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.

High Energy Flux, A New Determinant of Successful Weight Loss? Eat More, Train More, Lose More? Increased Resting Metabolic Rate & Satiety, Decreased Hunger While Dieting!

Always hungry? Can't lose weight? "Train more and eat more" (not less!) could be the solution.

A recent thesis from Rebecca Foright, highlights that a high energy flux state characterized by high daily energy expenditure (resulting from increased physical activity) with matching high energy intake (high calorie throughput) may attenuate the weight loss-induced energy gap by reducing hunger and ameliorate the otherwise diet-related reduction in resting metabolic rate.

Foright recruited recruited eleven obese study participants from the Colorado State University community and surrounding areas to test her "exercise more, eat more, lose more (easily)" hypothesis.

The enrollment criteria included: BMI between 30-43 kg/m², age 18-55 years, weight stable over the prior 12 months, desire to lose weight, and ability to exercise as assessed by electrocardiogram (ECG), resting blood pressure and a normal incremental exercise test to exhaustion with simultaneous ECG. Exclusionary criteria included: pregnancy or breastfeeding, smoking, use of medication known to affect appetite or metabolism (including but not limited to antidepressants and statins), or prior surgery for weight loss. In short, most of the participants were what we today call "healthy obese."
"The approach used in this study was a within-subjects cross-over experimental design to test the effect of high and low flux states following weight loss on resting metabolic rate and perceptions of hunger and satiety."

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The study protocol was divided into four distinct phases: (1) baseline testing phase prior to weight loss; (2) weight loss phase induced by a hypocaloric diet over the course of several months; (3) weight maintenance phase in which subjects were maintained at the reduced weight for 3 weeks; and (4) experimental phase in which measures were obtained of subjects’ resting metabolic rates, fasting and post-prandial perceived hunger and satiety, fasting and post-prandial circulating glucose, insulin, and PYY concentrations, and ad libitum food intake on the 5th day following low flux and high flux phase conditions, respectively, completed in random order with a three-day washout period in between (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Experimental Timeline | #Order of Low Flux and High Flux were randomly assigned (Foright. 2014).

During the low flux condition subjects remained sedentary for four consecutive days. All food was provided so that energy intakes were adjusted to maintain energy balance.

• resting metabolic rate (RMR) measurements on day 1-4 of the low flux phase
• caloric intake was adjusted according to RMR everyday
• subjects were fed standardized meals with a macro composition of 50/35/15 (carbohydrate/fat/protein) and an energy intake that was 1.3x the RMR
• subjects had to refrain from physical activity (>3,000 steps per day)
• at the end of day 5 the subjects completed a hunger/satiety questionnaire used to assess general feelings of hunger/satiety over the prior four days of the low flux condition

During the high flux condition subjects exercised on four consecutive days (approximately 500 net exercise kcal expenditure at 60% V02 max) and were fed additional food necessary to maintain energy balance.

• resting metabolic rate (RMR) measurements on day 1-4 of the low flux phase
• caloric intake was adjusted according to RMR everyday
• subjects were fed standardized meals with a macro composition of 50/35/15 (carbohydrate/fat/protein) and an energy intake that was 1.7x the RMR
• subjects were given pedometers and had to achieve at least 7,500 steps per day
• subjects exercised at 60% of their VO2max to burn 500kcal
• at the end of day 5 the subjects completed a hunger/satiety questionnaire used to assess general feelings of hunger/satiety over the prior four days of the low flux condition

Overall, a testing week consisted of two baseline days and 5 high/low energy flux days. In that, three identical experimental days were used to examine possible differences in perceptions of hunger and satiety, blood glucose, insulin, and PYY in response to breakfast preload, and ad libitum intake from a meal buffet.

Note: The caloric deficit that was designed to produce a 7% weight loss over the course of the 12-16 week long weight loss phase was identical in the undulating high and low energy flux phases of the study. The results are thus not a consequence of the increase in energy intake during the high flux phase (in fact the opposite was the case in some subjects, anway). The extra calories were after all burned again during the four exercise days.

"Now what is particularly interesting about the study is that the researchers did not content themselves with measuring the acute effects of high vs. low energy fluxes. They also investigated what happened after the 12-16 week weight loss phase.

To minimize the acute effects attributable to the dynamic phase of weight loss on metabolic rate and on hunger and circulating appetitive hormone concentrations, subjects were maintained at the seven percent lower body weight for a three-week period prior to the start of the low and high flux conditions. During these three weeks subjects reported to the KANC every three days to monitor weight and minimize weight fluctuations. Subjects were instructed to consume a slightly increased kcalorie intake compared to the weight loss phase to maintain weight" (Foright. 2014).

Put simply, the scientists wanted to know, whether the effects of high vs. low energy flux dieting would influence a dieters ability to lose weight and maintain the newly achieved weight.

Figure 2: Weight loss and energy flux where exactly as the scientists had planned (Foright. 2014)

As you can see, the average weight loss was almost identical to the targeted 7% (de facto "only" 6.9%). Similarly,

[...a]s designed, the energy intake for high flux (x±SD: 3,191±587 kcal/d) was significantly greater (p < 0.001) than for low flux (x±SD: 2,449±406 kcal/d) (Figure 2, right). In accord with the study design, there was no difference in macronutrient composition between the two conditions (data not shown)" (Foright. 2014).

Now all that would be pointless if both groups lost weight similarly effortlessly. In reality, though, On the subjects were significantly more hungry and felt less satiated at the end of each of the days during low flux.

Figure 3: As you see, the mean difference was already huge. It was more than huge in in
the subject who saw the greatest benefit (Foright. 2014).

On the other hand, they were significantly more full at the end of each of the days during high flux (p=0.015). There was a strong trend for the subjects to exhibit greater hunger throughout the day during low compared to high flux (p=0.09).

RMR increases sign. in trained but not untrained subjects in a high energy flux state - no training, no difference between the two groups - the energy balance was identical in both conditions (Bullough. 1995)

No, this is not an outlier study: In 1995 Bullough et al. were already able to show that the resting metabolic rate on diet + exercise regimen that established an identical energy balance was greater in trained than in untrained subjects only when trained subjects were in HF. As Bullough et al. point out "[t]hese data indicate that RMR is influenced by exercise, energy intake, and their interaction and suggest that higher RMR in trained vs untrained individuals results from acute effects of HF rather than from a chronic adaptation to exercise training." (Bullough. 1995) Bell et al. on the other hand found that "[m]aintenance of high energy flux via regular exercise may be an effective strategy for maintaining energy expenditure and preventing age-associated obesity" (Bell. 2013).

And Goran et al. (1994) found that "RMR can be elevated during a state of energy balance when energy flux is increased," and that the "magnitude of adaptive change in RMR is similar in response to increased EI [energy intake] and/or PA [physical activity]." 

Figure 4: The subject who saw the greatest satiety benefit in the high flux phase was also the one that consumed the most energy on the low flux condition - even more than on the high flux condition (Foright. 2014)

Interestingly, the subject who saw the largest benefit (see Figure 3) was also the guy or gal who consumed the most energy in the low flux condition (orange line in Figure 4).

So what about the health markers?

The  fasting insulin decreased following weight loss and was significantly lower on the LF (8.3±1.1 µU/ml) and HF (6.4±0.8 µU/ml) experimental days compared to the pre-weight loss baseline (11.8±0.6 µU/ml). In other words, while both groups saw significant increases in insulin sensitivity due to dieting, the effects were (unsurprisingly) significantly more pronounced during the high energy flux (=exercise phase).

In contrast to what the significant differences in hunger ratings would suggest, there were no general differences in fasting PYY (the satiety hormone) concentrations among pre-weight loss, low and high flux conditions respectively.

Figure 5: Insulin and PYY levels of the subjects in the high and low flux phases over the course of the day (2014).

If you look at the data in Figure 5, it's obvious that the PYY levels were in fact lower in the high flux condition - from 180-360 minutes in the high flux condition compared to the baseline (pre-weight loss) and low flux, to be precise.

Figure 6: Average resting metabolic rate at baseline and across 5 days of low and high flux (Foright. 2014)

So what? Beneficial, not beneficial, or not sure? In spite of the absence of significant differences in PYY, the post-diet response of the subjects clearly indicates that the energy deficit was easier to tolerate in the high flux phases.

The slightly, but significantly higher resting metabolic rate during the high flux phases further underlines that there is a benefit of eating more and training more and the absence of corresponding evidence from any of the hormonal markers measured may simply be related to a "bad" choice of markers. If the researchers had determined the level of the hunger hormone ghrelin, instes, it may well have been that we would have had a physiological explanation for the "hunger difference".

The way it is, we still have the decreased subjective hunger, increased subjective satiety and increased RMR which speak in favor of the high flux state dieting. What we do not know, though, is whether the effects will be the same in athletic (vs. sedentary) subjects [based on my personal experience we will!] and whether they can be maintained for say 4 weeks instead of four days | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bell, Christopher, et al. "High energy flux mediates the tonically augmented β-adrenergic support of resting metabolic rate in habitually exercising older adults." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 89.7 (2004): 3573-3578.
• Bullough, Richard C., et al. "Interaction of acute changes in exercise energy expenditure and energy intake on resting metabolic rate." The American journal of clinical nutrition 61.3 (1995): 473-481.
• Foright, Rebecca. A high energy flux state attenuates the weight loss-induced energy gap by acutely decreasing hunger and increasing satiety and resting metabolic rate. Diss. Colorado State University, 2014.
• Goran, Miachel I., et al. "Effects of increased energy intake and/or physical activity on energy expenditure in young healthy men." Journal of Applied Physiology 77.1 (1994): 366-372.
• Rarick, Kevin R., et al. "Energy flux, more so than energy balance, protein intake, or fitness level, influences insulin-like growth factor-I system responses during 7 days of increased physical activity." Journal of Applied Physiology 103.5 (2007): 1613-1621.

Night-Time Carb, Whey or Casein Drink Boost Morning Energy Expenditure & Modulates Fatty Acid Oxidation

Carbs, whey and casein, is everything better than not eating before bed?

As a SuppVersity reader you know for quite some time that eating carbs past 6PM is not going to make you fat (go back and learn more). However, what you probably don't know is what exactly happens when you have 33g of vanilla flavored maltodextrin powder right (30 min) before bed? And how does that compare to 30g of whey protein or casein?

Interesting questions, right? Well, good for us that Takudzwa A. Madzima, Lynn B. Panton, Sarah K. Fretti, Amber W. Kinsey and Michael J. Ormsbee from the Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences at the Institute of Sports Science and Medicine of the Florida State University alrady have some answers.

Whey, casein or carbs before bed?

The study was designed to investigate the extent to which a single serving of WP, CP, CHO or a PLA before sleep affects satiety and metabolism, independent of exercise, in eleven physically active (at least 4 d/week and 50min/d of self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for >12 months) college-aged men (age: 23.6 y; BMI: 25.8 kg/m2; body fat: 16.3%). The scientists hypothesized...

"that consumption of protein at night before sleep would have a positive impact on next-morning metabolism and appetite to a greater extent than that of CHO or a PLA beverage" (Madzima. 2013)

And if you take a look at the data in figure 1 you will have to concede that assumption was at least partially right.

Figure 1: Visual analogue scale of hunger, satiety and desire to eat (Madzima. 2013)

Yep, you are right: Based on the subjective hunger, satiety and desire to eat assessment, casein is by far the best choice, but even having some carbs pre-bed could offset potential early morning binges by reducing the desire to eat by -19% (vs. -19% for whey and -24% for casein compared to placebo).

Is this just a psycho thing or are there any physiological mechanisms involved, as well?

Now, it goes without saying that the thing you are probably more interested in are the changes in energy expenditure and the effects on substrate utilization (carbs vs. fat) I hinted at in the headline already. So, let's see what those looked like and whether they could actually explain the "satiating" effects.

Figure 2: Resting energy expenditure (REE) and respiratory exchange ratio (RQ: higher values = higher glucose oxidation, lower fat oxidation) on the morning after the dietary intervention (Madzima. 2013)

While the effects on the respiratory quotient and thus the rate of glucose to fatty acid oxidation is negligible, the +4-6% increase in resting energy expenditure is something to keep in mind. Not so much because this is going to make you lean (in isolation it certainly isn't), but rather in view of the fact that it is another scientific result that clearly contradicts the "popular belief that it is advantageous to limit energy intake in the evening" (Madzima. 2013). So the scientists are right to conclude that

"[...] it is convenient to hypothesise that the improvement in morning resting metabolism may further aid in the maintenance of and/or improvement in body composition and thereby provide a competitive advantage in healthy, physically active young men." (Madzima. 2013)

But they are also right when they state that both studies to investigate the impact of liquid energy intake v. solid energy intake and different combinations of macronutrients, as well as long-term studies of night time feeding would have to be conducted before anything definitive can be said about the real world results these overall minuscle changes will bring about.

---

Apropos real world + long-term results, you do remember that a 40g casein shake might help you build an additional 3.2kg of lean muscle mass in a year... if you oversimplistically extrapolate the acute protein synthetic respone Res et al. observed a 2012 study on the effects of a pre-bed casein shake (see "3.2kg of Lean Mass Over Night W/ 40g of Slow Digesting Protein 30min Before Bed!? Over One Year, a Positive Nitrogen Balance and +20% FSR Could Make It Happen!" (read more).

Evidence From the Metabolic Ward: 1.6-2.4g/kg Protein Turn Short Term Weight Loss Intervention into a Fat Loss Diet

2x-3x higher than RDA protein intakes work equally well for men and women, to get and stay lean and lose fat and build / maintain muscle.

There are very few principles I believe are set in stone and valid regardless of your age (maybe not for toddlers), your training goals and your nutritional "orientation" (paleo, low carber, low fat eater, or whatever), and among these the "Have at least 30g of quality protein (eggs, meats, dairy, fish, etc.) with every major meal" (this assumes you eat 3meals+ per day) probably is king. It is the recipe to success and I actually don't feel as if it was necessary to convince you of the advantages this high(er) protein intake will have on your physique and - although the medical establishment is still reluctant to admit that - your health, as well. Still, the most recent study from the Military Nutrition Division, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, Massachusetts, USA; have much more to offer than "just" some additional evidence to the superiority of high(er) protein diets on a cut.

It's more than high time to revise the RDA

The study was designed to assess the effects of different dietary protein (RDA = 0.8g/kg, 2x RDA = 1.6g/ kg and 3x RDA =2.4g/kg) intake on body composition and postabsorptive and postprandial muscle protein synthesis on a 21-day cut (-30% energy restriction phase; ED). The latter was preceded by a 10-day weight maintenance (WM) period.

To up the calculated energy deficit to 40% the physically active (physical activity 3– 4 d/wk), weight stable ( 2 kg; for a minimum of 2 mo before the study), 39 volunteers [32 men (11 military, 21 civilians) and 7 women (7 civilians)] with a body mass index (BMI) between 22 and 29 kg/m² and a sufficient baseline fitness had to exercise daily:

"You told me to eat more protein and this burger has both meat and cheese!" - This and other mishaps are the rule, not the exception in uncontrolled dietary interventions (learn more). The fact that the study at hand took place in the metabolic ward of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center really is a HUGE PLUS.

"To isolate the effects of the diet and minimize the potential of an exercise training stimulus, physical activity during WM was prescribed at levels comparable to those reported in prestudy 7-d physical activity records. Volunteers performed low-tomoderate-intensity (40 – 60%Vo2peak) treadmill and cycle ergometry steady-state physical activity sessions daily. Intensity was based on pre-study Vo2peak
measurements obtained during a progressive intensity treadmill test and verified during
familiarization trials using indirect calorimetry (ParvoMedics) and corresponding heart rate. Workloads during steadystate physical activity sessions were adjusted accordingly to
ensure accuracy using the heart rate reserve method and portable heart rate monitors." (Pasiakos. 2013; my emphasis)

The study took place in the metabolic ward (so there was no cheating involved here => HUGE PLUS; cf. ) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center. All volunteers were required to abstain from nutritional supplements, alcohol, smoking, and all medications, unless acetaminophen-containing products were provided by the investigator or study physician. Volunteers were also required to be in their assigned rooms with lights out by 11 P.M. (possibly very important; learn why) to ensure adequate and similar levels of sleep.

Don't worry this was not "cardio only"

To maintain prestudy muscular fitness levels, the volunteers also performed resistive-type physical activity 3d/wk. However, "to minimize the potential of an unaccustomed, anabolic stimulus influencing study outcome measures, the intensity and volume of the resistive-type exercise was low" (Pasiakos. 2013):

Table 1: Energy / macronutrient content of the diets (updated on June 21; previously there was a copy + paste error in the table)

"Specifically, volunteers performed one single-joint movement per major muscle group (3 sets of 15 repetitions) using workloads determined during the prestudy period. Frequency, intensity, mode, and volume of resistive-type activities did not change during the 31-d study. Research staff who were blinded from dietary assignment supervised all physical activity sessions for safety and accuracy". (Pasiakos. 2013)

The body weight, was recorded in two day intervals and the body composition was quantified using a  dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) during WM (day 9) and ED (day 30). To elicit the underlying mechanisms, the resting metabolic rate, protein synthesis, nitrogen balance and the expression of intracellular signaling proteins were tested, as well.

Figure 1: Change in body composition and protein synthesis (Pasiakos. 2013)

As you can see in figure 1, there was a baseline and dose-dependent effect on the changes it total weight and body composition, respectively.

Body weight during WM was similar between dietary treatment groups and remained stable from d 1 (group mean, 77.5 1 +/-5 kg) through d 10 (77.1 1 +/-5 kg). Overall, volunteers lost 3.2 0 +/- 2 kg during the 21-d ED; 3.5 0 kg for RDA, 2.7 0 kg for 2 -RDA, and 3.3 0 kg for 3 -RDA (P < 0.05). Independent of dietary protein, percentage body fat decreased (P < 0.05) from 19.8 1% during WM to 18.1 1% during ED, and the change in percentage body fat was similar between RDA (1.3 0 +/- 3%), 2 -RDA (1.8 0 +/- 4%), and 3 -RDA (1.9 0 +/- 3%)." (Pasiakos. 2013)

What's worth taking a closer look at, is yet the proportion of total weight loss due to changes in fat mass (FM) and FFM, which differed across dietary protein levels.

• the percentage of total weight loss attributed to reductions in fat mass (FM) was higher (P < 0.05) for 2 -RDA (70.1 7%; 1.9 0 +/- 3 kg) and 3 -RDA (63.6 5%; 1.9 0 +/- 2 kg) than for RDA (41.8 5%; 1.6 0+/-2 kg)
• the percentage of total weight loss due to a loss of fat free mass (FFM) was lower for 2 -RDA (29.8 7%; 0.8 0 +/- 2 kg) and 3 -RDA (36.4 5%; 1.2 0. +/- 3 kg) as compared to RDA (58.2 5%; 2.3 0 +/- 3 kg)
• the fat to lean mass loss ratio was 30% higher in the medium protein intake group, in other words, the increase in protein intake in the 3xRDA group did not protect the lean mass any better than the 1.6g/kg in the 2xRDA group

While the latter change did not reach statistical significance, the trend is clear and I suspect with a higher number of participants, the scientists would have been able to show that the 3x RDA intake is not just worthless, but actually contra-productive, if your goal is stable ongoing fat loss.

No inter-group differences in the majority of signaling proteins

All the changes took place in the absence of statistically significant inter-group differences in the changes in anabolic intracellular signaling and gene expression [ignore the following list if you are no geek ;-], i.e.

• postprandial Akt (Ser 473) phosphorylation was increased 1.4-fold higher (P < 0.05) compared to postabsorptive levels
• postprandial p70 S6K1 (Thr 389), eIF4E Ser (209), and rpS6 (Ser 235/236) phosphorylation status was 16, 1.9, and 15.5-fold higher (P < 0.05), respectively, compared to postabsorptive phosphorylation levels
• phosphorylation status of eEF2 (Thr 56) was lower (P < 0.05) after feeding

The more important general observation was yet that the upregulation of these signals 3 h after consuming a protein-containing meal, demonstrated a main feeding effect for all proteins of interest (P < 0.05). On the other hand, their expression was not influenced by energy status or the level of dietary protein intake (and let's be honest, what would an increase be worth if the data in figure 1 already told us what the real-world implications are?)

Figure 2: Changes in postabsorptive muscle protein synthesis-associated mRNA expression levels during the diet phase (-40% energy intake) of the study (Pasiakos. 2013)

Additionally, the energy deficit increased the mRNA expressions of a couple of other proteins implicated in the intracellular regulation of muscle protein synthesis:

"Transcription of Vps34, a protein involved in amino acid sensing and amino acid-mediated stimulation of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTORC1) signaling, was 1.2-fold higher (P < 0.05), while expression of mTORC1 inhibitors REDD1 and REDD2 were both 1.3-fold higher (P < 0.05) after ED compared to WM. Increasing dietary protein intake increased Vps34 mRNA expression, with 1.2-fold higher levels for 3x-RDA than RDA (P 0.05). MAP4K3, LAT1, and SNAT2 mRNA levels were not influenced by energy and dietary protein manipulations." (Pasiakos. 2013)

In view f the slight advantage of the 3xRDA diet in terms of the stimulation of protein synthesis, you may want to come back to the statistical insignificance of the superiority of the 2xRDA diet to keep indulging the same hilarious amounts of protein that have probably not gotten yourself anywhere near contest shape in the past, well, let's take a look on a couple of other observations, then:

• While the nitrogen balance remained negative (meaning the body was burning more protein than it stored) over the whole trial in the 0.8g/kg group, it returned to baseline (weight maintenance levels) first in the 1.6g/kg (=2x RDA) group (day 17!). This restoration of to pre-diet levels was observed only on day 30 in the high protein group (2.4g/kg) and the that without any significant advantage of the 3xRDA over the 2xRDA intake (if anything it was lower in the high protein group; see figure 3)
• There was no "thermogenic advantage" - or whatever people usually like to call the purported beneficial effect that comes with the ingestion of higher amounts of protein; in fact, the resting metabolic rate was identical for all three groups over the whole 21-day diet period. 
• With a diet that was high in carbohydrates and low in fat (see table 1), the conversion of protein to glucose, was likely relatively limited and the potential downsides of high protein + low carb diets, where most of the protein will be broken down in the liver to supply your body with glucose and any temporary increase in insulin due to fast acting protein sources were not an issue.

In the end, the increase in postprandial protein synthesis in the 3x RDA group is therefore worthless, because it went hand in hand with an increase in wastefulness due to which the absolute protein retention did not differ all that much and the differences in lean mass loss 0.1kg) are clearly insigificant- plus: If you simply do the math, the ratio of fat free to fat mass loss, is still 31% higher in the 2x RDA group.

---

Irrespective of how many supplements you take - you cannot out-supplement a bad diet, laziness and a lack of motivation & determination. Still, especially for the elderly HMB with it's pronounced anti-cababolic effec could help - particularly on a diet (learn more; leucine vs. HMB)

So what's the optimum then? If we reconcile the results of the study at hand, the "optimal" protein intake would thus probably be somewhere between 1.6g/kg and 2.0g/kg an thus in the <200g range for the vast majority of people. If you also consider that this value includes all protein even that from rice, and other "non-quality" protein sources, the study at hand does not confute my previous recommendation to stick to a 1.5g/kg-2.0g/kg (per total body mass) protein intake from quality protein sources, to discount the additional protein you will be getting from "low protein food" (too much counting will only make you neurotic) and to do that irrespective of whether you are bulking and or dieting  .

One thing you may want to keep in mind though, is the fact that the overall calorie deficit of ~40% may still have been a little to high - it was not enough to elicit a significant reduction in the resting metabolic rate, but still enough to induce a loss of at least 30% of lean mass. A lower caloric deficit 20-30%, a little more patience and a focus on hypertrophy-specific weight lifting are thus probably a way more significant difference, than whether you consume 1.6g/kg or 2.4g/kg body weight.

References: 

• Pasiakos SM, Cao JJ, Margolis LM, Sauter ER, Whigham LD, McClung JP, Rood JC, Carbone JW, Combs GF Jr, Young AJ. Effects of high-protein diets on fat-free mass and muscle protein synthesis following weight loss: a randomized controlled trial. FASEB J. 2013 Jun 5. [Epub ahead of print]

Calorie Shifting (-45%) Beats Calorie Reduction (-55%): Four Meals, Spaced 4h Apart Induce Greater Hunger(!) & Body Weight Reduction Than More Restrictive Regular Dieting

4x4 are those the optimal numbers?

Alright, if you have 500,000kcal worth of fat to lose, you'd sure as hell lose it faster if you're running a kcal deficit of 55% vs. 45%, right? Yeah, I know. As a SuppVersity reader you're smart enough to question the validity of this simple mathematical question and I have to admit that this is in fact one of the major weaknesses of the study at hand. However, let's postpone the criticism to the conclusion and simply assume it would be obvious that someone cutting back by 55% would lose more fat or at least more body weight than someone who consumes only 45% less calories.

Let's further assume this "someone" was an obese and overweight (BMI ≥ 25), nonsmoking adult (age 26-50 years) woman who has been selected from two clinics related to Weight Loss and Weight Gain Unit, Shohaday Tajrish Hospital and Private Clinic in Esfahan between April 2010 and September 2012.

You can learn more about meal frequency at the SuppVersity

Grazin' Bad For the Obese!

Breakfast Keeps You Lean?!

Frequent Protein Consumption

Myth: Few Meals More Bodyfat

8 Meals = Stable, But High Insulin

Int. Fasting & Exercise

Now, if you took 74 of these women and randomly allocated them to either the 45% or the 55% arm of the study, you would expect to see a weight loss advantage for the latter, right? Right.

But what if there was another twist to the study? A twist that says: "Eat 4 times per day for eleven days and make sure you leave at least 4h of time to digest between those four meals. Then, eat regular for three days and repeat!" Ha? What would happen?

Figure 1: Relative weight and fat loss after 12 weeks of dieting and after 4 week follow up (Davoodi. 2014)

Surprised? Well honestly, I would not have expected to see a difference like the one in Figure 1, either. Eventually, the study at hand which was conducted to test whether you can tackle some or all of the following downsides of classic weight loss interventions, i.e. non-adherence due to being  hungry, metabolic shutdown reduced physical activity, by nutrient timing provides more compelling evidence to a truth some people in the health and fitness industry have been propagating for decades: Timing matters!

Figure 2: Reduced hunger and no drop in resting metabolic rate - still asking for the reasons?

It matters not only because the subjects in the "eat 4 times a day at fixed 4h intervals"-group lost significantly more body weight. It matters above all, because...

• their "resting metabolic rate tended to remain unchanged" during the CSD phases,
• their plasmaglucose, total cholesterol, and triacylglycerol reductions were greater, and
• their geeling of hunger actually decreased over the course of the 4-week study

Now, all that is certainly fantastic. What's not so fantastic, though, is the minor "flaw" in the study design of which I've already pointed out in the introduction that it is based on the (imho) false believe that increases in caloric deficits in the 40%+ region would yield improved weight loss results.

No, no and no! Don't be stupid! Eat to satiety and fast or stay fat forever! Frequent meals will hamper not improve dietary T2DM treatment. Eating four times a day with 4h+ between the meals, on the other hand, is a promising approach to dieting.

Bottom line: Due to the extra -15% deficit in the "regular" diet group, the study at hand fails to "prove" the sole influence of meal timing on weight loss and improvements in glucose and fatty acid metabolism. That's a pity, but it does not mean that we could not conclude that "meal timing", or as I would rather like to call it "meal spacing" is an important and effective strategy to improve your weight loss results - I mean, on which -45% energy restricted diet does your hunger decrease over time?

So how can we conciliate the results of the study and hand with those of the "Many Small Meals Suck" (read it) study from  a couple of weeks ago? Well, easy! We're dealing with four, not 6 meals and they were spaced 4h, not just 2h apart. This + the fact that the women were  obese or overweight, but not diabetic could easily explain the difference.

Reference:

• Davoodi, Sayed Hossein, et al. "Calorie Shifting Diet Versus Calorie Restriction Diet: A Comparative Clinical Trial Study." International journal of preventive medicine 5.4 (2014): 447.

Weight Loss Reduces Biggest Losers' Metabolic Rate by 20%! 7% More Than Predicted by Another Useless Formula

Image 1: How many Biggest Loser ranches like this could you possibly build from the billions of dollars the American Health Care System alone is paying for drugs to manage instead of tread the obesity epidemic? And would it be worth it?

If you really want to get me started, you got to ask me "how many calories" you are supposed to eat. In my whole life, I have never even seen let alone eaten such a thing as "a calorie" and although I have no scientific evidence for that, my personal experience tells me that meticulous and even anxious calorie counting can make you skinny and crazy, yet never lean and sane. Aside from food quality factors, which certainly have a major impact, the real, fundamental fallacy of the "cut your calories" approach to weight loss is the ubiquitous ignorance towards the adaptive capabilities of the human body. A topic, I have broached several times before - yet obviously to no avail, other than the constant decry that "dieting will downregulate your metabolism"; of course, it will! If you weigh less, you need less energy.

You count calories? You must have a DEXA scanner, a ton of doubly labeled water and a Finnigan MAT 252 dual-inlet gas isotope ratio mass spectrometer, then, right?

And in view of the complexity of the human body, you should not be surprised that neither the resting nor the total energy expenditure exhibits a linear or otherwise deterministic association with your body weight and activity level. That even smart scientist, sophisticated mathematical formulas and accurate body fat, lean mass, etc. parameters (something you will by the way never have unless you got a decent DEXA scanner next to your scale in your bathroom ;-) cannot calculate the exact amount of energy you need has only recently confirmed in no one else but The Biggest Losers - in this case the actual "losers" from the TV show (Johannsen. 2012; thanks Steven Arcera for posting the link on my Facebook wall).

"Big losing" reduces your energy expenditure by -9% in six weeks

Some of you will know that the Biggest Losers are no strangers here at the SuppVersity (cf. my discussion of Ashmadi. 2011); not because I am a fan of the show, but rather because the TV producers worked hand in hand with a group of scientists who are now coming out with some relatively well-controlled (in the actual "camp" phase; 13 weeks for the last losers standing ;-) data on the effects of a weight loss program that consisted of a reasonable reduction in energy intake (-30%; pretty reasonable for someone who is as obese as a Biggest Loser - for leaner folks I would yet suggest to try to hover at max. -20% of their maintenance food not calorie intake and that for no longer than 6 weeks followed by a maintenance phase!) and an insane amount of (mostly) aerobic exercise.

Figure 1: Changes in BMI, fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM) and body fat (%) of the Biggest Losers after six weeks in the camp (total time in camp 13 weeks for the winners) and at the 30-week follow (left); fat / fat free mass weight loss ratio (right) and body weight change over the whole 30 week period (upper right; based on Johannsen. 2012)

And if you take at the results of the 11 (our of 16) competitors who survived the first 6 weeks, the results were actually not too bad. The subjects lost a whopping 7% of body fat (12kg!) and only 4% of their fat free mass. This yields a fat / fat free mass weight loss ratio, i.e. the ratio of the amount of fat to the amount of fat free mass (this is not just muscle, but also bone, organ weight, etc.) the subjects dieted and exercised away, of 4.8 - or put more simply. The subjects lost "only" one kg of fat free mass per ~5kg of body fat, which, if you come to think about it, is not all too bad. Most surprisingly, the weight loss did not stall (cf. figure 1, small graph), when the big losers went home after 13 weeks. In fact, the average weight of all sixteen participants, including the "real losers", who gave up before week 6 had declined by -40%(!) at the 30 week follow up and the "average loser" (7 men, 9 women) had lost 47kg of pure fat (-66%!) - if those are "the biggest losers", I guess the "biggest winners" are soon going to walk on the Karl Lagerfeld's catwalk ;-)

Are the Biggest Losers all winners, after all?!

The biochemical and blood pressure readings at the follow up support the notion that, overall, "housing [obese people] in an isolated ranch[es] outside Los Angeles" could be the long sought-for solution to the diabesity epidemic - a wonderful success story, if we (or rather you my dear American friends) had enough isolated ranches, personal trainers, television crews etc. to house and pamper 36% of the population (obesity rates according to NHANES data from 2008).

And though I am actually not sure if it would cost so much more than the billions of dollars the American Health Care System is investing year by year in drugs to manage, instead of to cure obesity, diabetes and co. if they actually constructed respective facilities, hire trainers and staff, revised the dietary guidelines and took all the other necessary measure to get down to the root of the trouble (and these are not just carbohydrates!), we all know that this is not going to happen.

Figure 2: Predicted and measured resting metabolic rate (RMR.) and total energy expenditure (measured using doubly labeled water analysis) of the subjects at week 6 (in the camp) and on 30 wk follow-up (left); changes in adipokine and thyroid hormone levels from baseline at 30 wk follow up (data calculated based on Johannsen. 2012)

If you take a closer look at the data in figure 2 it is also questionable how sustainable the results of these efforts would be, if we do not eventually step back from the typical western "more is more principle", according to which it is good and highly desirable to eat copious amounts of (junk-)food without any of the natural side effects this practice has.After all, the -20% reduction in metabolic rate (-560kcal/day), the scientists attribute to "centrally mediated with a parallel action on the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis", because ...

[...] the magnitude of metabolic adaptation was not significantly correlated with circulating T3 changes but was as-sociated with the change in TSH such that those with the greatest increase in TSH had the least metabolic adaptation.

and an average resting metabolic rate of  1764kcal/day will make it difficult to remain weight stable in a society where eating as much as possible (without gaining weight, of course) is perceived as desirable.

"More, more, more, ... I want to eat more!"

Image 2: Could Adelfo's physique partly be attributable to the fact that eating as much as possible is not among his goals in life?

If we disregard any appetite dysregulation and cravings for junk food, and take an objective look at the total daily energy expenditure of the subjects (in the absence of drill instructors enforcing the 90min/day of intense aerobic exercise), even the calories in vs. calories out principle would leave more than enough room for these big losers to eat to satiety - 2906kcal/day (!), this is ~27% more energy than our mutual friend Adelfo Cerame is consuming at the moment.

So, let me ask you this: What is the underlying problem here? Is it really the downregulation of the metabolic rate, or isn't it rather the combination of our insatiable appetite that grew from year to year on the standard western junk / convenient food diet with subsequent and intermittent unbalanced starvation diets, which makes everyone moan about a "sluggish" metabolism, these days?

Predictive Value of Equations to Calculate Your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) Flawed: Results Can Be 14-29% Off

Would she still look so happy, if she knew that thee treadmill just lied to her?

I have written, said and, in person, even shouted it out often enough: Once you start to rely on the figures certain formulas generate (and this includes what your treadmill, your heart rate monitor etc. will produce, 'cause they use the same flawed formulas), you are lost.

The message of today's SuppVersity article is therefore by no means a new one. What's pretty new, though, is the study by V. Bonghana and colleagues from University of Campinas who have compared five predictive equations that are supposed to predict your and everyone else's basal (=excluding physical activity) energy demands (Bonghana. 2013).

"Start with a 15% energy deficit" - based on what?

The above, i.e. to start dieting by consuming ~15% less energy than you usually do, is my usual suggestion for anyone who's not in the "so fat that your health is in danger" zone, someone like you, maybe - someone who wants get rid of his/ her belly to finally see a at least the uppermost portion of his / her abs.

Table 1: The five equations the researchers used to calculate the predicted resting metabolic rate (RMR) that was then compared to the measured RMR (indirect calorimetry by respiratory gas analysis) of the 43 participants (Bonganha. 2013)

Now, what do you think would happen if this person was a postmenopausal women (of whom many, as we all know, love to "diet" exactly as they are told to, counting calories and what not) who is too lazy to follow my even more important advice to track her caloric intake for 2 weeks in order to get a "baseline reading"? What would happen if this woman, instead of doing just that simply used one of the calculators on the Internet and build her diet right according to the number the machine vomits out?

Figure 1: Comparison of the predicted resting metabolic rates and the mean difference to the "real" (=measured) RMR of the 43 healthy postmenopausal women who participated in the study (Bonghana. 2013)

Actually a cursory look at the data in figure 1 should suffice to tell you what the result would be. If she was lucky and the calculator used the rather uncommon Mifflin-St Jeor equation she would not lose a single pound, because she would end up right at the 1,063 kcal/day she, a 52-year young women, who's 159cm small has a totally age-appropriate BMI of 25kg/m², but a slightly high body fat level of 33%, just like the "average subject" in our experiment, needs to fuel her most basic metabolic demands (measured those are 1063.8 kcal/day). The former obviously implies that she did also take into account that she spends a few extra calories, even when she does not exercise.

Use the WHO calculation and you are lost

Guess how she got in in shape? Right! The EDC Program (learn more)

If she was not just as lucky and used the WHO equation as a baseline, she would not only overestimate her basal energy requirements by more than 30%. No, even with the 15% reduction she would be continuously gaining gaining wait... now, imagine she had also started to work out and had for once heard received some good advice, which is not to freak out about the weight gain, because it's all muscle. What? Right, she would be working away instead of towards her goal to lose weight and fat, 'cause one thing is sure.

Unless you expend more energy than you eat it is almost impossible to get rid of the belly. Unfortunately, simplistic calories in vs. calories out calculations won't help you find out whether this is the case..

The notion that exercise "alone" can, especially for those who are pretty chubby to begin with, have a "repartitioning effect" may still hold here, but it is more  likely that our imaginary post-menopausal training rookie is - if anything - gaining more muscle than fat and that's certainly not going to give her the look she is aspiring. In fact the situation would probably not be much different from the one in the study I had in the Facebook News a couple of days ago (Tibana. 2013).

Adding exercise on top of a proven (your N=1 experience) obesogenic diet rarely helps

In the course of this 8-week intervention study, the subjects, a group of 14 middle-aged (33.9 ± 8.6 years) overweight/obese women (body mass index - BMI 29.6 ± 4.1 kg/m²) underwent 24 sessions (3 times per week) of a whole body RT program with 3 sets of 8–12 repetitions maximum (RM). Unfortunately, for them without any dietary advice / incentive to modify the baseline diets that were obviously to blame for the extra-weight they were carrying.

Figure 2: Body mass, waist, hip, neck circumference, body adiposity index and visceral fat volume in middle-aged women before and after an 8-week 3x/week full body weight training intervention (Tibana. 2013)

The net result of this "intervention" was thus by no means representative of what you can achieve, when you really commit. If you discard the diet component, or even worse, fall for the common idea that you've worked out for an hour and could thus "afford" that piece of pizza, pie or panacotta, you are effectively bulking. Therefore, you should thus not be surprised, if you got strong and bulky, but don't see improvements in your body fat level, your waist line and any of the biochemical variables, i.e. fasting glucose, HbAIc, insulin,  triglycerides, HDL, and the TG/HDL ratio (not shown in figure 2), your doctor will be eyeballing.

---

Without taking a "baseline reading" and accessing where you want to go, you ain't going to succeed (read more)

Bottom line: In conjunction, the results of the Bonghana and Tibana papers only underline the necessity to (a) make a baseline assessment of your current, individual food quantity and quality(!), before you embark on any kind of diet and (b) that the notion of "exercising the fat away" is only useful when you are not making the mistake to chart your dietary intake up against whatever you believe your exercise induced energy expenditure would look like. Even if it's not pizza, pasta and panacotta you are thinking of, when you look at the figure your treadmill or heart rate monitor calculated based on similarly whacky formulas as those used for the RMR, you are still lost whenever you put more faith into a impersonal arithmetics than the signals of your own body... and this, gentleman, is true irrespective of your age and sex.

If you still insist on calculating something, you may also want to take a look at Part III / III of the Female(?) Athlete Triad Series, but please be aware that I am not liable for the damage this type of calorie counting is going to do to your physique and your psyche.

References:

• Bonganha V, Libardi CA, Santos CF, de Souza GV, Conceição MS, Chacon-Mikahil MP, Madruga VA. Predictive equations overestimate the resting metabolic rate in postmenopausal women. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17(3):211-4.
• Tibana RA, Navalta J, Bottaro M, Vieira D, Tajra V, Silva AD, de Farias DL, Pereira GB, de Souza JC, Balsamo S, Cavaglieri CR, Prestes J. Effects of eight weeks of resistance training on the risk factors of metabolic syndrome in overweight /obese women - "A Pilot Study". Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2013 Feb 28;5(1):11.