.

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

3.8g/Day CLA as Anti-Diabetic Glucose Repartitioner - Two Recent Study Show Interesting Benefits from Conjugated Linoleic Acid Supplementation in Mouse & Man

CLA - A muscle specific glucose repartitioner for lean & athletic individuals?
In their latest article in the scientific journal Nutrition Research scientists from the Universidad Nacional del Litoral report that dietary CLA increases the glucose utilization under basal conditions and prevents the palmitate-induced inhibition of glucose uptake and incorporation that is stimulated by insulin.

Interestingly, Farina et al. also found that the beneficial effects of CLA were significantly more pronounced and without significant side effects in rodents who had been deprived of all omega-6 fatty acids - including CLA - before.
You can learn more about CLA at the SuppVersity

Natural CLA Sources Prevent Weight Gain

DHA Blunts CLA's Ill Health Effects on the Liver

Microencapsulated CLA for Fat Loss?

Fish Oil & CLA as Natural Anabolics?

Cis-9,11 o trans-10,12 Which to Take?

CLA as Natty Testosterone Booster?
Unfortunately, the provision of conjugated linoleic acid did also have negative effects on some aspects of glucose control. For example, Farina et al. observed a significant reduction in insulin response capacity that may - in the long run - compromise their ability to handle glucose.
Figure 1: CLA increases basal glucose intake and glycogen synthesis - the latter yet only when the rodent diet does not contain any linoleic acid (-LA), if it's not there is also a significant negative effect on insulin stimulated glucose uptake in the soleus muscle of the rodents (Farina. 2014)
Now, rodent studies are one thing, human studies are - at least according to some experts - something totally different. Against that background you will probably be more interested in the results of a recent study from the National Taichung University of Education in Korea. The authors, Jung-Piao Tsao, Su-Fen Liao, Mallikarjuna Korivi, Chien-Wen Hou, Chia-Hua Kuo, Hsueh-Fang Wang & I-Shiung Cheng, were able to show that the provision of a standard CLA supplement containing a 50:50 mixture of trans-10 cis-12 and cis-9 trans-11 isomers at a dosage of 3.8 g CLA per day for 8 week lead to significant can enhance the glycogen resynthesis rate in exercised human skeletal muscle.
Figure 2: Glycogen levels (a) and differences (b) in vastus lateralis of human skeletal muscle after a single bout of exercise in CLA and placebo trials (Tsao. 2014)
As you can see in Figure 2 this advantage was not just statistically significant, but appears to be high enough to be physiologically relevant. What is not clear, though, is whether the increased glycogen uptake of the vastus lateralis is a direct or indirect benefit - after all, previous studies indicate that CLA can decrease the glucose uptake in adipocytes (=fat cells | Perez-Matute. 2007). The increase in glycogen synthesis in the muscle of the 12 male young college students (aged 22.56 ± 0.45 years, body mass index 23.35 ± 0.79 and VO2 max 49.4 ± 1.67 ml/kg/min) who participated in the study may be a simple results of an increased relative glucose availability - or, as a supplement producer would call it to sell their supplements: "Glucose repartitioning"!
Figure 3: GLUT4 protein level (a) and P-Akt/Akt ratio (b) in vastus lateralis of human skeletal muscle after a single bout of exercise in CLA and placebo trials (Tsao. 2014).
A claim that is supported by the data in Figure 3, which indicate that the increased glucose uptake and subsequent increase in glycogen synthesis is a result of a CLA-induced increase in GLUT-4 glucose transporter expression, of which the data in Figure 2 also tells us that it occurred before the regular exercise-induced increase in GLUT-3 expression.
4g of Conjugated Linoleic Acid Promote CYP17A1 + Leydig Cell Testosterone Production and Increase Cardio-Mediated Muscle, Strength and Endurance Gains | more
Bottom line: Even if we take into consideration that this "study has limitation with lack of maintenance of the dietary recall or training diary for all participants," the result are an impressive argument in favor of CLA supplementation in athletes in whom the previously mentioned negative effects on insulin response capacity may not be physiologically relevant - if it occurs at all.

And still, Tsao et al. are right: "These findings suggest that CLA could consider as an effective ergogenic aid to improve the muscle glycogen levels and endurance capacity. However, it is necessary to monitor the whole-body glucose homeostasis to avoid possible adverse effects of CLA [..] on glucose metabolism" (Tsao. 2014) | Comment on Facebook!
References:
  • Fariña, Ana C., et al. "Conjugated linoleic acid improves glucose utilization in the soleus muscle of rats fed linoleic acid–enriched and linoleic acid–deprived diets." Nutrition Research (2014).
  • Perez-Matute, P., et al. "Conjugated linoleic acid inhibits glucose metabolism, leptin and adiponectin secretion in primary cultured rat adipocytes." Molecular and cellular endocrinology 268.1 (2007): 50-58.
  • Ritsche, Kevin, et al. "Acute Exercise-Induced Growth Hormone is Attenuated in Response to Short-Term, High-Intensity Exercise Training." (2014).
  • Tsao, Jung-Piao, et al. "Oral conjugated linoleic acid supplementation enhanced glycogen resynthesis in exercised human skeletal muscle." Journal of sports sciences ahead-of-print (2014): 1-9.

The Glucose Repartitioning Effects of Exercise: Moderate Beats High Volume Training When It Comes to Shuttling Glucose Away From Fat and Right into the Muscle

"Are 2h of cardio each day still too little!?  It must be my thyroid! Yeah, that's it. It must be the thyroid!" Could be bro, but if it is probably self-inflicted hypothyrodism
In the context of my dissertations on the unwarranted vilification of insulin as a "fattening agent" (go back to "The "Pro-Insulinogenic" Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners + Mechanisms & Consequences" if you have not read the article already), I presented data from a rodent study to make a point that insulin's fattening effects depend on two closely related and highly familiar factors.

One is the over-consumption of energy that is the norm, not the exception here in the Western Obesity Belt. In conjunction with the lack of glucose depleting exercise this "ensures" that the intra-muscular and hepatic liver stores of the average Westerner are always topped off and the only change to get rid of the glucose that's floating the system of the coke-guzzling convenient generation on a day-to-day basis is to pack it away in the adipose organ.

That being said, it is only logical to assume that working out would help mitigate the problem by restoring the "normal" state of partly if not fully depleted glycogen stores and allowing insulin to do its original "glycogen anabolic". It is this process of insulin induced glucose partitioning towards the emptied glycogen stores of the skeletal musculature and the influence of (a) sedentarism (control), (b) aerobic exercise worth 300kcal/day, and (c) aerobic exercise worth 600kcal/day a group of scientists from the University of Kopenhagen in Denmark (Reichenkendler. 2013) investigated in their most recent study.

300kcal or 600kcal does it even make a difference?

For the experiment on which this paper that is supposed to be published in one of the upcoming issues of the American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, the researchers recruited 27 moderately overweight men (BMI: 28.1(1.8); age: 30(6) years; no diabetic relatives, weight stable for the last 6+months), randomized them to one of the three previously mentioned conditions.

According to which group the subjects had been randomized to, the participants either continued their sedentary lifestyle (CON) or performed daily aerobic exercise of 300 kcal/day (MOD) or 600 kcal/day (HIGH) for 11 weeks. The workouts were performed
  • at a higher intensity (>70% of VO2max), three times per week, and
  • at a low-medium intensity on the other three workout day
As you can see this is more of a chronic "general activity" + exercise study, than your average acute (let's save some money) trials and thus highly relevant to the aim of investigating the effect of chronic
"[...] moderate or high dose aerobic physical exercise on insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in individual femoral muscle groups, intra- and retroperitoneal VAT, abdominal (both anterior and posterior) and femoral SAT [subcutaneous adipose tissue] in sedentary, young and moderately overweight men." (Reichenkendler. 2013)
Moreover, the use of DEXA scan and non-invasive FDG PET/CT + hyperinsulinemic, isoglycemic clamp tests by the means of which the researchers assessed the body composition and glucose uptake of the study participants before and after the 11-week intervention ensured that Reichenkendler et al. would get accurate results.
Figure 1: Change in skeletal muscle (left) and body fat (right) glucose uptake from pre- to post-interverion (Reichenkendler. 2013)
Speaking of results, in view of the fact that the participants had not been been engaged in  in regular exercise, before the study was conducted and considering the fact that their maximal oxygen consumption [VO2max] of ≤45 ml O2/kg body mass/min mirrors their sedentary lifestyles, it is actually not really surprising that the unaccustomed exercise led to decreases in abdominal subcutaneous, visceral and leg fat masses in the two intervention groups - what may be surprising, though is the fact that those were not statistically different in the medium vs. high volume group.

On the other hand, only the high, yet not the moderate volume exercise (600kcal/day) led to significant increases in fat free mass in the legs (with the difference between the moderate and high volume achieving borderline significance; p = 0.06).

1:0 for 600kcal/day and high volume training!?

The additional muscle building benefit from the high(er) volume in the study at hand appears to conflict the results of a previous study by Rosenkilde et al. On the other hand, the most important message still remains: Working out twice as much is not going to double your fat loss! If anything it will make you feel miserable. Remember that and spread the word!
The muscle building advantage of the high volume endurance exercise is interesting. After all it appears to contradict data from a previous study by Rosenkilde et al. who observed detrimental effects of doubling the exercise volume from 300kcal/day to 600kcal per day in their study from August 2012 (read more).
If we scrutinize the different protocols, this could be a result of an ostensibly small, but physiologically relevant difference in the exercise prescriptions:

While the subjects in the study at hand had the four low intensity days to recover, the Rosenkilde study did not deliberately implement intensity differences like that - the subjects were just told "you burn 600kcal/day - no matter what!" In view of the still prevalent notion that this would be most beneficial if you achieved it by "training in the zone" (the non-existent "fat burning zone"), it is not unlikely that for Rosenkilde's subjects every day ended up a "high" intensity day and the constant exercise induced stress ended up backfiring.

If we go by the body composition data this this was not necessarily the case in the study at hand.The increase in fatloss every noob believes would come out of simply doubling your cardio workouts was not present either and that despite the fact that the exercise induced total body glucose disposal rate was increased  only in the high volume group (p = 0.03). In the moderate intensity group this effect did nor reach statistical significance.
Figure 2: The overall greater GLUT-4 response to insulin (signifying improvements in insulin sensitivity) probably explains the advantage of the medium volume training (Reichenkendler. 2013)
Much contrary to the total body glucose intake, where both the liver and the adipose tissue are greatfully sucking up the glucose your muscles are not snatching from under their nose, the total skeletal muscle glucose uptake rate increased in both, the moderate (p = 0.007) and high (p = 0.002) volume groups.

And now for the real surprises...

Did you know that high intensity, muscle damaging workouts reduce the post-exercise glycogen repletion rate and could thus impair the general glucose repartioning effects of exercise? It cannot be said for sure whether an increase in muscle damage was partly to blame for the lower glucose repartitioning effects in the medium vs. high volume groups in the study at hand, but the long-lasting (10 days) defect in glycogen resynthesis Kevin P. O'Really et al. observed in their 1987 study in response to 45min of eccentric cycling should remind you that "go heavy of go home" does not imply that you go home only, when your muscles hurt so much that even going light is not possible any longer.
Much contrary to what you may expect, though, the increase in muscle specific glucose uptake was more pronounced in the moderate (difference to control p = 0.02) than in the high volume group, where only a trend (p = 0.06) was observed.

And while the total glucose uptake rate of femoral adipose tissue did not change significantly in either of the intervention groups, the amount of glucose that ended up in the abdominal subcutaneous fat stores decreased. Just like the muscle specific glucose repartitioning, this effect did yet occur only in the moderate, yet not in the high volume groups.

Similarly the glucose repartitioning away the visceral adipose tissue of the midsection was statistically significantly only for the moderate volume group. For the subjects in the high volume group, the researchers observed a non-significant tendency (p = 0.09) for a decrease in the amount of glucose that was taken up by the visceral fat depots in the abdominal region.

What do we make of these counter-intuitive results: First of all, I would like to emphasize that any form of exercise is going to have a measurable repartitioning effect and whether the latter is "statistically significant" or not may in the end be of secondary importance. Moreover, the overall greater energy expenditure in the high volume regimen resulted in greater improvements in body composition than its low volume counterpart - irrespective of its "non-significant" or "borderline significant" glucose repartitioning effects (so much about "calories don't count", and "it's all about insulin and the fattening carbohydrates" ;-)

These abs were not sculpted by 600kcal/day workouts check out some more promising routines
On the other hand, the results of the study at hand to eventually confirm what the previously cited study by Rosenkilde et al. (click on the image with the mouse) already suggested: Doing more is not necessarily beneficial. Even in the presence of what you may call "light intensity recovery days", the daily hour (on the light days you will need way more than an hour to burn 600kcal) of the ever same, non-challenging exercise is not going to cut it - in the literal sense; or, to put it differently: doing low intensity training just to burn calories everyday is not yield the fat burning, muscle building or maintaining results you are looking for.

If you are looking for better alternatives, check out the fatloss support workouts in the Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout.

References:
  • O'Reilly KP, Warhol MJ, Fielding RA, Frontera WR, Meredith CN, Evans WJ. Eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage impairs muscle glycogen repletion. J Appl Physiol. 1987 Jul;63(1):252-6.
  • Reichkendler MH, Auerbach P, Rosenkilde M, Christensen AN, Holm S, Petersen MB, Lagerberg A, Larsson HB, Rostrup E, Mosbech TH, Sjödin A, Kjaer A, Ploug T, Hoejgaard L, Stallknecht BM. Exercise training favors increased insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in skeletal muscle in contrast to adipose tissue: A randomized study using FDG PET imaging. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jun 25. [Epub ahead of print]
     

Bulking Done Right: What Can the Latest 100 Day +1,000 Kcal/day Overfeeding Study Tell Us About How Baseline Fitness, Fatness, Hormones & More Affect the Outcome

Bulking!? What is it that will keep the veins popping, the waist circumference level and your muscle growing? It is your basal metabolic rate? Your body fat level? Your muscle mass? Your fiber type composition? Or maybe your cardio-respiratory fitness?
If you have listened to the latest installment of the Science Round Up you will know that there is very practical reason why you want to avoid "classic dirty bulking", with an increased formation of body fat: the accompanying changes to the structure of your adipose organ - the increase in adipopocyte number and thus the touted reason for the future weight problems (listen to the show to learn more). But let's phase it a certain degree of "overfeeding" is actually necessary to make gains, so the question, which factors there are to predict the changes in body composition and body energy in response to chronic overfeeding is a question that's of equal importance for the lean physical culturist as it is for the obese child of the fast food generation. And you know what? This is exactly the question a soon-to-be-published paper by scientist from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center and the Laval University is dealing with.

Twin power vs. heterogenity

As Bouchard, Tchernof and Tremblay rightly point out, "human heterogeneity in the response to the much described “obesogenic environment” created by affluent societies represents a critical aspect of the obesity epidemic" (Bouchard. 2013) And while this is certainly right it is, from a scientist's perspective, a huge problem. After all, we want to study the influence of a given parameter in isolation.

Twin studies can provide us with pairs of subjects where these inter-individual differences are minimized and while the focus of previous observational studies has been on the hitherto more or less fruitless and above all practically 100% irrelevant (what does it help you to know that you are "at risk" of getting obese) identification of genotype-overfeeding interaction, Bouchard et al. are
"[...]taking advantage of the extensive panel of pre-overfeeding traits to investigate the most parsimonious predictors of the gains in body mass, FM, FFM, and total body energy (BE), with a particular focus on the partitioning of the energy gains between adipose and lean tissues." (Bouchard. 2013)
The goal is to identify biomarkers of body composition changes in response to chronic overfeeding may allow us to develop new hypotheses about the endogenous (genetic) and environmental causes of human heterogeneity in the response to chronic overfeeding.
Figure 1: Factors that predispose to weight & fat gain on a caloric surplus (adapted from Bouchard. 2013)

In a previously published paper, the researchers have already reported that their subjects, 24 young lean men (12 pairs of identical twins) exhibited individual differences in body weight and composition gains in response to a standardized 353 MJ (84 000 kcal) overfeeding protocol over 100 days
"The mean (+SD) gains in fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were 5.4+1.9 kg and 2.7+1.5 kg for a total body energy (BE) gain of 221+75 MJ representing 63% of the energy surplus consumed." (Buchard. 2013)
In this follow up publication, Buchard et al. were now taking a closer look at the most important baseline correlates of these overfeeding-induced changes with the aim of identifying biomarkers of the response.
"From 16 to 8% body fat" a cross-fitesque training-style may be right for those with high baseline fitness (learn more).
"The subjects were studied eight at a time (four pairs of twins) over a period of 18 months. Subjects were housed in a closed section of a dormitory on the campus of Laval University 24-hour supervision.

Each subject stayed in the unit for 120 days, which included a 14-day baseline observation period, a 3-day pre-overfeeding testing period, a 100-day experimental overfeeding treatment, and a 3-day post-overfeeding testing period." (Buchard. 2013)
Unfortunately, the subjects daily energy expenditure was highly limited, as they were "kept sedentary" except for a supervised 30min walk, over the whole study period, in the course of which their body weight was measured daily, while their body density was assessed on three occasions from a series of underwater weighing tests.

An "intermittent overfeed" protocol

The actual overfeeding protocol comprised a 6-day binge with 1,000 extra kcal per day that was followed by a backlash to the calculated maintenance level on day 7. Thus, subjects overfed during 84 of the 100 day experimental phase.
  • the total excess energy intake was 84 000 kcal
  • the macronutrient ratio as 15/35/50% for protein, fat and carbs
With the latter certainly not being representative of your diet (at least I would hope so), this is sign #2 (remember: the first part was the non-existent physical activity) that we are dealing with a study targeting the average American and not the extra-ordinary SuppVersity reader and Super Human Radio listener who are spread all across the globe.

Suggested Read: "If You Go 'High Carb', You Better Go Really High! Seven Meals/Day, More than 800g of Carbs, Less Than 50g of Fat & 1000kcal Over Maintenance and Still 'Lean Gains'!" A previous study would suggests: The major downside to the diet the twins were following was the low protein and not the high carbohydrate intake, of which I am sure some of you are now freakin' out in the usual, "But Gary told us that carbs make you fat"-mania
So, while it is obvious that a study on the same subjects, but with different macronutrient ratios (like a lower vs. higher carb intake) and/or an additional exercise component would have told us more about how you can channel your gains into the right direction, I would say that there is more than enough evidence of the superiority of
  • a higher protein intake (30g+ of a high EAA protein source w/ every full meal, 15-20g of protein with snacks),
  • the usefulness of a sane carbohydrate intake (low GL instead of low carb),
  • the avoidance of a skewed n6-PUFA to other dietary fat intake, and 
  • an intense, but not overexerting workout routine with a focus on heavy compound lifts, a minimal amount of HIIT and the occasional very low intensity (walking on a treadmill steady state cardio)
when you are about to go on a lean bulk (you overall energy surplus should not exceed 15% in the beginning; and you should go higher only, if this does not bring about any changes).

Now, talking about the study would be pointless, if the only thing to take away from the experiment were recommendations based on papers that were discussed in previous blogposts, right? So what are the new insights this study brings to the table, then?
  • Total, not relative, increases in calorie intakes matter: First of all, it is kind of surprising that the changes in body composition did not depend on the pre-overfeeding levels of body weight, FM, BE, and daily caloric intake. In other words, for these lean healthy men, the changes the scientists observed were almost fully determined by the absolute increase in energy consumption - irrespective of how lean they were and even more surprisingly irrespective of whether those 1,000kcal extra were a surplus of 30% or 40% of their baseline energy intakes.
  • Muscle has a "repartitioning effect": Contrary to the fat mass, which did not correlate with changes in any of the measured parameters, the scientists observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between the amount of muscle, the subjects were carrying on their frames and the changes in the lean-to-fat mass ratio (r=-0.41; p=0.05) - this means: the more muscle the guys had to begin with the more muscle and less fat they were gaining in response to the 1,000 extra kcal they were consuming.
  • RMR and food induced thermic effects don't influence the total gains, but... While neither the resting metabolic rate, nor the thermic effect of food influenced the changes in body weight, FM, FFM, or BE, the thermic effects in the 4h after a meal had a significant and highly beneficial effect on the ratio of muscle to fat, the subjects gained (clear-cut evidence in favor of a high(er) protein diet yielding better results).
  • Learn about the fallacies of the training in the "fat burning" zone and why burning fat for fuel does not equate fat loss (read more)
    The respiratory quotient (RQ) did not matter: As a SuppVersity reader you know that the influence of the ratio of carbohydrates to fats, described by the RQ (with an RQ = 1 telling you that someone burns exclusively glucose) on your efforts to cut body fat, is totally overblown. The finding that
    "[t]here was no correlation between RQ during the RMR measurement and at various time points of the TEM test with the overfeeding-induced gains in body weight, FM, FFM, or BE." (Bouchard. 2013)
    is perfect evidence that this is also, or I guess I'd better say, "even more so" the case when you are bulking.
  • Fitness is a negative predictor of fat gains: In view of the fact that a high VO2max correlates with higher mitochondrial capacities (and often higher muscle mass) it is not surprising that "VO2max per kilogram of body weight was negatively correlated with the gains in body weight,
    FM, and BE, with coefficients ranging from -0.41 to -0.49, all p<0.05" (Bouchard. 2013); and that the overfeeding-induced increases in fat mass relate to those in lean mass were negatively related to baseline VO2max per kilogram of body weight and the maximum O2pulse (r=-0.43; p<0.05)
  • A high(er) count of type I fiber count protects against fat gains: In line with the previously mentioned negative correlation between fitness (endurance type) and fat gains, there was a strong trend for the proportion of type I fibers in the vastus lateralis muscle to correlate negatively with (r = -0.40) with fat gains. Accordingly, the oxidative potential of the skeletal muscle, the scientists quantified by assessing the maximal activity of OGDH (Alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase is an enzyme that's involved in the oxidative process by which the citric acid cycle converts fats to energy) in a muscle homogenate, was negatively correlated with the gains in FM, as well as in the FM–to-FFM ratio. According to Bouchard, et al. these correlations ranged from -0.42 to -0.48 (p<0.05).
  • Fiber composition of bodybuilders, recreational lifters, endurance rowers and sedentary control; determined via myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform content of the triceps brachii muscle (data adapted from Jurimäe. 1997; figure originally published as part of the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle)
    A high glycolytic muscle activity predisposes to fat gains: While being a good "fat oxidizer", i.e. someone who is not necessarily oxidizing more fat than glucose, but has the ability to burn fat effectively (high type 1 fiber count, high OGHD activity, see bullet point above) is a plus, the opposite effects were observed in those twins who had a high(er) ratio of PFK to OGDH muscle enzyme activities, which indicates that their muscles have a high glycolytic relative to oxidative potential. Remember: While people with many exclusively fast-twitch type IIb fibers, would fall into this category, bodybuilders don't - they do in fact have an abundance of metabolically flexible type IIx and type I muscle fibers (see figure on the right)
  • Thyroid hormones don't matter that much: While they can make all the difference when you are cutting, the basline TSH levels and the subjects response to a TRH challenge (this is test to evaluate, whether the pituitary response to the hormone that will trigger TSH release is normal) did not influence total weight gain, body fat or fat free mass gains. It should be said, though that all subjects were euthyroid and obviously not overtraining (learn why this matters)... well, there is one thing that did show a correlation though: Although it's not quite clear what the implications are, the early 30-45min TSH response during the TRH challenge was correlated positively with the fat mass to fat free mass gains. In other words, the more pronounced the spike in TSH, the more likely you'll gain fat, not muscle. Without seeing the corresponding thyroid response this could yet mean either that the thyroid is sluggish to react, so that the negative feedback takes longer to occur, or that the opposite is the case and a HPTA that produces larger spikes in thyroid metabolism is to blame for the increased propensity for fat gain.
  • Plasma glucose and insulin don't matter: We are approaching the end of the list and I have to admit that this is one of the things that kind of surprised me. In the end, the non-significant influence of both basal, as well as glucose stimulated increases in blood glucose and insulin levels had no effect on the overfeeding-induced changes in body weight, fat mass and fat free mass does confirm that "the fattening hormone" and the purported reason "why we are fat" is not an issue for those of us who are lean and healthy and whose body easily manages his glucose levels just the way it is supposed to be.
  • The restless ones don't get muscular: The fact that high baseline norepinephrine levels showing a significant negative association (r = -0.41) with increases in fat-free mass should remind you of something I want to scream at 50% of the people emailing me questions like "What happens if I eat another gram of carbs extra?" I can tell you if you are stressing out about these 100% irrelevant details all the time this and the corresponding constant psychological stress is going to do more harm to your progress than eating 200g of carbs extra, folks... but I guess those of you for whom this is an important message will continue to ignore this. So keep freaking out that you missed your macros by a blueberry, today - obviously you must be enjoying it more than the beautiful things in life.
  • Leptin and the rest of the hormonal pack: With a positive associated with the changes in body weight and fat mass gains the "fat hormone" (actually it's an adipokine, but since a "hormone" is a signaling molecule produced by an organ and the adipose tissue is imho an organ, it would be valid to call it a hormone), leptin, appears to be a fattening. On the other hand, higher baseline leptin levels are usually the result of higher baseline body fat mass and since fat begets fat, the latter is probably the common determinant. Leptins "good" cousin adiponectin, but also ghrelin and even IGF and hGH were totally void of pro- or anti-obesogenic effects.
Now that you are in the know about how where you are starting from, i.e. how fat you are, how fit you are, how muscular you are, what you muscle structure looks like, etc. a question arises and this question is...
Suggested read: "Building LEAN Muscle Starts With Losing UNHEALTHY Fat" and what you'll have to do first will depend on where are you on the fat/muscle mass (FFMI = weight/height[in m]² from ) continuum from "ripped bodybuilder" to "sumo wrestler" (learn more)
What are the implications: Well, I guess some of you may have expected the usual "eat this", and the notorious "don't eat that", when you read the title of today's SuppVersity article and... be honest (!) - I have already answered this question and told you that a 1,000kcal surplus would be too much for 99% of you to start out with.

When it comes to filter out a conclusion from the parameters the scientists evaluated, however, I still owe you a comprehensive bottom line  And if you wanted me to formulate it as short and concise as possible it's: Get healthy, fit and lean first, bulk 2nd. Your results will depend on it.

    Fishing for Better Wheys to Improve Your Physique and Overall Health? 6g/d Cod Protein Could Help You Cut Body Fat & Build Muscle Without Having to Change Your Diet

    Image 1: This can of tuna (140g) would contains exactly 7 servings of muscle building fat burning fish protein... well, sort of. At least it contains as much protein as the subjects in the Vikøren study consumed in the form of capped cod protein isolate in the 2nd half, the "high-dose" phase of the 8-week intervention (Vikøren. 2012)
    Protein days at the SuppVersity! Well, sort of... after yesterday's news on the pro-insulinogenic effects of whey protein and its not so significant negative impacts on your body composition in the absence of profoundly increased energy consumption (i.e. whey, ah... I mean "way" beyond the ~20% max. increase I suggest for a clean bulk). We will take a look at another, hitherto largely overlooked protein source: Fish! Yeah, I know, you all eat your serving of fish once or twice a week - fatty fish to be precise to derive the alleged health benefits of the latter, but did you ever remotely consider supplementing with fish protein? As a regular you may in fact have done that after reading about the superiority of cod over casein and pea as far as muscle repair are concerned, here at the SuppVersity, and if you have not the data from a recently published study from the Institute of Medicine and the Department of Heart Disease at the University of Bergen in Norway (Vikøren. 2012) could not just be an incentive for you to do so, it could in fact promote the production of fish protein isolates, which has not really kicked off before the 2011 when a Peruvian company hit the market with fat-free, membrane-refined fish protein and fish peptide products at prices of $5/kg and thus at least 38% cheaper than whey or egg protein isolates (Daniells. 2011).

    Fish protein supplementation: A little goes a long way

    What is so particularly stunning about the data from the 8-week double-blinded cod protein supplementation trial Linn A. Vikøren and her colleagues conducted were not so much the results,
    • a decrease in postprandial blood glucose AUC,
    • more pronounced, yet less sustained insulin responses (sign of increases insulin sensitivity),
    • a decrease in C-reactive peptide (CRP) levels, and
    • reduced LDL cholesterol, as well as
    • increases in lean muscle mass, and
    • decreases in fat mass,
    but rather the amount of supplemental fish protein which elicited those changes: 3g/day for the first 4 weeks and 6g/day for the last 4 weeks - not much, if you relate that to the average protein intake (70-90g) of the overweight, yet healthy middle-aged study participants, right?

    The whole is mostly way more than just the sum of its parts

    If we go simply by the protein content that previous studies, such as , even the large dose, i.e. the 6g of cod protein isolate per day, the subjects received in the 2nd month of the intervention period, equals no more than
    *Please keep in mind that Pilon et al. observed differences with respect to the physiological effects of fish proteins from different sources. In their rodent study, only salmon, yet not bonito, herring or mackerel protein had ameliorative effects on body weight and visceral body fat gain in rodents on a high-fat diet (Pilon. 2011)
    • 20g of tuna
    • 21g anchovies
    • 22g salmon or halibut
    • 23g snapper or tilapia
    Now, feeding them fish, was however not a viable option. After all, it is pretty easy to distinguish a can of tuna such as the one in image 1 from a similar can with chicken, let alone "fillers and sweeteners", the sole ingredients of the placebo tablets. So in as much as you may decry the use of supplemental, instead of real fish protein, it is hardly debatable that the use of 500mg fish protein (cod) caps was necessary to effectively double-blind the study.
    Figure 1: Comparison of amino acid concentration  (g/kg) of fish and whey protein (data for fish and whey from Vikøren. 2012 and Engelen. 2012, respectively)
    If we take a look at the actual amino acid content (which is yet, as you should know, only one of the potential reasons we would see differences to other protein sources), it is evident that cod has a similarly high essential amino acids content as whey, but contains significantly less proline, much more arginine, glutamine and taurine.
    Reminder: Just in case you have forgotten about the SuppVersity news from Friday, May 4th, 2012, I suggest you briefly go back and read up on how "Cod Protein Promotes Muscle Repair After Injury More than Casein or Peanut Protein"

    What is it about fish protein that makes it so potent - arginine, taurine, or synergistic effects?

    As a regular, here at the SuppVersity, you will also know that there exists a fairly decent amount of research on potential and scientifically established health effects of arginine and taurine. Whether those two individual amino acids or rather synergistic effects due to the specific protein / peptide structure of cod proteins are able to explain any of the observed health benefits (see bullet points 1-4) or the changes in body composition (see bullet points 5-6 and figure 2, below) remains yet to be elucidated.
    Figure 2: Macronutrient composition of the diets at baseline, after 4 weeks and 8 weeks and changes in body composition compared to baseline (Vikøre. 2012)
    Whatever the exact reasons may be, the -1.6% drop in body fat percentage (this is different from body fat mass!) is certainly astonishing given the fact that it occurred in the absence of significant changes in either the macronutrient composition or total energy content of the subjects' diets.

    So what? Are fish protein isolates, the better whey?

    Now without knowing the exact physiological mechanism behind the the observed effects on glucose and lipid metabolism and body composition of the 16 male and 19 female study participants, which could, as Vikoren et al. rightly point be a result of either the
    • specific amino acid profile,
    • the presence or formation of specific peptides (protein bonds), or 
    • as of yet unknown bioactive components of fish/cod protein,
    it would certainly be premature for most of you to make a switch from whey to cod, before scientific data from human trials confirms not just the efficacy, but also the supremacy of high(er) dose cod supplements over whey and other dairy proteins as the go-to muscle builders for physical culturists.

    In view of the results of previous studies by by Zhang etl al. (1993), Shukla et al. (2006), and specifically van Post-Skagagard et al. (2006) on the health effects of supplemental cod protein, it may yet be prudent to make another switch in your dietary / supplement regimen, namely one from fish oils to whole fish, which has already been shown to produce superior weight-loss and health effects than supplemental fish oil (e.g. Gunnarsdotti. 2008) - results of which we know by know that they well be mediated by the synergistic effects of oil and protein from whole fish.

    References
    1. Daniells S. Low-cost, fat-free fish protein facility gets go ahead. Nutraingredients-usa.com. May, 27 2011. < http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Industry/Low-cost-fat-free-fish-protein-facility-gets-go-ahead >
    2. Engelen MP, Rutten EP, De Castro CL, Wouters EF, Schols AM, Deutz NE. Casein protein results in higher prandial and exercise induced whole body protein anabolism than whey protein in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Metabolism. 2012 Apr 16.  
    3. Gunnarsdottir I, Tomasson H, Kiely M, Martinéz JA, Bandarra NM, Morais MG, Thorsdottir I. Inclusion of fish or fish oil in weight-loss diets for young adults: effects on blood lipids. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Jul;32(7):1105-12. Epub 2008 May 20.
    4. Lavigne C, Tremblay F, Asselin G, Jacques H, Marette A. Prevention of skeletal muscle insulin resistance by dietary cod protein in high fat-fed rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Jul;281(1):E62-71.
    5. Pilon G, Ruzzin J, Rioux LE, Lavigne C, White PJ, Frøyland L, Jacques H, Bryl P, Beaulieu L, Marette A. Differential effects of various fish proteins in altering body weight, adiposity, inflammatory status, and insulin sensitivity in high-fat-fed rats. Metabolism. 2011 Aug;60(8):1122-30.
    6. von Post-Skagegård M, Vessby B, Karlström B. Glucose and insulin responses in healthy women after intake of composite meals containing cod-, milk-, and soy protein. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Aug;60(8):949-54.
    7. Shukla A, Bettzieche A, Hirche F, Brandsch C, Stangl GI, Eder K. Dietary fish  protein alters blood lipid concentrations and hepatic genes involved in cholesterol homeostasis in the rat model. Br J Nutr. 2006 Oct;96(4):674-82.
    8. Vikøren LA, Nygård OK, Lied E, Rostrup E, Gudbrandsen OA. A randomised study on the effects of fish protein supplement on glucose tolerance, lipids and body composition in overweight adults. Br J Nutr. 2012 May 31:1-10.

    Liposuction Shifts Fat from Subcutaneous to Visceral Fat Depots and Reduces Energy Expenditure by 5%!

    Image 1: Without exercise and a healthy diet your fight against body fat is as desperate as Heracles fight against the Hydra without the help of his nephew Iolaus.
    After yesterday's blogpost on the Biggest Losers, who - upon closer scrutiny - were not so bad of, as many people in the health and fitness community would have it, we will take a look at a more convenient and (accordingly *sigh*) increasingly popular way to get rid of the nasty lovehandles: Liposuction, or the costly reduction of subcutaneous body fat with a hopefully 100% sterile vacuum cleaner ;-) Aside from the risks that are directly related to the operation, a group of Brazilian researchers right from the mecca of plastic surgery, Sao Paulo, has just published a paper (2 days ago, to be precise) on another, hitherto totally overlooked side effect that arose subsequent to a small-volume tumescent abdominal liposuction (1240.3ml) in the sedentary half of 36 physically inactive (i.e. not engaged in any form of regular physical activity program for at least 6 months), yet non obese women (20 –35yr) who participated in the study (Benatti. 2012)

    Remove it here, regrow it there. Body fat resembles the Hydra from Greek mythology

    In order to control the outcome of the operation itself and its long(er) term consequences in the presence or absence of a physical exercise program that was conducted for four months starting 2 months after the OP (this yields a total duration of 6 months for the whole study), the Fabiana Benatti and her colleagues assessed the total body fat and fat-free mass of the participants via hydrostatic weighing and used computer tomographs to determine the size of the individual fat depots.
    Figure 1: Changes in body composition relative to baseline (data calculated based on Benatti. 2012)
    As you can see in figure 1 the comparatively reasonable exercise program the subjects in the training group (TR) performed three times per week during the last four months of the follow-up period and which consisted of a...
    • 5-min warm-up followed by 
    • strength exercises: 8 exercises for the major muscle groups, 3 sets of 12 reps, and
    • aerobic exercise on the treadmill: 30-40min at 75% of the VO2max
    led to further reductions in subcutaneous fat mass. From a non-aesthetical perspective, it is yet more important that the three weekly exercise sessions prevented the vicious repartitioning effect from the subcutaneous to the visceral body stores, the cosmetic surgery had on the adipose tissue of the the women in the sedentary group (NT) in the course of the 4 months after their surgery.

    Could it be that taking the easier way out is always a bad idea?

    Image 2: Does look nasty, is not without risk and not effective in the long run - liposuction.
    These results are interesting, because they do confirm the long-touted notion that plastic surgery would be pretty useless, if it is not combined with an adequate exercise and nutrition program. Moreover, the novel finding that the compensatory effects, i.e. the regrowth of body fat, does not take place in the subcutaneous fat depots, but in the vicinity of the organs, i.e. in the dreaded visceral adipose tissue stores, sheds an even more unfavorable light on a convenient, yet expensive, ineffective and - as this study shows - profoundly unhealthy attempt to "looking good naked".

    The further reduction in subcutaneous fat and the absence of this highly unfavorable "repartitioning effect", on the other hand, speak to the effectiveness of a combined strength and endurance training program for female and, as we know from countless of other studies, also male weight loss - and that in the absence overtly restrictive eating.

    Clear results with surprising effects on CVD risk and  energy expenditure

    Still, there are a few downsides and shortcomings to this study that should not be overlooked. Firstly, the scientists did not evaluate the body fat distribution in the upper body, specifically the breasts. Whether there may have been a repartitioning effect from the abdominal to the upper body (e.g. breast, back and arms) subcutaneous fat depots, thusly remains to be elucidated. Moreover the increase in total LDL count, the scientists observed in the non-training group was not accompanied by increases in ApoB levels, which are considered as a relatively reliable marker for the number of the allegedly artery-clogging small LDL particles. Whether the women in the study are thusly actually facing an increased risk for cardiovascular disease or simply carry ~10% more visceral body fat around is about as questionable as the underlying cause of the reduction in energy expenditure that went hand in hand with the loss of ~1kg of subcutaneous body fat in the absence of a reduced caloric intake.
    Figure 2: Significant (non-training, p = 0.01) and non-significant (training, p = 0.82) changes in doubly labeled water measured energy expenditure 6 months after liposuction (data adapted from Benatti. 2012)
    In the end, the data in figure  2 relates directly to what we have seen in yesterday's analysis of the metabolic effects of a -60% reduction in body fat (cf. "Metabolic Consequences of Extreme Weight Loss"). If we assume that the 7-day food diaries provide an accurate estimate of the energy intake (if anything those logs usually underestimate / the participants underreport energy intake) and rely on the exactness of the relatively reliable doubly labeled water method you already know from yesterday's Biggest Loser study, the ~100kcal reduction in energy expenditure in the study at hand cannot be induced by restrictive eating (and in the non-training group obviously not by excessive exercise ;-), so that the Brazilian scientists conclude that...
    our data suggest that the fat loss per se plays a role in decreased energy expenditure because no changes in food intake, lean mass, or leptin levels were observed.
    And call for "[a]dditional studies" to "comprehensively explore the underlying mechanisms of the liposuction-induced decrease in energy expenditure". In view of the fact that these results could be of fundamental importance not only for the lazy plastic surgery patient, but also for the hard-training physical culturist who strives to push his / her body fat levels lower and lower, you can be certain that the SuppVersity is the place, where you are going to read about the results of future investigations into the underlying mechanisms first!

    More Than Protein Anabolic: Post-Workout Protein Supplementation Up-Regulates Muscle Glycogen (Re-)Synthesis, As Well.

    As an avid reader of the SuppVersity, you already knew that post-workout protein supplementation increases protein synthesis via mTOR-signaling and increased AKT-phosphorylation. A study (Hara. 2011) published in the scientific journal Metabolism, only one week ago, has now established that the addition of protein to a post workout carbohydrate supplement led to significant increases in the rate of muscle glycogen re-synthesis, as well.
    Figure 1: Influence of added protein (C+P, whey isolate) over carbohydrate only (CHO) supplementation on muscle glycogen 90 minutes after exhausting exercise (data adapted from Hara. 2011)
    After a 3-hour swimming test, which was intended to completely deplete the rats muscle glycogen stores, the researchers fed their rats "either 0.9 g carbohydrate per kilogram body mass for the CHO group or 0.9 g carbohydrate + 0.3 g protein per kilogram body mass for the C+P groups". Just to set this into perspective, this would translate into a meager 12g carbohydrates + 4g protein for a 80kg human being! Yet, despite the comparably insignificant amount of protein, muscle biopsies from the red and white quadriceps immediately, 30 minutes, or 90 minutes postexercise revealed that
    Glycogen concentration of the C+P group was greater than that of the CHO group at 90 minutes postexercise in both red (C+P, 28.3 ± 2.6 µmol/g vs CHO, 22.4 ± 2.0 µmol/g; P < .05) and white (C+P, 24.9 ± 2.4 µmol/g vs CHO, 17.64 ± 1.5 µmol/g; P < .01) quadriceps. Protein kinase B phosphorylation was greater in the C+P-30 group (the number following treatment group abbreviation refers to time [in minutes] of euthanasia following exercise) than the sedentary control and exercised control groups in red quadriceps at 30 minutes and in white quadriceps at 90 minutes postexercise. This difference was not observed in the CHO group.
    With protein kinase B being responsible among other things for the GLUT4 induced uptake of glucose into the muscle cell, the addition of relatively small amounts of protein to your post-workout shake may have a direct "nutrient partitioning" effect, i.e. it will shuttle glucose into muscle not fat (or liver). Furthermore, it will shorten regeneration times, because other than in "glucose-only" animals, the quadriceps muscles of the C+P group were - at least partly - "refueled" 90 minutes after the exercise-bout.

    Taken together these results underline the importance of post-workout protein supplementation, for which - you probably already guessed that - the study used a high quality whey protein isolate. Add to that the beneficial effects of protein supplementation on mTOR and muscle protein (re-)synthesis, you already read (SuppVersity) and heard (BodyRX show) about and you will understand why a quality whey protein should be the staple in the supplement regimen of anybody who wants to add a few pounds of solid muscle to his frame.

    Arginine a BAT Building WAT Killer & Repartitioning Agent? Plus: The Arginine Enriched Biscuits Diet ;-)

    Whenever the word "vascularity" appears on one of the boards, this image pops up. Now we know that arginine alone won't make your veins pop, but could it be that we have hitherto overlooked that it could help you meet another more important criteria to look like that - namely to drop body fat?
    In a 2012 paper Mohammad Alizadeh and his colleagues published a paper in the Annals of Nutrition & Metbabolism. The paper deals with the effects of the addition of 5g/day l-arginine to hypocaloric diets in a group of 84 premenopausal women, where the supplement regimen led to significantly greater reductions in visceral obesity (8cm vs. just 4cm reduction in waist circumference within 6 weeks; cf. Alizadeh. 2012). I filed the paper in my "candidates" folder and forgot about it - simply too much interesting news to cover everything.

    Now, almost a year later, Lucilla D. Monti et al. have published yet another paper on l-arginine in the latest issue of the scientific journal Metabolism (Monti. 2013). "A pilot study in healthy subjects and a cross-over study in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and metabolic syndrome" as the title tells us and reason enough for me to take another look at an amino acid that has gotten sort of a bad rep as a supplemental non-starter, because the marketing machinery of the bodybuilding supplement producer has been pimping it as an "nitric oxide (NO) booster" (which is similar to saying that bricks were 'house builders' by the way).

    Arginine cookies the saviors of the human race!?

    Just so there is no misunderstanding here, while arginine may be more useful as a weight loss tool (esp. for the insulin resistant), it is neither an NO booster, nor a fat burner in the sense that it would "actively" do anything to elicit the named effects. The additional 4cm the arginine stripped off the waists of the initially mentioned ~28-44year-old women, for example, occurred in the context of a diet containing 500kcal less than the baseline diet (that's about -20% and the average subject ended up eating ~2000kcal/day).

    Figure 1: As this illustration goes to show you, nitric oxide (NO) play and important role in the activation of PPAR-alpha and will thus determine (among other factors) if your immature fat cells become ugly passive and potentially health threatening stores or metabolically active brown adipose tissue (based on Wu. 2012).
    Nevertheless, it is unquestionably interesting that Zhenlong Wu et al. remark in one of the more recent reviews on the fat loss effects of l-arginine that the inconspicuous nitric oxide precursor has the hardly known ability to
    "increases mammalian BAT growth and development via mechanisms involving gene expression, nitric oxide signaling, and protein synthesis [, so that t]his enhances the oxidation of energy substrates and, thus, reduces white fat accretion in the body." (Wu. 2012)
    Usually I would discard these effects as "most likely irrelevant for virtually BAT free mammals" like humans (even those among us with a "high" amount of brown adipose tissue have way less of it than the average "mammal" does; this is particularly true if you compare us to our small hairy mammalian brethren that are living in lab cages ;-).

    With the positive effects that have already been observed in past human studies and the "growth promoting effect" arginine is supposed to have on mammalian brown adipose tissue (cf. figure 1), the potential weight loss and ensuing health benefits of the "conditionally essential" (meaning you must consume it in significant amounts under certain circumstances, like bein very sick, burned, hurt, etc. though your body can theoretically produce it on its own) amino acid appear to be well-worth being mentioned in a SuppVersity article again (again, because I already mentioned these effects as an aside in Part II of the Amino Acids for Super Humans Series back in 2011.

    Back to the cookies then

    After this lengthy general introduction, let's now finally have a look at the Monti study (Monti. 2013). Now, despite the auspicious term "pilot study" in the title of the Italian researcher latest paper, the idea to add some l-arginine to cookies, biscuits and other stuff is actually not really new. In 2011, already, he same research group has published a paper on this concept with initial data on the acute response to the ingestion of arginine enriched biscuits (see previous SuppVersity post). So, the "pilot trial" is actually nothing but a slightly revamped version of the initial test in 7 healthy subjects, plus a 2-week extension in which the scientists probed the effects of the chronic ingestion of their biscuits on 15 obese subjects (8 men, 7 women, aged 62.5±3.5years; BMI ~30kg/m²; 36% body fat) with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and metabolic syndrome (MS).
    Figure 2: Weight loss, fat loss and insulin sensitivity (*I divided the actual values on the Matsuda index by 10 so that they would fit into the same graph), as well as glucose response during an OGGT (Monti. 2013)
    While the results of the former trial were very similar to those in the pilot of the pilot study (see previous SuppVersity post), the data in figure 1 goes to show you that the "long-term" (14-days, with a wash out period of another 14 days and a cross-over afterwards, so that every subject was tested both for the effects of the placebo and the acuve treatment), were promising and statistically significant, but far from representing a solution to the diabesity epidemic.

    During each of the two 14-day intervention periods, the obese volunteers had consumed identically packaged L-arginine-enriched biscuits containing 6.6g l-arginine, 21.9g carbohydrates (15g available
    carbohydrates and 6.9g resistant starch), 3.6g protein, 7.5g fat or an isoenergetic biscuit without the 6.6g of l-arginine as morning and afternoon snack . The additional 171kcal provided by the biscuits were included in the daily allowance of the subjects who followed a 55% carbohydrate, 25%–30% fat and 15%–20% protein diet that contained a total of 1,600kcal during the whole 6-week study period (the study used a randomized cross over design with a 2-week washout in-between).

    Let's get back to a more general perspective

    Not just because I'd hope that most of you don't have just as much weight to lose as the participants of the Monti study, but also in view of statements like "[a]nother added value of the biscuit is the low protein content (6.1% vs. 20%–50%)" (Monti. 2013) in the discussion of the paper, I don't want to go into more details on this particular study, but rather return to a more general analysis of the metabolic effects of l-arginine in these last paragraphs. I mean, it should be obvious that the important most important question here is: "Is there any metabolic benefit of arginine supplementation, or not?

    The results of the Monti study clearly show that there is (and that despite the fact that its authors' don't appear to have a grasp of the latest research results). Monti's paper does yet not describe the only experiment, the results of which would suggest that there is more to arginine than nitric oxide - or, if we go by the overview in figure 1, that there is more to nitric oxide than the pump.
    • In June 2012, researchers from the Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland, for example, published a paper in which they report that the provision of 9g/day of the nitric oxide precursor l-arginine for 3-months lead to statistically highly significant improvements in insulin sensitivity and a non-significant 1% reduction in body fat in the absence of any changes in dietary or activity patterns in patients with visceral obesity (BMI 39kg/m²). It did yet not, as the scientists had speculated reduce the expression of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), so that we have to assume that the beneficial effects on glucose management were not mediated by any hitherto largely ignored direct anti-inflammatory effects of the amino acid the Swiss chemist Ernst Schultze discovered in 1886 (Bogdanski. 2012). 
    • In the American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism Lucotti et al. reported in 2006 that the addition of l-arginine (8.3g/day) to a combined diet plus exercise program for 21 days had highly beneficial effects on the study outcome, promoted the loss in fat mass (3kg vs. 2kg) and waist circumference (10cm vs. 3cm; no typo!), helped preserve lean mass (0kg vs. 2kg muscle loss) and improved the mean daily glucose profiles and the amount of fructosamine, a glycated serum protein and marker of poor glucose control, in the blood (Lucotti. 2006). Moreover, the supplementaion protocol increased the nitric oxide production, the andioxidant capacity and the adiponectin levels and improved the adiponectin-to-leptin ratio of the 25 women and 8 men (all obese, BMI ~39kg/m²) who participated in the study. 
    • In addition, studies on rodents and pigs have conclusively shown that arginine supplementation can increase the use and decrease the storage of fatty acids in different dietary scenarios (Fu. 2005; Jobgen. 2009; Tan. 2011).
    One thing we should not forget, though is that there may in fact be something like an "arginine timing" effect, which could play a role in it's effect on body composition. In the scientific journal Amino Acids Smajilovic et al. report only recently that the l-arginine induced release of insulin is not mediated by a direct interaction of the alpha-amino acid with the amino acid receptors on the pancreas. Now, despite the fact that we do not know how, the mere fact that arginine will produce an immediate release of insulin tells us that it's use before / with a meal, would be more beneficial than during periods of fasting. This is particularly true for people who are either developing or at risk of developing insulin resistance and type II diabetes. After all, the decline in the early insulin response to the meal has been implicated as one of the first and most important steps in the etiology of type II diabetes (Pratley. 2001; Del Prato. 2002).

    Is timing crucial and what about the arginine induced insulin release?

    Maybe it's even it's effect on the health of your intestines (read more about that) that helps weight loss, who knows?
    Unfortunately, few studies report whether the arginine was ingested before or with a meal. What we do know from the Monti study, however,  is that it's presence in the meal (which would be equal to the co-ingestion of supplemental l-arginine) tripled the amount of body fat the dieting subjects lost in the course of the two week intervention (2.02kg vs. 0.70kg). In conjunction with the previously mentioned ability to boos pancreatic insulin production, this observation would invalidate the still widely heralded assumption that a robust, appropriate early insulin response (critics would call it a "spike") would be something to be avoided at all costs - if it were, the l-arginine should have decreased the efficacy of the diet, right?

    What we should however keep in mind, though is that a robust initial insulin response will lead to a faster reduction of blood glucose in into the normal range. That it turn will (ideally) render the release of even more insulin obsolete so that the initial spike will actually allow you to avoid the far more detrimental chronically (or in a "healthy" individual "long-term") elevation of insulin and can thus have the bring about the exact opposite of what most people believe it will do: weight loss, or a reduction in weight gain!

    "So does it work and if so how? Can't be insulin, alone, can it?"

    It is nevertheless unlikely that the increased acute response of the pancreas is the only mechanism (I would bet probably not even the most important one) by which increases in the amount of arginine in the diet facilitate and as examples like the study by Bogdanski et al. (Bogdanski. 2012) even trigger weight loss (remember: the obese subjects in this study did not do anything but take 9g/day of supplemental l-arginine three times a day).

    Effects by which arginine could promote fat loss and body recompositioning: Stimulation of lypolysis (release fat from adipose tissue); activation of genes that are responsible for the oxidation of fatty acids; interaction with PGC-1 alpha and triggers mitochondrial biogenesis and the "browning" of fat; regulation of adipocyte-muscle crosstalk resulting in an energy repartitioning effect away from the adipose and towards the muscle tissue; activation of the AMPK pathway, resulting in improvements in both lipid and glucose metabolism.
    According to a review by Tan et al., both the additive (dieting + arginine = better fat loss), as well as the "stand alone" (simply adding arginine on top of whatever diet you are following) effects of the nitric oxide precursor could be brought about by a combination of various factors (Tan. 2012). We have already seen in figure one that the nitric oxide exerts direct agonistic effects on PPAR-alpha. We also know that other substances such as fish oil and TTA (see "TTA + Fish Oil - Fat Burning Super Fats?"), which are likewise PPAR-alpha agonists will also promote the oxidation of fatty acids (specifically in the liver). Now, if you add the list of metabolic benefits, the scientists from the Institute of Subtropical Agriculture at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Changsha and their colleagues from the Texas A&M University have compiled (see infobox on the right), you will have to concede that your pre-workout nitric oxide booster would - at least on paper - make a pretty decent "fat burner", if all these effects, most of which have been observed in either rodents or pigs could be replicated in human beings.

    Bottom line: For the metabolically deranged, the evidence is there. For followers of physical culture, on the other hand, there is as of yet no clear cut proof for the fat burning or repartitioning effects of l-arginine. Ah, and just in case you consider your little N=1 experiment with whatever pre-workout supplement evidence that it does not work - forget about that. With the minuscule amounts of l-arginine most of these products contain you can hardly make a difference when your basal diet does deliver tons of arginine, already (plus: you were probably taking it at the wrong time, namely on empty before a workout).

    So do I suggest you buy a 5kg pouch of bulk l-arginine and go through it within 2 weeks? No, certainly not. You better wait until more data becomes available. For now, it would suffice if you don't fall for the anti-hype that's at least in part instigated by the same supplement companies that have been pimping l-arginine a couple of years ago as the ueber-supplement and an absolute must have for any serious trainee. I mean if you had the choice between six pack abs lasting 24/7 and a pump, what would you pick? I thought so... therefore this new area of application, could turn out to be way more exciting than the never-established, but highly marketed NO-boosting effects of l-arginine.

      References:
      • Alizadeh M, Safaeiyan A, Ostadrahimi A, Estakhri R, Daneghian S, Ghaffari A, Gargari BP. Effect of L-arginine and selenium added to a hypocaloric diet enriched with legumes on cardiovascular disease risk factors in women with central obesity: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Nutr Metab. 2012;60(2):157-68.
      • Bogdanski P, Suliburska J, Grabanska K, Musialik K, Cieslewicz A, Skoluda A, Jablecka A. Effect of 3-month L-arginine supplementation on insulin resistance and tumor necrosis factor activity in patients with visceral obesity. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012 Jun;16(6):816-23.
      • Del Prato S, Marchetti P, Bonadonna RC. Phasic insulin release and metabolic regulation in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2002 Feb;51 Suppl 1:S109-16.
      • Fu WJ, Haynes TE, Kohli R, Hu J, Shi W, Spencer TE, Carroll RJ, Meininger CJ, Wu G. Dietary L-arginine supplementation reduces fat mass in Zucker diabetic fatty rats. J Nutr. 2005 Apr;135(4):714-21.
      • Jobgen W, Fu WJ, Gao H, Li P, Meininger CJ, Smith SB, Spencer TE, Wu G. High fat feeding and dietary L-arginine supplementation differentially regulate gene expression in rat white adipose tissue. Amino Acids. 2009 May;37(1):187-98.
      • Lucotti P, Setola E, Monti LD, Galluccio E, Costa S, Sandoli EP, Fermo I, Rabaiotti G, Gatti R, Piatti P. Beneficial effects of a long-term oral L-arginine treatment added to a hypocaloric diet and exercise training program in obese, insulin-resistant type 2 diabetic patients. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Nov;291(5):E906-12.
      • Monti LD, Casiraghi MC, Setola E, Galluccio E, Pagani MA, Quaglia L, Bosi E, Piatti P. l-Arginine enriched biscuits improve endothelial function and glucose metabolism: A pilot study in healthy subjects and a cross-over study in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and metabolic syndrome. Metabolism. 2013; 62:255–26.
      • Pratley RE, Weyer C. The role of impaired early insulin secretion in the pathogenesis of Type II diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 2001 Aug;44(8):929-45.
      • Tan B, Yin Y, Liu Z, Tang W, Xu H, Kong X, Li X, Yao K, Gu W, Smith SB, Wu G. Dietary L-arginine supplementation differentially regulates expression of lipid-metabolic genes in porcine adipose tissue and skeletal muscle. J Nutr Biochem. 2011 May;22(5):441-5.
      • Tan B, Li X, Yin Y, Wu Z, Liu C, Tekwe CD, Wu G. Regulatory roles for L-arginine in reducing white adipose tissue. Front Biosci. 2012 Jun 1;17:2237-46.