact that we still have few studies on high protein overfeeding and no studies on overfeeding on ketogenic diet, a conclusive bottom line cannot be reached, yet. What appears to be true, though is that a diet containing some carbohydrates and a large amounts of fat is the worst choice you can make, when you are bulking.

A protein and a high(er) carbohydrate, as well as a correspondingly low(er) fat content on the other hand, appear to be the way to go at least in the short run. In the long(er) run, on the other hand, the differences between higher fat and higher carbohydrate overfeeding appears to disappear - albeit with a small, but potentially practically significant difference in terms of the amount of body fat you will gain (see Figure 4) | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Acheson, K. J., et al. "Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man." The American journal of clinical nutrition 48.2 (1988): 240-247. 
• Antonio, Jose, et al. "The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.1 (2014): 19.
• Bouchard, Claude, et al. "The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins." New England Journal of Medicine 322.21 (1990): 1477-1482. 
• Danforth Jr, E., et al. "Dietary-induced alterations in thyroid hormone metabolism during overnutrition." Journal of Clinical Investigation 64.5 (1979): 1336.
• Dirlewanger, M., et al. "Effects of short-term carbohydrate or fat overfeeding on energy expenditure and plasma leptin concentrations in healthy female subjects." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 24.11 (2000): 1413-1418.
• Faeh, David, et al. "Effect of fructose overfeeding and fish oil administration on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and insulin sensitivity in healthy men." Diabetes 54.7 (2005): 1907-1913.
• Forbes, Gilbert B., et al. "Hormonal response to overfeeding." The American journal of clinical nutrition 49.4 (1989): 608-611.
• Geliebter, Ae al, et al. "Overfeeding with medium-chain triglyceride diet results in diminished deposition of fat." The American journal of clinical nutrition 37.1 (1983): 1-4.
• Hill, James O., et al. "Thermogenesis in humans during overfeeding with medium-chain triglycerides." Metabolism 38.7 (1989): 641-648.
• Horton, Tracy J., et al. "Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage." The American journal of clinical nutrition 62.1 (1995): 19-29. 
• Johnstone, A. M., R. J. Stubbs, and C. G. Harbron. "Effect of overfeeding macronutrients on day-to-day food intake in man." European journal of clinical nutrition 50.7 (1996): 418-430. 
• Joosen, A. M., and Klaas R. Westerterp. "Energy expenditure during overfeeding." Nutr Metab (Lond) 3 (2006): 25.
• Kolaczynski, JERZY W., et al. "Response of leptin to short-term and prolonged overfeeding in humans." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 81.11 (1996): 4162-4165.
• Lejeune, Manuela PGM, Eva MR Kovacs, and Margriet S. Westerterp-Plantenga. "Additional protein intake limits weight regain after weight loss in humans." British Journal of Nutrition 93.02 (2005): 281-289.
• McDevitt, Regina M., et al. "Macronutrient disposal during controlled overfeeding with glucose, fructose, sucrose, or fat in lean and obese women." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.2 (2000): 369-377.
• McDevitt, Regina M., et al. "De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women." The American journal of clinical nutrition 74.6 (2001): 737-746.
• Meugnier, Emmanuelle, et al. "Changes in gene expression in skeletal muscle in response to fat overfeeding in lean men." Obesity 15.11 (2007): 2583-2594. 
• Minehira, K., et al. "Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body macronutrient metabolism and expression of lipogenic enzymes in adipose tissue of lean and overweight humans." International journal of obesity 28.10 (2004): 1291-1298.
• Poehlman, Eric T., et al. "Genotype-controlled changes in body composition and fat morphology following overfeeding in twins." The American journal of clinical nutrition 43.5 (1986): 723-731. 
• Roberts, Susan B., et al. "Effects of age on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation during experimental overfeeding in healthy men." The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 51.2 (1996): B148-B157.
• Terán-García, Margarita, et al. "Effects of cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) gene on adiposity in response to long-term overfeeding." Atherosclerosis 196.1 (2008): 455-460.
• Ukkola, Olavi, A. Tremblay, and C. Bouchard. "Beta-2 adrenergic receptor variants are associated with subcutaneous fat accumulation in response to long-term overfeeding." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 25.11 (2001): 1604-1608.
• Vanltallie, Theodore B. "Resistance to weight gain during overfeeding: a NEAT explanation." Nutrition reviews 59.2 (2001): 48-51.
• Yost, Trudy J., and R. H. Eckel. "Hypocaloric feeding in obese women: metabolic effects of medium-chain triglyceride substitution." The American journal of clinical nutrition 49.2 (1989): 326-330.

Fat Loss Principles That Work: 10g+ of EAAs W/ Every Meal. Do Energetic Costs of Protein Synthesis Trigger This Effect?

EAAs beyond whey: It may not necessarily look like this, but this salad (repicecorner) is an EAA power horse with cheddar cheese (25% protein, 0.49 EAA / P ratio), tuna (in oil, 29%,  0.45) and kidney beans (9%, 0.45). You see, it does not always have to be chicken breasts or whey to get beyond the 10g+ EAA threshold, I have repeatedly suggested as one of the fundamental rules of dieting for weight loss, maintenance and muscle gain.

Many people take it for granted that you become fat, when you get old. If you look at the statistics, you could even make a point that obesity has some protective effects with esp. with respect to CVD mortality. Scientists call this the "obesity paradox" (Kastorini. 2012). What's particularly paradox, at least in my humble opinion, is yet not the phenomenon itself, but rather the fact that it gets smart scientists derailed from working on useful dietary and exercise interventions to prevent the development of heart disease, cancer, metabolic syndrome etc. in early years. Instead, they argue ex-post, i.e. when the baby has already been thrown out with the bathtub by comparing sick lean (in parts even cachectic) and sick "obese" people, why their statistical shenanigan that's based on the useless BMI produces paradoxical results. And that, when studies such as the one Jacobs et al. did in 2010 clearly show that 50+ year old men and women with waist circumference >120cm and >110cm, respectively, have 2x higher all-cause mortality risk than their lean peers - irrespective of BMI (Jacobs. 2010)!

To get lean and stay lean, yet not thin and skinny fat is therefore a challenge everyone...

... from the child in the Kindergarten to the obese granny in the nursing home is facing. Against that background a previous study by Loenneke et al. comes to mind. The results of their analysis, which were published in Nutrition and Metabolism in January 2012 clearly show that the amount of times people eat meals with a 10g+ EAA content per day was inversely related to percent central abdominal fat (Loenneke. 2012). In previous studies EAAs have also been shown to improve glucose clearance without increases in insulin and in the absence of effects on the fat burnin and health promoting expresion of AMPK-alpha2 in skeletal muscle tissue (see "EAAs Stimulate Muscle Glucose Uptake by Exponentiating Insulin's Effect on GLUT4 Expression"). With the advanced publication of a study by Coker, Miller, Schutzler, Deutz and Wolfe in the online verison of the Nutrition Journal a couple of days ago, the notion that EAAs have a particularly beneficial effect on fat loss - in this case in obese elderly individuals - gets further support from a well-controlled randomized trial (Cooker. 2012).

EAA-rich protein increases fat loss to a greater extent than low EAA protein

The researchers from the Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, AR, USA randomized 12 elderly individuals (mean age 69 years) to an 8 week, caloric restriction diet utilizing equivalent caloric meal replacements (~850 kcal/day; the exact nutrient composition can be found in figure 1) + ~400kcal from solid foods (total intake: ~1,250kcal/day; the subjects were free to chose their solid meals but were provided with a list of examples the should pick from, if possible).

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition of the meal replacements used in the study (Cooker. 2012)

The diet was designed to induce a 7% weight loss in two months. And while both,  the rate of weight loss (~1.6lbs per week), as well as the relatively high caloric deficit are certainly appropriate for someone with a 30+ BMI and ~40% body fat, leaner people will fare better with a less pronounced kcal deficit or (alternatively) have to add some strategically planned refeeds to the equation in order to minimize the loss of lean mass and, more importantly, avoid the ensuing reduction in energy expenditure (for the obese, the latter is actually less of the problem, because the downsides of being calorically deprived are at least partly counglucose tolerance and leptin sensitivity with every gram of body can actually help the body recognize that there is still plenty of energy that has just not been available (glucose) or "visible" (fat) before).

Figure 2: Changes in lean and fat mass (kg, left) and fractional protein synthesis rates (FSR) in participants receiving iso-caloric meal replacements with identical macronutrient compositions (see figure 1), but different amounts of essential amino acids (EAAs) content (Coker. 2012)

As the data in figure 2 goes to show you even the obese individuals in the study at hand lost a non-negligible amount of lean mass - unfortunately the body composition was measure with a sophisticated, but still body impedance based device, the trends are still accurate, but it is questionable in how much we are actually talking about ~2 and 2.5kg of muscle mass (figure 2, left), because somebody's "lean body mass" does obviously include more than just skeletal muscle.

When it comes to supplements, we are often like children on Christmas eve. About all the new stuff we get we tend to forget our former favorite and often way more fun to play with toys. Don't make this mistake and ditch your PWO whey (personally, I like a ~1.5:1 whey + micellar casein mixture) for EAAs, they don't come close... read more

Be that as it may - since the before and after values were taken with the same device the changes should be correct, so that both the slightly yet not statistically significantly ameliorated loss of lean body mass and, more importantly, the significantly higher degree of body fat loss in the EAA meal replacement (EAAMR) group speak in favor of the 5 servings of a the 170 kcal, 6g EAA per day. Moreover, "the sparing influence of muscle loss might have been demonstrated with a larger sample size", so that you can take it for granted that the preservation of precious muscle mass is an advantage of being choosy with your protein sources and preferring those with higher over those with lower essential amino acid contents.

On a related note: I don't know if you noticed, but with a total energy content of 850kcal and 30g EAA these 5 meal replacements did in fact have exactly those 10g+ of essential amino acids, I have repeatedly recommended to have with each of the 3 meals most people consume in the course of the day.

In all fairness, it should also be mentioned that despite not being significantly different at baseline, the body fat percentage of the subjects in the EAA meal replacement group was ~3% higher to begin with.This may seem irrelevant, since figure 2 compares lean mass and fat mass as absolute changes and not their percentages, but in the end, the amount of fat you you can drop within a given time-frame decreases with lower body fat percentages.

Do the energetic costs of protein synthesis drive fat loss?

Another interesting observation Coker et al. made is the close association between fat loss, on the one hand, and increased protein synthesis (55%), on the other hand. The researchers take this as an incentive to do one of the of the much loved calories in vs. calories out calculation and come up with the following hypothesis:

"Acute administration of EAAMR did promote a significant increase in skeletal muscle protein FSR compared to CMR. Assuming that the energy cost of protein synthesis is 3.6 kJ/g and the baseline GAIA-derived lean tissue mass was 56.4 kg for EAAMR and 54.4 kg for the CMR, we can extrapolate that the overall energy discrepancy between the two groups was roughly equivalent to 27,170 kcal or 3.5 kg of weight loss across the entire caloric restriction-based weight loss paradigm. Based on the amount of total lean mass in each group, this value takes into account a consistent intervention structure of five servings/day across an eight week period. In short, these calculations suggest that differences in the source of intact protein/formulation of EAA may have a significant influence on diet-induced energy expenditure that coincides closely with the greater reduction of adipose tissue in EAAMR compared to CMR." (my emphasis in Coker. 2012)

I usually discard fallacious calculations like this one if they are not highlight the stupidity of trying to eat exactly as much as some funky formula + the figure on your treadmill, pedometer, heart rate monitor or whatever fancy tool you may use to "measure" your energy expenditure suggest you would have burned in the last 24h. In this case, however, I made an exception, because I feel that the notion that protein quality is one of the myriad of parameters that are missing from this foolish calculation is important, for lean and obese people from all age groups who are trying to shed body fat.

Bottom line: The take away message of the study is in the end identical to the previously mentioned study by Loenneke et al.: Make sure you hit the 10g EAA threshold with each and every of your meals, if being lean and muscular not skinny yet fat is your goal.

References:

• Coker RH, Miller S, Schutlzer S, Deutz N, Wolfe RR. Whey protein and essential amino acids promote the reduction of adipose tissue and increased muscle protein synthesis during caloric restriction-induced weight loss in elderly, obese individuals. Nutr J. 2012 Dec 11;11(1):105. [Epub ahead of print]
• Jacobs EJ, Newton CC, Wang Y, Patel AV, McCullough ML, Campbell PT, Thun MJ, Gapstur SM. Waist circumference and all-cause mortality in a large US cohort. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Aug 9;170(15):1293-301.
• Kastorini CM, Panagiotakos DB. The obesity paradox: methodological considerations based on epidemiological and clinical evidence--new insights. Maturitas. 2012 Jul;72(3):220-4.
• Loenneke JP, Wilson JM, Manninen AH, Wray ME, Barnes JT, Pujol TJ. Quality protein intake is inversely related with abdominal fat. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2012 Jan 27;9(1):5.

Grass-Fed Pork? Not Really. Still the Difference in Fatty Acid Composition & Micronutrient Content Are Profound & Not Accounted for by Food Databases - Let Alone Epidemiology

You often hear that pigs are pretty closely related to us humans, but "are all pigs created equal"? Or what may be a more appropriate question for the SuppVersity: Is all pork really created equal?

If you like databases like nutritiondata.com or the USDA's very own detailed nutrient database in order to evaluate whether your diet is actually delivering all the nutrients you need you are probably missing half of the picture. At least as far as the more sophisticated details go, a recent paper from the Instituto de Ingeniería de Alimentos para el Desarrollo at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia clearly indicates that you would at least have to consider what the animals, in this case pork, were fed and from which muscle of the animal the piece of meat you are eating has been cut, in order to get an approximate idea of how much of unquestionably health relevant micronutrients, such as coQ10, carnosine, anserine, taurine, creatine glutamine or haem you get - and in some cases the differences can be way larger than 100%!

If pizza salami equals pork...

... in epidemiological studies, how can these studies on the fallacies and advantages of eating red meat, which usually get a hell lo of media attention, be accurate, given the fact that the amount of unquestionably beneficial coQ10, for example, would differ by 60 percent, even if you would only ignore the difference between loin that was cut from the trapezius (= high coQ10 content) and the longissimus dorsi (=low coQ10 content)?

Figure 1: Content of selected amino acids and micronutrients in cuts from different muscle; data expressed relative to respective mean (total value is given in mg/100g above the bars) of all tested muscle samples (data based on previous studies by the co-authors that have been compiled for Reig. 2012).

Moreover, if you take a look at the complete data in figure 1 it should be clear that coQ10 is only one of several micro-nutrients / amino acids that are highly dependent on which muscle your particular steak or whatever you are about to eat was cut from. Let's take taurine as yet another example. A prolonged low dietary intake of taurine has been observed to be linked to a number of disorders including retinal degeneration, retardation of growth and development, cardiovascular dysfunctions, CNS abnormalities, immune impairment and hepatic disorders (Abebe. 2011). If you eat meat (fish & other animal products) only occasionally and are therefore at risk of not getting adequate taurine in your diet, eating sausages from a butcher you trust would be a better choice than a piece of ham, since the former do include the high taurine meat from the masseter (cheeks) of the animals, while ham does not.

Let's get to the obvious: Grass-fed is... ah, wait a minute

"Grass fed is best" as you will people say about beef obviously won't be the case for pork, because pigs, just like humans, by the way, are omnivores. The simple formula, grass-fed = most beneficial fatty acid and micronutrient profile that may (in general) be valid for beef doesn't apply and we will have to take a closer look at the actual data first to decide what would be the "best" feed for pigs, if the goal was not a maximal yield of lean meat (in that case adding some clenbuterol, like the Chinese like to do it would be the least you should do; cf. The China Post. 2011), but rather to produce the meat with the most beneficial fatty acid  composition.

Figure 2: Fatty acid composition (primary axis) and omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of pork from pigs fed different diets (corrected version of data Reig et al. re-pupublished based on previous studies; spec. the figure for the n6:n3 ratio in the "standard feed" group that's based on Enser et al. was off - a ratio of 1.54 is obviously unrealistic)

I we define "most healthy" as having the lowest omega-6 to omega-3 ratio - a practice that seems appropriate given that 95% of the inhabitants of the so-called 'Westernized World' consumes way too much of the former and (comparably) way too little of the latter type of polyunsaturated fatty acids, the data in figure 2 clearly argues in favor of *surprise* the standard feed - at least if you define that by the feed the animals the meat of which (50 samples) Enser et al. bought in British supermarkets in 1996 (note: these values are still higher than for the conventional beef samples from the same study, which had a n-6:n-3 ratio of ~2.2; cf. Enser. 1996). There are however more intricate patterns that are not evident from the overview in figure 2, but could have implications as far as the direction into which "pork production" could or should head to in the future is concerned (summarized based on Reig. 2012):

Do you notice a pattern? I guess even based on the data in figure 2 you will already have noticed that the "grainier" the diet, or in other words, the more corn and soy there is in the diet of the swine the less favorable is the fatty acid composition of their meats going to be. Now, I am asking an outrageous question: If swine are such a good model for human metabolism, what do you believe your belly was going to be made of, if you copied the pigs' diets and lived on "healthy grains", their oils and the uber-healthy soy beans for the (probably pretty short) rest of your life?
• more food (yet no excess) can produce overall leaner muscle meat in the type II fibers, while the total body fat is increasing
• aside from local desaturation and elongination effects, the overall muscular fatty acid pattern does (much like in humans, by the way) mirror the dietary intake
• canola or linseed oils produce a substantial increase in the content of linolenic acid (C 18:3), and slightly increase the eicosapentaenoic (EPA, C 22:5) and docosahexaenoic (DHA, C 22:6) acid contents in pork mea
• soy, peanut, corn, and sunflower increase the content of linoleic acid (C 18:2; omega-6), increase the n-6:n-3 ratio and reduce the content of mono-unsaturated fats (MUFAs)
• fish oils or algae added to the feed substantially increases the content of EPA and DHA and thus reduce the n-6:n-3 ratio
• a high saturated fat content as in tallow (see figure 2) increases the levels of palmitic, palmitoleic, stearic and oleic acids in pork meat and reduces the PUFA:SFA ratio 
• CLA supplementation can increase the CLA content of the fatty portion of the meats (1% CLA results in 5.5 mg CLA/100g) and the adipose tissue (2% CLA yields 1,490mg CLA/100g fatty acids).

As you can see, the same rule applies for humans, pigs and, as you know from a previous SuppVersity post, mice who are fed inferior, since soy-fed salmon, as well: You are what you eat, folks!

Wallowing, roaming, routing: Work out like a pig

Since pigs make a pretty decent model of human metabolism and in view of the fact that - aside from our diets - the amount of exercise we get is one of the fundamental determinants of the total and relative levels of body fat, it should not be forgotten that "exercise" or rather the ability to range freely and be as active as any swine should be, is another determinant of the quality of the meat you are buying at the supermarket, grocery store, butcher or your local farmer. In this context, Reig et al. point out that

If you have no idea of the different cuts and location of the individual muscle, I suggest you download the "Meat Cuts Manual" from the website of the Canadian Food Agency. It's free and bilingual.

"[i]t has been reported that pigs maintained in free-range conditions in the Mediterranean forest had subcutaneous and intramuscular fats with higher monounsaturated fatty acids and lower saturated fatty acids than those pigs housed individually and receiving acorns as feed. The subcutaneous fat depth increases with exercise being 15.9 mm for exercised pigs in comparison to 11.5 mm depth for those kept in confinement. The same applies for the intramuscular fat content where 3.36% for extensive vs 1.44% for intensive raised pigs have been reported in the semimembranosus muscle." (Reig. 2012)

And if you really intend to overcomplicate things, you would also have to ask your butcher, whether the sausages you are about to buy were made of the meat of male of female pigs. After all, meat from barrows typically contain more fat and marbling and a thicker subcutaneous fat layer than meat from gilts (Armero. 1999). But let's face it: If you start stressing about things like this, the quality of your meat is probably your least problem.

If you want to know read more about epidemiological overgeneralization andthe effects of "pork" and red meat on your health (spec. the prostate) I suggest you go back to the Meat-Ology post.

So what's the bottom line, then: I guess the bottom line of the above insides is twofold. As far as you as an individual are concerned, it would be yet another argument for getting your meats (pork or whatever else) from a farm nearby, where you know what you are getting. It is yet also evidence of the fact that meticulous nutrient counting as I often see it in former calorie counters who have nor grasped the notion that "a calorie is not a calorie" is of little avail - at least if you expect to be able to calculate them as precisely as you can read them on the nutrition labels of the 90% artificial and 100% standardized convenient foods that's probably much more the answer to the question "Why are we fat?" than the non-descript statement "insulin".

In fact, the real significance of these results lies elsewhere. It concerns the way epidemiological studies are conducted (I may remind you of the metaphorical pizza salami being red meat or pork), their over-generalizing interpretations and the conclusions on what the optimal human diet should look like. So, once the next study is telling you "red meat" or "pork" is bad for you - you may want to remind yourself of some of the things you have learned in today's blogpost and ask yourself (and if you incidentally have the chance, the researchers as well): What kind of "pork" are we talking about?

References:

• Abebe W, Mozaffari MS. Role of taurine in the vasculature: an overview of experimental and human studies. Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2011;1(3):293-311.
• Armero E,  Flores M,  Toldrá F,  Barbosa JA,  Olivet J,  Pla M,  Baselga M.Effects of pig sire types and sex on carcass traits, meat quality and sensory quality of dry-cured ham.  Journal of the  Science of  Food  and  Agriculture. 1999; 79:1147-1154.
• Enser M, Hallett K, Hewitt B, Fursey GA, Wood JD. Fatty acid content and composition of english beef, lamb and pork at retail. Meat Sci. 1996 Apr;42(4):443-56.
• Reig M, Aristoy MC, Toldra.Variability in the contents of pork meat nutrients and how it may affect food composition databases. Food Chemistry. 2012 [ahead of print]
• The China Post. Clenbuterol-tainted pork latest China food scandal. March 18, 2011. < http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2011/03/18/295146/Clenbuterol-tainted-pork.htm > retrieved Dec 06, 2012.

Adelfo Cerame - Road to The Wheelchair Nationals '12: My Five Simple Tricks for Guilt Free Thanksgiving Celebrations. Plus: Four Dietary Supplements You Should not Miss!

Image 1: Adelfo on Wednesday before the feast began. We will see how he looks next week ;-)

I guess, this blogpost should actually begin with the words "Happy Thanksgiving" in big, bold letters, but for us Europeans - and me as a German, in particular - today is a regular working day. Nevertheless, it is a day to celebrate, because THIS is actually post #600 here at the SuppVersity and I am in fact grateful (and thusly giving thanks) that you, my dear students, readers, followers or however else you want to refer to yourselves, are still interested in my perspective(s) on what is going on in the world of fitness, bodybuilding, sports and exercise science.

That being said, I do still hope that all of you (who actually have a holiday) are having a good time with your friends and family, just like my friend Adelfo, who has sent me his weekly contest-prep update and his best wishes to all of you last night, already ....

Turkey, pie, ... pie, turkey, ... turkey ... and some supplements!

Ok guys, I’m going to try and make this real brief because I actually started my Thanksgiving Day Feast a day early, so that I’ve been falling in and out of sleep from all the turkey and pie and still have to prepare for another day of furious eating again tomorrow, in order to "peak" (just to stick to the bodybuilding terminology) right on Thanksgiving!

Image 2: I like protein blends and Lean Supreme is one of my favorites. I gets it for $32 for 4.2lbs at my local Nutrition Zone.

As you know from the previous installments of this series, I have planned these 2 cheat / refeed days long ahead. In fact, being able to go somewhat overboard on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Eve and my birthday was part of the reasoning behind starting my contest preparation so early.  But before I give you guys some pointers on how to approach these holiday feasts, I thought it was about time to address the subject of supplements. I know I've hinted at being on a budget and cutting back on my usage of protein powder in a previous episode; luckily I have recently been able to stock back up on my four staples, i.e. those supplements, I think are really worth spending your money on.

For me the "basic four" are

• a high quality protein powder, 
• a bag of bulk BCAAs, 
• a quality multi-vitamin, and 
• the good old creatine monohydrate. 

Protein powder, BCAAs, a mulit and creatine are what I would call the "foundation" of my supplementation regimen. If I cannot afford all of these, I am not going to buy any other  supplement - "prioritizing" is the name of the game. If my budget allows that I am yet planning on experimenting with a few other products in the weeks to come. What I currently have on my mind are a decent fat burner, some bulk D-Aspartic Acid and a test booster if I can find one that actually works...

Image 3: Protein powder, multi-vitamins, creatine monohydrate, and BCAA’s, combined with good training + nutrition, and that’s all you need to build your physique… well at least for me it is ;-)

Remember, all four, the protein powder, the BCAAs, the multi-vitamin and the creatine are add-ons; they are not part of what I call my "nutritional regimen". They do not replace any nutrients (as Dr. Andro would say: "They are called supplements not replacements" ;-) and I am well aware that I won't get anything out of them, if my diet and training are not 100% in check. Never fool yourself into the false security that you are taking supplements, X,Y and Z and could thusly let your nutritional protocol slide. No supplement gives you the excuse to eat like shit or skip a training session! You can do without quality supplements but you can’t do without quality foods - although the colorful adverts in some of the muscle mags, try to make you believe otherwise.

Image 4: Huge thanks to Jack Gurlekian and Dr. Andro for helping me out on the supplement side.

Before I get started on Holiday feasting, I’d like to give a shout out to Jack Gurlekian and thank him for hooking me up with some of the supplements that he distributes and makes himself… I’d also like to thank Dr. Andro himself for helping me out with finances to help me purchase some supplements that should hold me off for a couple months : Creapure(TM), glutamine peptides & ZMA from True Protein. Inner Armour supplements and Jack’s very own amino acid blends! [A note by Dr. Andro: Additional sponsors are always welcome ;-]

My holiday season feasts 101!

The holiday season is approaching and you all know what that means? Epic holiday feasts and it starts with Thanksgiving, continues on Christmas and ends with New Years Eve. And when it’s all said and done, all you’re left with is a GUT full of regret! In order to help you to keep both the gut, as well as the regret at bay, I want to share with you how I like to prepare myself for the holiday food gauntlet…

Image 5: This thanks giving plate looks way better than the government's MyPlate

Actually it all begins with keeping myself in good physical shape and keeping my physique as lean as I can year round. If you read the last installment of Dr. Andro's Intermittent Thoughts Series on "Why to cut before bulking" you will be aware of the hormonal and metabolic advantages which come with being lean. That being said, there is actually little reason, why I could not enjoy occasions like this without any regret, if it's not just a few days out on the next contest, which obviously isn't yet the case... and if you have been following the whole series since September, you will also be aware that I am exactly on schedule - a schedule that allows for a long consistent cut, precisely because I knew that Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Eve were coming and being in decent shape by then would allow me do some serious and more importantly guilt free eating ;-)

5 simple rules to survive the feast without too much damage

Being on an intermittent fasting protocol does help here as well, I have already touched on that in a previous installment - when you pack your complete caloric intake into a small feeding window "overeating" (no, not eating like shit!) is part of the game, anyway. Ok, the foods are probably different on Thanksgiving, but the caloric intake may in fact not vary too much. Moreover, the muscle specific improvements in insulin sensitivity that come with training fasting make it less likely that you store all the good and not so good nutrients you are about to eat today in the form of glycogen or even new muscle tissue, rather than as triglyceride droplets in your love handles.

Personally I do adhere to the the following 5 principles for intermittently fasted holiday celebrations in order to keep any potential damage to my physique at a minimum:

1. I give myself a caloric buffer throughout the week before the big day. I don’t starve myself but I don’t eat as much. I try to be like around 200-300 calories shy of my daily caloric intake (1800 kcal). And being on IF, I do not even notice this 200-300 calorie reduction as far as my appetite is concerned.
2. I stick to proteins and moderate fats throughout the week before the big feast. Just sticking to proteins, moderate fats, veggies and fruits, will help you with making that caloric buffer, simply because they are satiating. I still had my PWO chocolate milk, and PWO carbs with my meal.
3. I fast before the big feast. You may want to even throw in an intense and heavy weight training session before, so you can get more bang for your buck when you eat! (Though I wont be doing that because it’s my rest day)
4. Once I get to the party and begin my feast, I focus first on filling up on protein like turkey, chicken, roasts, fish and BBQ meats. This way I’m sure to hit my protein macros and to fill up with some good protein, then I’ll have my desserts like cakes and pies … and a couple shots of liquor and a couple glasses of wine ;-) But once I’m full… That’s it! I wont force myself to eat more just because there’s a lot of food. I’ll wait a couple of hours like I would normally do (on regular days), until I’m hungry again before I’ll eat again. I try to get in the same amounts of meals that I usually would during my feeding hours (3-4 meals) but obviously the meals will be much bigger... yeah, and with a little bit more junk ;-)
5. I push away the remote thoughts of guilt and enjoy the day! I mean, you train hard and eat smart year round to keep yourself lean & mean. One day is not going to reverse all your efforts, maybe some bloat and a little water retention, but that will subsides in a couple days. Other than that… Enjoy your Thanksgiving, because I know I will!

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Eat responsibly and don’t eat & drive full ;-)

HMB Exhibits Differential Effects on ATP and Glycogen Content of Fast & Slow Twitch Fibers and Maximizes Tetanic Force Development in Rodent Study

Image 1: This is where HMB could actually make a difference, the two more reps, the one more sprint, which after weeks and months of training can decide over victory or defeat.

Sometimes, or I should say, time and again (!), it amazes me how the same people who are willing to invest hundreds of bucks in a supplement, which (according to the patent holder) "has been shown in scientitfic studies" (which were conducted by the researcher and a buddy of his at a remote lab, only to file the patent) to "increase testosterone by up to 147.34%", keep telling me that they "would never waste their hard earned money on supplements like HMB..." hello? Am I missing something, here? I mean, right; HMB does not produce the steroid-like effects the same sort of shady businessmen who are now promoting a new natural testosterone booster as legal alternative to Anavar on a monthly base once claimed it would have, but in all  honesty, the scientific research on HMB is by far more promising than the mostly non-existent research on 99% of the "legal anabolics" out there.

HMB works, we just don't know exactly how and for whom

As Dr. Connelly pointed out on the last BodyRX Show (highly recommended, especially for Layne's intellectual exchange with Dr. Jeff Volek), it stands out of question that HMB works. There are in fact more than a dozen of studies which show that supplementation with adequate amounts of this leucine metabolite has anti-catabolic effects in various conditions of skeletal muscle atrophy (Nissen. 2003; Smith. 2005). What  is still debatable, though is whether and to which extent athletes, in general, and bodybuilders, in particular can benefit from these effects. In view of the increasing awareness of the importance of leucine, the metabolic precursor of b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyrate (HMB), most athletes in this subgroup probably consume somwhere between 20-30g of leucine from the 300g of protein they are feeding themselves in the form of protein shakes and lean meats alone (with reference to the data that is presented in figure 1 it is noteworthy that the comparison Nissen made is not "fair", because the many of the HMB studies were conducted with "sick" people, while the majority of studies on protein supplements used either healthy people or athletes). With an average conversion rate of ~5% (of dietary leucine), we would have to estimate their daily HMB "production" to roughly 1.0-1.5g, which is interestingly at the lower range of what has been shown to ameliorate muscle wasting in cancer cachexia studies (Eley. 2007; Kovarik. 2010).

Figure 1: Calculated effect sizes of creatine, HMB, chromium, androstendione, DHEA and protein supplements on strength and lean mass gains (adapted from meta-review by Nissen et al.; Nissen. 2003)

And even if we discard the question of whether or not additional HMB is really necessary on a high protein diet and whether or not respective dietary differences could explain the negative results from some, yet by no means all, trials with professional athletes, we must still admit that even in those cases where it does work, we (i.e. scientists) do not really understand how HMB does its anti-proteolytic magic. The results of a recently published study from scientists from the Institute of Biomedical Science at the University of Sao Paulo, could thusly be of particular importance, as this is - at least to my mind - the first study to investigate the effects HMB supplementation had on ATP and glycogen levels, citrate synthase and changes in the contractive properties of individual muscle fibers (Pinheiro. 2011).

Figure 2: Changes (vs. placebo) in ATP and glycogen content, as well as citrate synthesis in red and white portion of rat gastrocnemius muscle after 4 week supplementation with 320mg/kg HMB (data adapted from Pinheiro. 2011)

The data in figure 2 shows, that after 4 weeks of daily supplementation with 320mg/kg HMB (in the study the usual calcium salt, you can buy in bulk on the Internet was used), the ATP and glycogen levels in the gastrocnemius muscle of the rats were profoundly elevated. In that, it is particularly interesting that the leucine metabolite had differential effects on the slow-twitch oxidative red portion of the muscle and the fast-twitch glycolytic white portion: In the slow twitch fibers the increase in ATP is 10x higher than it is in the fast twitch fibers, where the +400% increase in glycogen content should yet provide a similarly extensive buffer of readily (yet not immediately) available energy. Moreover, the increase in citrate synthesis (+67%) in the slow twitch fibers suggests that part of this effect was mediated by an "increased lipid availability due to increased lipolysis", or, put simply, by an increased oxidation of fatty acids to generate more ATP.

Figure 3: Tetanic force production (normalized to muscle weight) in rats receiving 320mg/kg HMB or placebo for 4-weeks; successive tetanic contractions were evoked at 100 Hz each 10 s of interval (data adapted from Pinheiro. 2011)

These increase in both readily available energy stores and the ability to replenish the former via fatty acid oxidation, is - according to Pinheiro et al. - also the underlying reason for the "increase in resistance to fatique" the scientists observed when they subjected the rat muscle to electrical stimulation in order to evaluate the tetanic (=constantly contracting) force production (cf. figure 3). Contrary to the twitch force, which was identical in supplemented and non-supplemented rats, the tetanic force production (normalized for either muscle weight or muscle cross-sectional area) increased by +17% (p<0.05; meaning that the chance that this was mere coincidence is <5%).

Fine!? Now, tell me: Is HMB worth it?

In view of the fact that neither the muscle size (cross-sectional area) nor the lean mass of the rodents in the HMB group differed from their placebo supplemented peers (btw. the animals were not "trained" in the course of the 4-week study), we must conclude that the effects of HMB, similar to those of creatine, are not what you would call "immediately anabolic". In a real world training scenario the metabolic advantage (increased ATP stores, increased glycogen stores and increased oxidative capacity) the rats in the HMB group gained over the 4-week study period, would allow trainees to do those 1-2 reps more which in weeks and months would then translate into this one additional pound of muscle or the 10th of a second that can make the difference between victory or defeat - whether those 1-2 reps are worth the roughly 64$ it would cost to copy the supplementation regimen used in the study (320mg/kg in rats would equate to 53mg/kg per day for humans), does yet depend on who you are, what you want to achieve and how much money you have to spend... and if you do not have your regular diet and training in check, don't even think of HMB (let alone one of those "test boosters" ;-)