Why We Love Zumba (and you should, too)

Zumba is one of the most popular search terms on our website, with good reason. The Latin-inspired dance workout has exploded in popularity since its invention more than a decade ago. It works for all ages, provides excellent results, and — perhaps most importantly — it’s fun. For all those reasons, and a few more, we love Zumba. And you should, too.

1 .Zumba doesn’t require a lot of equipment

Step into a Zumba group fitness class, and you’ll notice there isn’t a lot of equipment. Because Zumba uses rhythmic movement to tone your muscles, the only tool you absolutely need is your own body. Sometimes, instructors may opt to incorporate small hand weights or step-up risers. But those generally are provided in class, and they’re not critical to the workout.

2. Zumba makes the time fly

If you’re short on time or easily bored, Zumba is the group fitness class for you. Classes generally provide a full-body workout in less than an hour. And because you’re learning new steps and having fun, the time seems to fly by.

3 .The music is a hit

The music chosen for Zumba workouts is upbeat, energizing and full of rhythms to get you moving. Because Zumba uses modern music, new songs always are being added to the list. And Zumba instructors use those songs to create exciting choreography. Zumba music is so popular that thousands of people have purchased albums, such as Zumba Fitness Dance Party, to enjoy outside the fitness studio.

4. Zumba is great for burning fat

Compared to other workouts, Zumba is highly effective at burning fat

A 70-year-old who weighs 150 pounds burns about 270 calories in a 30-minute Zumba class. That’s a better burn than walking, jogging, cycling and even moderate swimming. If you want to lose excess weight and slim down, but you’re not really an outdoor exerciser, Zumba can help.

5 .There’s no guesswork

Not a great dancer? Not a problem.

Zumba classes require no previous experience with group fitness or dance. The instructor tells you exactly what you need to be doing, and class participants are there to mess up alongside you.

Whether your footwork is flawless or a flop, the point is to get moving and have a blast.

Zumba is easily customized

If you’re not terribly flexible, keep your motions comfortable. If you’re a klutz, simplify your footwork. If your endurance isn’t what it used to be, cut out a few steps.

Your Zumba instructor can help you customize your workout to your abilities, so the class never is too tough or too easy. That’s different from one-size-fits-all workouts that might make you feel overwhelmed or under-challenged.

Why We Love Zumba (and you should, too) syndicated from https://ivoamatheis.tumblr.com

Advertisements

Cathine (Alvalin®) a Legitimate ‘New Ephedra’? 9.1kg vs. 2.4 kg Weight Lost, 165% Greater Waist Reduction in Humans

You don’t have to switch to eating pills, only. Don’t worry. What you will still have to do, though, is to (a) clean up your diet, (b) stop eating everything in sight, and (c) achieve a caloric deficit. With its ability to reduce hunger and appetite, cathine may yet help you make that happen. 

Let’s be honest: ever since the classic ECA stacks have been banned from the market, there are neither over-the-counter, nor prescription weight loss supplements/drugs that work. Scientists from the Technical University of Munich (Germany | Hauner 2017) believe they can change that. Not by inventing a revolutionary new compound, but by digging out a cousin of … you guessed it: the good old ephedrine.

Cathine is the name of the agent that was originally launched in the 1970s for the short-term treatment of diet-related obesity. Cathine is an alkaloid originally isolated from khat leaves grown in East Africa and the Arab peninsula and is a stable metabolite of cathinone, which is the main psychoactive alkaloid of kath, the leaves of an Arabian shrub, which are chewed (or drunk as an infusion) as a stimulant.

The pharmacological action of cathine includes central (anorexia, increased alertness, increased sensory stimulation, hyperthermia) as well as peripheral effects (increased respiration and heart rate, constipation, urine retention)… in other words: it works pretty much just like ephedra alkaloids from ma huang or alternative sources of ephedra/ephedrine.

Learn more about alleged and true fat burner at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

DMAA (Jack3D) – The Good, the Bad & the Evil

How ‘Harmless’ are T2-Based Fat Burners, Really?

DMHA a Legitimate DMAA Successor

Fat Burners: Non-Stimulant, Non-Effective?

Caffeine Resis- tance – Does It Even Exist?

Against that background, it is only mildly surprising that the N=241 subjects (75.9% women; mean age of all patients was 48.5 ± 10.4 years, the mean baseline BMI was 34.6 ± 3.4 kg/m²) the researchers recruited for their 24-week RCT lost up to four-fold more body weight when they had been randomly allocated to group #4, the high-dose cathine group:

  • placebo – 0 mg cathine per day,
  • low dose – 16 mg cathine per day, 
  • medium dose – 32 mg cathine per day, or 
  • high dose – 53.3 mg cathine hydrochloride 

The cathine came from a drug that is produced by RIEMSER Pharma who call their product Alvalin® and, you guessed it, financed the study.

The subjects did not get away without lifestyle changes and a 500kcal/d deficit, though

In contrast to the average fat burning supplement (that does not even work), cathine does not come with the promise to shed fat effortlessly. Lifestyle changes are just as necessary as a significant restriction of your energy intake. To be able to put the necessary changes into practice, …

[…e]ach patient, independent of group allocation, received structured counseling sessions using an estab lished and validated intervention program which was adapted to the specific requirements of the study design. In addition, the recommendations were individually tailored based on the analysis of dietary protocols. The aim was to achieve an energy deficit of 500–600 kcal/day. The level of daily physical activity was assessed using a pedometer. Patients were recommended to increase their physical activity up to 5,000 / 10,000 steps/day, depending on baseline activity using a pedometer for self-monitoring” (Hauner 2017).

The primary outcome variable of this study was the previously discussed change in body weight after 24 weeks of treatment. For me, personally, the secondary end points, which included an intention-to-treat analysis of patients with weight loss > 5% and > 10%, as well as the changes in waist circumference (WC), waist-hip ratio (WHR), serum lipids and glucose, are yet at least as important; lastly, we must not forget, the most important question: Is kathine even save? Or are there adverse events such as increased blood pressure, heart rate, and QT interval, as they have been observed with other stimulants before.

Adherence is key and a weight loss drug that works increases adherence

As a SuppVersity reader you know that the #1 determinant of weight loss success is adherence – not just to taking the drug/supplement, but rather and more importantly to the lifestyle changes… and here, that’s what the study at hand shows, cathine is just as effective as ephedra which had the impressive ability to help dieters stick to their caloric intake goals while preventing the dreaded reduction of energy levels that will eventually make you fall off the wagon.

Unlike other stimulants, cathine rather decreased the subjects’ blood pressure. The heart rate, on the other hand, increased as expected.

Cathine is actually good for your heart health: When we’re talking stimulants for weight, cardiovascular side effect can be a pain in the ass. Cathine in no real exception to this “rule”, but it is at least noteworthy that typical cardiovascular side effects occurred only transiently on the high dosage (5x palpitations, 3x hypertension, 2x chest pain). Still, only two of the subjects in the high dose group dropped out because of adverse events (3 subjects in the placebo group did so, too).

Furthermore, (a) the average blood pressure and heart rate changes were beneficial and harmless, respectively, and (b) classic risk markers of heart disease such as total cholesterol, and triglycerides improved significantly in all treatment groups.

With the drop-out rate during the active treatment period being “only” 25% and the vast majority of the 59 patients who discontinued the study coming from the placebo group (42.3%), cathine seems to be a legit successor to ephedrine, which has also been shown to increased compliance and, more importantly, the number of subjects who were disappointed with their results in the good dozen of RCTs on its weight loss effects.

In the 4 groups combined, 12 individuals withdrew due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

That’s tolerable considering the fact that cathine will probably have similar pro-sympathetic and thus potentially blood pressure and heart rate elevating “side effects”. Overall, 178 patients completed the trial after 24 weeks – with unquestionably impressive results:

  • Figure 1: Changes in weight (kg) and waist circumference (cm) (mean ± SD) in the ITT (LOCF) population (n = 237). ITT = Intention-to-treat analysis; LOCF = last observation carried forward method.

    Mean weight loss (± SD) after 24 weeks was 6.5 ± 4.2 kg under 16 mg cathine, 6.2 ± 4.7 kg under 32 mg cathine, and 9.1 ± 5.4 kg under 53.3 mg cathine but only 2.4 ± 5.4 kg in the placebo group. 

  • The respective levels of weight loss in the completers’ analysis were 7.6 ± 3.7 kg under 16 mg cathine (n = 48), 7.0 ± 4.6 kg under 32 mg cathine (n = 49), and 9.8 ± 5.6 kg under 53.3 mg cathine (n = 47) versus 3.7 ± 5.0 kg under placebo treatment (n = 34). 

In both types of analysis, weight loss was significantly greater in the active treatment groups compared to placebo (each p < 0.02, ANCOVA with Tukey-Kramer Test).

  • In the ITT population, mean WC decreased over 24 weeks by 5.4 ± 7.2 cm under 16 mg cathine, by 5.1 ± 4.7 cm under 32 mg cathine, by 7.5 ± 5.7 cm under 53.3 mg cathine, and by 1.6 ± 5.9 cm under placebo treatment. 

Again, the differences between the three doses of cathine and placebo were statistically significant (each p < 0.01, ANCOVA with TukeyKramer Test).

Now, Alvalin® is not meant to be an over-the-counter supplement. Accordingly, an intention to treat analysis that would confirm that the average subject achieves a clinically meaningful weight loss of >5% or, even better, >10% over 24 weeks is all the more important.

Figure 2: Patients who lost >5% and >10% of their baseline body weight at week 24 (Hauner 2017).

The result was clearly dose-dependent with 78.3% of the subjects in the high-dose group losing more than 5% of their initial weight and 41.7% lost more than 10%. Moreover, significantly more individuals in the cathine treatment groups had a weight reduction of >5% and >10% than in the placebo group (each p < 0.01, chi square test).

10mg Melatonin Increase Diet-Induced Weight Loss in 30-D Study from 4% to 7% + Have Profound Antioxidant Effects | more

This is not a supplement (yet?) While the authors point out that cathine is one of the few first-generation amphetamine-like weight loss drugs that is still available … in Germany and I am pretty sure only as a prescription drug. Against that background, it seems highly questionable whether and when it will be available as a supplement – personally, I doubt that.

With that being said, the results are unquestionably impressive. Even in the absence of DXA data the significant reduction in waist circumference clearly indicates that much of the extra weight that was lost came from the subjects’ body fat stores.

Moreover, the side effects were tolerable and the adherence (probably due to improved results and reduced hunger) was superior to the placebo = life-style intervention, only, study. If monitored by a doctor cathine could thus be a viable addition, but not a replacement for making the necessary life-style changes (including a reduction in food intake, folks).

Lastly, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this is only study #3 on cathine in human beings, with Spranger & Dörke (1966) as well as Szelenyi & Bräuer’s 1974 having conducted likewise promising, but overall unfortunately only poorly controlled trials 40-50 years ago | Comment!

References:

  • Hauner, H., Hastreiter, L., Werdier, D., Chen-Stute, A., Scholze, J., & Blüher, M. (2017). Efficacy and Safety of Cathine (Nor-Pseudoephedrine) in the Treatment of Obesity: A Randomized Dose-Finding Study. Obesity Facts, 10(4), 407-419.
  • Spranger J, Dörken J (1966). “Kindliche Adipositas: Prüfung der Psychodynamik unter d-norpseudoephedrin.” Monatsschr Kinderheilk 1966;114:394–396
  • Szelenyi I, Bräuer H (1974). “Kontrollierte Prüfung von d-Nor-Pseudoephedrin auf Effektivität und Unschädlichkeit.” Wien Med Wochenschr 124:49–52.

Cathine (Alvalin®) a Legitimate ‘New Ephedra’? 9.1kg vs. 2.4 kg Weight Lost, 165% Greater Waist Reduction in Humans syndicated from http://suppversity.blogspot.com

Simplicity and Consistency. Why This Works.

After sharing my initial transformation and my husband’s using nutritional cleansing and consistent training, I thought I’d share an update.

I Was a Skeptic

My training has remained consistent, tapping into many workouts from this plan. It’s my nutrition that has improved.

Aside from the company’s strict adherence to no-compromise ingredients and science backed research, Isagenix keeps nutrition simple. This is why I truly love and appreciate the program. Keep in mind, I was a skeptic for months before I tried it.

Presently, I’m three months into fueling my body more mindfully and eliminating toxins at the cellular level, and I feel energized, powerful, and focused.

Isagenix is a Lifestyle

Isagenix is not a diet even though it is effective for weight loss. Isagenix is about bringing the body back into balance. It is designed to feed the body what it needs to be STRONG-LEAN-HEALTHY for life.

Isagenix is a protein-based, mineral-rich, nutrient-dense, superfood that combines nutritional cleansing technology with targeted essential nutrition that feeds the body at the cellular level.

Isagenix is gluten free, soy free, and low glycemic. There are no artificial colors, sugars, or additives.

Simple Philosophy

This is simple. If I had to track macros or count calories, I would have fallen off the wagon in the first month. That isn’t realistic for me. Although that approach definitely works for many people, I don’t have the time, nor do I want the stress of tallying every piece of food entering my body.

I also reduce my overall stress by not having to shop for and prepare at least two meals each day.

And, while I love the shakes, knowing they are my most nutritionally dense and perfectly balanced (40/30/30 macro profile) meals of the day, I chew a lot of food too.

I do not follow any labeled diet like low carb, keto, paleo, etc. I simply work to get protein + fiber + fats in most meals and snacks.

This is not a restrictive meal plan; you simply work to be as consistent as possible.

Intermittent Fasting?

Yes. I incorporate IF on Cleanse Days, 1-2 times per month now. An Isagenix Cleanse Day is a type of nutritionally supported fast that is designed to help you feel nourished and energized while supporting health and weight management goals. This is done at the cellular level. This is NOT a colon cleanse.

On a Cleanse Day, you drink four, 4 oz. servings of Cleanse for Life, spaced evenly throughout the day in the morning, noon, late afternoon, and evening. You also choose from Cleanse Day support tools, or small snacks, to help you manage cravings and provide steady energy while still keeping calories very low.

This is not about weight loss, but allowing your gut to heal so that it can absorb nutrition, instead of constantly fighting inflammation.

Ultimate Goals

No doubt, the physical changes I have experienced are a nice side effect. But, my primary goal is to feel better. I wanted to increase my energy, improve my patience (lowering stress), and fuel myself, and my family, with the purest, real ingredients.

This is not a quick fix, but a sustainable way to improve the quality of your life and those around you. After all, I have some really important individuals to report to.

What areas of your life would you like to reduce stress?

The post Simplicity and Consistency. Why This Works. appeared first on Blonde Ponytail.


Simplicity and Consistency. Why This Works. syndicated from http://feeds.feedburner.com

Update on GAINZ: Plus 63% Muscle & Strength W/ Exercises You Like | Deadlifting Unshoed NO Power Booster | 50% Sugar NOT Anti-Anabolic | Cryotherapy NO Recovery Boost

No, bro – Losing your shoes won’t allow you to magically lift thrice your BW when your current 1-RM is only twice your BW.

Who would have thought that? If trained subjects are allowed to chose their ‘favorite’ exercises (or those they deem most productive) during workouts they gain 63% more lean mass in a realistic 9-week study. I guess compared to this result from a recent study from the University of Tampa, the realizations that deadlifting unshoed doesn’t seem to provide a systematic benefit, that sugar does not – if protein intake is adequate – negatively affect anabolism, and that local cryotherapy doesn’t just threaten the adaptational processes that occur after your workouts are rather expected results… results that were IMHO still worth summarizing in this October 2017 Suppversity “Update on GAINZ” 😉

If you want to update YOUR gains, try creatine-monohydrate – safe and proven!

Creatine Doubles ‘Ur GainZ!

Creatine Loading = Unnecessary

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

1st Benefits of Creatine-HCL

The Real Bioavai-lability of Crea

Anti-Cre GAA Better Than Cre?
  • Deadlifting unshod changes rate of force development and the medio-lateral center of pressure – albeit with unclear effects on deadlift performance (Hammer 2017).

    “While the unshod condition may have produced changes in RFD and ML-COP compared with the shod condition, there is only limited evidence in the current study to support this lifting technique for the conventional deadlift,” that’s the unfortunately very unspecific conclusion of a recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Before I am going to tell you that the authors are right, though, “[f]urther investigation is required to clarify any possible implications of this result and its benefit to lifters”, let’s at least check out what Mark E. Hammer et al. did, observed, and concluded.

    For their study, the scientists recruited 10 strong male participants (mean ± SD, age = 27.0 ± 5.8 years; weight = 78.7 ± 11.5 kg; deadlift = 155.8 ± 25.8 kg) with a minimum training history of 2 years. A counterbalanced, crossover experimental design was used with different loads (60% and 80% 1RM). Four sets of four repetitions were prescribed per session with two sets per shoe and with each shoe condition involving one set per load.

    Figure 1: Overview of the study results; all values expressed relative to 60% 1RM shoed; statistically significant effects of wearing / not wearing shoes were observed only where %-ages given (Hammer 2017).

    Peak vertical force (PF), rate of force development (RFD), time to peak force (TPF), anterior posterior (COP-AP) and medio-lateral (COP-ML) center of pressure excursion, and barbell peak power (PP) data were recorded during all repetitions. Except for RFD (F = 6.389; p = 0.045; ƞp2 = 0.516) and ML-COP (F = 6.696; p = 0.041; ƞp2 = 0.527), there were no other significant main effects of shoe.

    What did matter, obviously, was the load; with significant main effects for PF (p < 0.05), COP-AP (p = 0.011), TPF (p = 0.018) and COP AP (p = 0.011), but there was no interaction between session, shoe and load (p range from 0.944 to 0.086).

    So what’s the verdict, then? Eventually, we do thus arrive at the previously cited conclusion that “[f]urther investigation is required to clarify any possible implications of this result and its benefit to lifters.” That’s bad? Well, not really. If you personally like deadlifting without shoes, the study at hand does at least tell you that it doesn’t mess with your power… you don’t get why one would do that? Well as Hammer et al. point out, it’s an “observed practice within the strength and conditioning field” to lose your shoes, because people expect that being unshod during the deadlift exercise can significantly improve your deadlifting performance… for the average experienced deadlifters, this is probably not the case; with the inter-personal differences Hammer et al. observed, though, it may work for you, personally, though.

  • No ill effects of sugar-overfeeding w/ amounts equivalent to 50% of the daily energy requirements on protein anabolism in (young healthy) men and women if protein intake is adequate (Jegatheesan 2017).

    The dreaded reduction in IGF-1 and leucine and protein synthesis from sugar overfeeding, here an extra 50% of the subjects (12 healthy young male and female volunteers ) daily requirements (this means if you need 2000kcal, you got to eat 1000kcal extra… from 125g of pure sugar).

    French and Swiss scientists observed the “low protein” phenomenon, when they supplemented compared diets that were already high in carbohydrates (45% starch) with tons of sugar (delivering a 50% kcal surplus) and either 37.5% lipid and 7.5% protein (HSLP) or 15% lipid and 30% protein (HSHP) for 7-days and analyzed and compared fasting and postprandial plasma insulin, glucagon, and IGF1 concentrations were assessed before and after each intervention, and fasting plasma AAs level.

    “The increase in Ala elicited by sucrose overfeeding was blunted with HSHP (249 ± 18 vs 386 ± 11 μM, p < 0.001) compared to HSLP (251 ± 20 vs 464 ± 33 μM). Leu concentration decreased (130 ± 4 vs 116 ± 5 μM) after HSLP, but not after HSHP (139 ± 6 vs 140 ± 7 μM). Compared to HSLP, plasma BCAA, Phe, Tyr, and Pro were significantly higher with HSHP than HSLP. Fasting IGF1 concentration increased (174 ± 18 vs 208 ± 15 μg/dl) after HSHP and decreased (212 ± 13 vs 173 ± 12 μg/dl) after HSLP (p = 0.04)” (Jegatheesan 2017).

    So what’s the verdict, then? As previously highlighted, the results clearly indicate that “sucrose overfeeding decreases IGF1 and Leu level [only] when associated with a LP [low protein] intake” (Jegatheesan 2017). No reason to go overboard on sugar, but at least an ‘all-clear’ for the occasional CHO refeed.

  • Local cryotherapy is ineffective in accelerating recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage on biceps brachii (Lima 2017)

    From previous articles at the SuppVersity, you know that cryotherapy can impair the long-time size and strength gains of athletes. Against that background, it is all the more problematic that cryotherapy does not, as most people assume, accelerate recovery from every form of exercise-induced muscle damage … no matter what.

    The reality of a recent study in nineteen untrained women proves this assumption wrong. After having performed an eccentric protocol of damage induction (2 sets of 10 repetitions) in both arms, the cryotherapy was applied for 20 min, twice per day, for 4 days following the eccentric exercise. Randomly, one of the subject’s arms was assigned as intervention and received cryotherapy, the opposite arm served as control. As muscle damage indirect markers, we collected muscle thickness, and echo intensity, delayed onset muscle soreness, and peak torque at baseline (PRE), and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h.

    Figure 2: Neither the most important (=strength/torque) nor the auxiliary marker DOMs improved (Lima 2017).

    The muscle soreness markers increased in both, the experimental and the control arms, significantly compared to the PRE value at 24, 48, and 72 h. In a similar vein, the peak Torque of both experimental and control arm was significantly reduced and the scientists didn’t find changes in any of the indirect markers of muscle damage between arms at any moment (p > 0.05).

    So what’s the verdict, then? While they do risk a long(er) term reduction in gains in strength and size. Rookies will not be able to control their muscle soreness or improve their exercise recovery with local cryotherapy.

  • More than 60% increase in average lean mass gains when experienced trainees are allowed to auto-regulate (=self-select) exercises (Rauch 2017).

    In contrast to previous studies on auto-regulation of training parameters, the study at hand did not allow its subjects, N=32 strength-trained volunteers, who were able to squat and bench 1.75 and 1.3 times their body mass, did not primarily address quantitative resistance training variables (e.g., volume, intensity, rest interval), but allowed the subjects to modify their exercise selection – a qualitative variable about which there is, according to Rauch et al. “a paucity of data” (Rauch 2017).

    Dietary intake was monitored using MyFitnessPal, subjects consumed used a pre-workout (Dymatize M.Pact) and 25g of whey (Dymatize Elite Whey Protein, 4g leucine) before and after workouts, respectively. Total protein intake was required to be >1.5g/kg per day if any subject’s protein intake fell short of this goal, they were given additional nutritional guidance from a certified sports nutritionist. Body composition was assessed using DXA.

    The workout the subjects had to follow was a full body-training regimen (3d per week, 9 weeks total). Each workout consisted of six different exercises. A 90-120 second rest interval was allowed between sets while two minutes were respected between exercises.

    “A daily undulating periodization model was implemented for both groups as follows: Day 1: 6-8RM, Day 2: 12- 14RM and Day 3: 18-20RM. The training regimen was divided into three mesocycles, the number of sets progressed in each mesocycle; Mesocycle 1: four sets per exercise, Mesocycle 2: five sets per exercise, and Mesocycle 3: six sets per compound exercise and five sets per accessory exercise. […] Four certified strength and conditioning specialist were present for every training session, providing verbal encouragement and ensuring the proper amount of sets and repetitions were being performed” (Rauch 2017).

    The only difference between conditions was the exercises performed. The fixed exercise selection group (FES) group was handed a workout sheet with seven predetermined exercises.

    Table 1: Overview of the fixed exercise order and selection in the FES group (Rauch 2017).

    The auto-regulatory exercise selection (AES) group, on the other hand, was handed a workout sheet in which they had to select one exercise per muscle group… a small change that made a significant differences you can see in Figure 3  (note: with 15 dropouts, the scientists had to resort to a 95% confidence analysis to establish potential inter-group differences, though):

    Figure 3: Workout volume(s) and strength parameters in the 17 out of initially 32 trained subjects (>3y experience) who made it through the 9-week study without falling off the wagon (Rauch 2017)

    With the total volume load being significantly higher during mesocycle 2 and 3 when the subjects were allowed to auto-select their exercises (AES: 573,288kg ± 67,505, FES: 464,600 ± 95,595, p=0.0240), it is also not exactly completely surprising that the confidence interval analysis (95%CIdiff) Rauch et al. conducted suggests that only AES significantly increased LBM (AES: 2.47%, ES: 0.35, 95% CIdiff [0.030kg: 3.197kg], FES: 1.37 %, ES: 0.21, 95% CIdiff [-0.500kg: 2.475kg]).

    Figure 4: The changes in lean mass show a clear advantage for the AES group – in particularly in view of the fact that only one subject in the AES group (vs. 4 in FES) lost lean mass over the 9-wk period (Rauch 2017).

    We are, after all, talking about already trained individuals who are not going to pack on slabs of muscles within 8 weeks and for whom Figueiredo et al. (2017) have only recently pointed out that ‘more helps more’ – with the currently available evidence not suggesting a high likelihood of overtraining and reduced gains w/ increasing volume.

    Significant effects on bench-press strength (95% confidence analysis) were likewise observed only for the AES group (AES: 6.48%, ES: 0.50, 95% CIdiff [0.312kg: 11.42kg; FES: 5.14%, ES: 0.43 95%CIdiff [-0.311kg: 11.42kg]) while for back squats the 1RM responses were similar between groups, (AES: 9.55%, ES: 0.76 95% CIdiff [0.04kg: 28.37kg], FES: 11.54%, ES: 0.80, 95%CIdiff [1.8kg: 28.5kg]).

    So what’s the verdict, then? It remains to be seen if the significant increase in training volume was a physiological or psychological effect. What seems to be certain, however, is that it’s the mechanism which eventually drove the increase in lean mass and bench press gains in the AES group… a result that clearly refutes the over-generalized notion that the “exercises you tend to avoid will build the most muscle” (broscience).

    What is worth remembering, though, is that this effect on the subjects’ training volume occurred only in the 2nd and 3rd mesocycle, i.e. when the subjects.

Even if done 5x/wk “weights” won’t trigger the female athlete triad – that’s your beloved “cardio”, ladies.

You still want more? Well, what about this one, then: Ikezoe, et al. (2017) report in their latest paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (once again) that low load high rep training will produce the same gains as high load low rep training – this time, albeit even if the subjects didn’t go to failure… cool? Well, not really: the subjects were, after all, untrained. Just like most subjects in studies like these. Schoenfeld et al.’s 2016 meta-analysis highlighted that and a “trend […] for superiority of heavy loading” in their latest meta-analysis (2016): ” | Comment on Facebook!

References:
  • Figueiredo, V. C., de Salles, B. F., & Trajano, G. S. (2017). Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training. Sports Medicine, 1-7.
  • Hammer, M. E., Meir, R., Whitting, J., & Crowley-McHatten, Z. (2017). Shod versus barefoot effects on force and power development during a conventional deadlift. Footwear Science, 9(suppl. 1), 99.
  • Ikezoe, T., Kobayashi, T., Nakamura, M., & Ichihashi, N. (2017). Effects of low-load, higher-repetition versus high-load, lower-repetition resistance training not performed to failure on muscle strength, mass, and echo intensity in healthy young men: a time-course study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
  • Jegatheesan, P., Surowska, A., Campos, V., Cros, J., Stefanoni, N., Rey, V., … & Tappy, L. (2017). MON-P291: Dietary Protein Content Modulates the Amino-Acid and IGF1 Responses to Sucrose Overfeeding in Humans. Clinical Nutrition, 36, S285-S286.
  • Lima, et al. (2017) “Local cryotherapy is ineffective in accelerating recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage on biceps brachii.” Sport Sciences for Health. August, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 287–293
  • Rauch, J. T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Barakat, C. I., Alvarez, M. R., Brummert, D. L., Aube, D. W., … & De Souza, E. O. (2017). Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
  • Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Muscular adaptations in low-versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European journal of sport science, 16(1), 1-10.

Update on GAINZ: Plus 63% Muscle & Strength W/ Exercises You Like | Deadlifting Unshoed NO Power Booster | 50% Sugar NOT Anti-Anabolic | Cryotherapy NO Recovery Boost syndicated from http://suppversity.blogspot.com

Daily 7-Minute Workouts Shed 2kg Body Fat and ~3 cm Off Already Slim Waists in 6-Wk Study W/Out Dietary Changes!

It’s absolutely possible to incorporate bars and everything else that happens to workout-compatible into your workouts.

I am not sure if you’ve heard about it: the American College of Sports Medicine has developed a “7-Minute Workout” as a convenient training method for the general population, a workout that’s already incorporated in several fitness apps.

Previous studies of this body-weight based HIIT protocol have produced encouraging results (Klika 2013) and the workout can be adapted according to your clients’ individual needs by modifying the exercise selection (including outdoor exercises such as the dips on the image to the right), the exercise order, the number of exercises (usually 9-12), the length (in s) of the individual exercise bouts, and the rest between exercise bouts which is usually set between 15-45s.

Read about exercise- and nutrition-related studies in the SuppVersity Short News


Alcohol, Microbes & International Chest Day

Temporary Gluttony Won’ Make ‘u Fat

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

HbA1c, Bone Health, BFR & More | Jan’17

TeaCrine®, ALA, Tribulus, Cordy-ceps, Sesamin…

The Latest Fiber & Microbiome Research

I will provide details on how the aforementioned variables can be modified according to client needs. Before we discuss these details, I do yet want to highlight what a basic 7-minute workout template can do for young (18-30 years) healthy men and women (mean body fat for both sexes 24.1%; BMI 24.4 kg/m²).

All participants had to follow the same workout prescription for 6 weeks. That’s 6 weeks of 7 workouts à 7 minutes per week – 6×49 minutes of exercise per week, 294 minutes for the whole study (Mattar 2017); all workouts with the same following exercise sequence:

  1. Figure 1: Overview of the exercise sequence the subjects had to perform daily for 7 weeks.

    Jumping jack

  2. Wall sit
  3. Push-up
  4. Abdominal crunch
  5. Step-up onto chair
  6. Squat
  7. Triceps dip on chair
  8. Plank
  9. High knees run in place
  10. Lunge
  11. Push-up and rotation
  12. Side plank

This workout is identical to the 12-station HICT program Klika et al. (2013) suggested back in the day. A workout of which they write that…

  • all exercises can be done with body weight and are easily implementable in any setting (e.g., home, office, hotel room, etc.) and  
  • the exercise order allows for a total body exercise to significantly increase the heart rate with
  • the lower, upper, and core exercises maintaining the heart rate while developing strength.

As suggested by Klika et al., all exercises were performed for 30 seconds, with 10 seconds of transition time between bouts. Accordingly, the total time for the entire circuit workout was in fact approximately 7 minutes, when the circuit was repeated 2 to 3 times.

Figure 2: Changes in relative (%) and absolute (kg) body fat over the six-week study period (Mattar 2017).

Roughly 7 minutes that were, as the data from segmental body fat analysis (Tanita BC-418 | yes, not optimal, but better than a standard scale) and measuring tapes show (Figure 2), highly productive – and that without dieting, supplements, dietary changes and what not, the subjects lost an average 2kg of body fat (without inter-sex differences by the way) and must have gained .

What is a bit odd is that the waist circumference had reduced by 3.6 cm after 3 weeks? At the end of the study period, however, the reduction ended up being a 36% smaller – an albeit non-significant difference for which there is furthermore no good reasons to assume that it was related to dietary changes or exercise-non-adherence. After all, both body fat weight and percentage decreased (see Figure 2).

The workout that works… but needs tweaking in the long run

The authors ascribe the beneficial effects on body fat to a combination of increased lean mass and improved mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation. Two factors, of which we know that they add to the general metabolic benefits of losing body fat, in general, and belly fat, in particularly – even in already normal-weight subjects.

Resistance training bands are probably the best adjunct to the workout, but if you have something to attach a TRX system, too, another recently published study suggests: you can use that as well | read more.

What we must not forget, though, is that a simply body-weight workout will – in the long run – necessarily lose its efficacy, as its practitioners adapt to the initially unaccustomed loads. Luckily, there are options to trigger progress without simply adding volume to the workout and thus ruin the beauty of its (7-minutes) brevity:

  • the exercise selection may be changed and more intense body weight and/or resistance band (optionally dumbbell) exercises may be incorporated into the template
  • the exercise order could be modified in ways that facilitate higher heart rates even in more trained individuals by e.g. inserting a set of burpees after every X exercises
  • the number of exercises and/or the duration of bouts could be increased/decreased to (a) gear the workout more to VO2- or strength gains
  • the inter-bout rest periods which can be shortened to keep the heart rate and thus cardiovascular stimulus elevated as subjects adapt (this would also allow for increases the number of exercises or the duration of bouts without compromising the beauty of having to train for only 7 minutes)
To maximize fat loss and/or muscle gains or battle insulin resistance or high triglycerides additional dietary changes will be absolutely essential, though – with some keywords being: energy deficit (fat loss), sufficient protein (1.5-2g/kg for gains), carbohydrate control (not necessarily low carb | improve insulin sensitivity and triglycerides).
Study shows: Within certain limits, resistance training bands can fully replace the gym equipment | more.

Bottom line: Considering the fact that time and access to facility constraints are the #1 obstacles to regular exercise even for people who are generally willing to work out, the high-intensity circuit training that was previously described by Klika et al (2013) and adopted in normal-weight, healthy individuals by Mattar et al. (2017), recently, seems ideal.

For an investment of only 7 minutes per day, this workout delivers numerous health benefits and that in less time than more traditionally recommended programs which usually require extra-equipment or endless hours of ‘cardio’.

In the long run, however, the program will need tweaking and a transition to (at least partly) weighted exercises. The ease, duration, and mobility of the workout do yet not have to be affected by these changes – with resistance training bands, of which I’ve only recently pointed out that they can almost fully replace a gym if used properly | Comment!

References:

  • Klika, B., & Jordan, C. (2013). High-intensity circuit training using body weight: Maximum results with minimal investment. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal, 17(3), 8-13.
  • Knight, E., Stuckey, M. I., Prapavessis, H., & Petrella, R. J. (2015). Public health guidelines for physical activity: is there an app for that? A review of android and apple app stores. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(2).
  • Mattar, L. E., Farran, N. H., & Bakhour, D. A. (2017). Effect of 7-minute workout on weight and body composition. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.

Daily 7-Minute Workouts Shed 2kg Body Fat and ~3 cm Off Already Slim Waists in 6-Wk Study W/Out Dietary Changes! syndicated from http://suppversity.blogspot.com

40+% Increase in Protein Synthesis W/ Whole Egg vs. Egg Whites (Both 18g Protein) PWO | Plus: Eggs and ‘ur Risk of Diabetes, Obesity, CVD, Cancer (Choline → TMAO?)

Still throwing away the yolks? Bad idea… even your gains would benefit from the very part of the egg where most of the nutritional value is hidden.

You will have read it in the Facebook News already (if you didn’t subscribe, yet, I can only recommend you head over to facebook.com/suppversity right away): whole eggs build more muscle than egg whites. If that’s true, generations of bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts have literally thrown away their gains by separating and trashing the yolks of their beloved (? how one can love egg-whites, only is beyond me, anyway ?) egg-whites.

In view of the fact that eggs have always been one of SuppVersity Readers’ Favorites I thought: why shall I stick to only one egg study? Let’s check out what else the egg-o-logy has to offer, these days…

Whole eggs are also an excellent source of dietary protein

Yolk: Triglyceride & LDL ↓, HDL ↑

Eggs Boost Vit Uptake 3-4-fold

Egg-o-logy – All About Eggs

Egg is Healthier Than Oatmeal

Eggs Help Shed 11% Body Fat

3 eggs/d = Heart Doping
  • Whole eggs for whole gains… (Vliet 2017) — Despite identical amino acid levels and mTOR/co levels, the whole egg group in a recent study saw significantly larger increases in muscles protein synthesis than the iso-nitrous (=same 18g of protein) egg white only group.

    The authors, scientists from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the  University of Toronto had aimed to compare the whole-body and muscle protein metabolic responses after the consumption of whole eggs with egg whites during exercise recovery in young men. To this ends, Vliet et al. recruited 10 resistance-trained men [aged 21 ± 1 y; 88 ± 3 kg; body fat: 16% ± 1% (means ± SEMs)] for a cross-over trial (meaning that everyone received both treatments, so that you can subsequently compare individual responses, too).

    Every subject received a primed continuous L-[ring-2H5]phenylalanine and L-[1-13C]leucine infusions (those are used to measure the amino acid kinetics) before a short leg workout consisting of 4 sets of 10 repetitions at 80% of 10-RM for both the leg press and leg extension exercises. After exercise, participants consumed intrinsically L-[5,5,5-2H3]leucine-labeled whole eggs (18 g protein, 17 g fat) or egg whites (18 g protein, 0 g fat). The scientists repeated blood and muscle biopsy samples revealed:

    • Plasma appearance rates of protein-derived leucine were more rapid after the consumption of egg whites than after whole eggs (P = 0.01).
    • Total plasma availability of leucine over the 300-min postprandial period was similar (P = 0.75) between the ingestion of whole eggs (68% ± 1%) and egg whites (66% ± 2%), with no difference in whole-body net leucine balance (P = 0.27).
    • Both whole-egg and egg white conditions increased the phosphorylation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1, ribosomal protein S6 kinase 1, and eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E–binding protein 1 (the usual markers of protein synthesis of which you’ve learned previously at the SuppVersity that they are no reliable marker of protein synthesis in young men) during postexercise recovery (all P < 0.05).

    So far, so expected: What wasn’t expected, however, was that the  “whole-egg ingestion increased the postexercise myofibrillar protein synthetic response to a greater extent than did the ingestion of egg whites (P = 0.04)” (Vliet 2017).

Table 1: Mean and percentiles of egg consumption by sociodemographic group, NHANES 2001–2012 (n = 29,694 | Conrad 2017).

Are people eating eggs again? That was the question scientists from the USDA tried to answer earlier this year. In their paper in Nutrients, Zach Conrad et al. (2017) used data of 29,694 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2012 and found that (1) mean egg consumption increased overall from 23.0 (95% CI, 20.8–25.2) g/day in 2001–2002 to 25.5 (22.7–28.4) g/day in 2011–2012 (p = 0.012). No differences in the odds of egg consumption were observed by income level, or food security status. Other variables, however, mattered: women eat fewer eggs than men, so do non-hispanic whites compared to Mexican-Americans etc. (see Table 1).

In line with Vliet et al’s. observation that “popular practice may still dictate the discarding of the yolk when multiple eggs are consumed in a meal”, Conrad et al. suggest further research to examine factors that influence egg consumption and associated nutrient intake – in other words: they want to find out how they can get people to eat more of this nutritious food.

  • Figure 1: Myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in the fasted state and after resistance exercise and consumption of egg whites or whole eggs in young men (n = 10/condition). The inset shows the temporal responsiveness of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during the early (0–120 min) and late (120–300 min) period (Vliet 2017).

    More specifically, as you can see in Figure 1, the cumulative (0–300 min) myofibrillar protein fractional protein synthesis (FSR) increased above fasted values (0.07% ± 0.011%/h) to a greater extent after whole-egg ingestion (0.13% ± 0.017%/h; 2.1- ± 0.3-fold above fasted) than after egg white ingestion (0.086% ± 0.006%/h; 1.6- ± 0.3-fold above fasted) (time effect: P = 0.001; time 3 condition: P = 0.05).

    That’s a relative difference of 46% for the 5h period occuring despite a more rapid appearance of leucine in the blood, with egg whites (one that didn’t affect the 0-120min protein synthesis in favor of the whites, though | there’s already a 43% advantage for whole eggs after only 2h).

    Remember: Whether and to which extent these differences in fractional protein synthesis rates would materialize in increased gains over weeks and months is not clear.

    Whey + Casein – Superior Post-Workout Shake in Theory (Fast+Slow) +Practice (Results of a 10-WK Study) | more!

    What is clear, however, is that this is another instance where “faster” doesn’t equal “better” for protein synthesis. You will, after all, remember that it’s the combination of both, fast and slow proteins, that yields maximal muscle gains (Whey + Casein = Superior PWO Shake).

    If there are other underlying factors that could explain the difference, e.g. one of the multiple micronutrients which reside exclusively in the egg yolks isn’t clear (see the authors’ list of candidates mentioned towards the end of this part of today’s egg-ology article).

    What can be said with a significant degree of certainty, on the other hand, is what was not responsible: significant inter-treatment differences of the diet and an overall reduction in protein uptake as it has previously been observed when egg-whites were consumed in isolation (=the absence of other nutrients/foods) due to an insufficient production of stomach acid/digestive enzymes. How do we know that? Well, the former was assessed by food logs (also: we’re talking about the same subjects tested twice); and if the last-mentioned difference had existed, there would be differences between the total amount of dietary protein–derived leucine that became available in circulation throughout the 5-h postprandial period. This, however, was – within the usual margin of statistical error – identical for the egg white (68% ± 1%) and whole-egg (66% ± 2%) conditions.

Need another reason to recommend eggs to your clients? They tend to replace unhealthier foods! In type II diabetics, who are still falsely told to avoid eggs (see next study in this egg-o-logy update), the inclusion of eggs is associated with reduced consumption of refined grains nearing statistical significance (−0.7±3.4 vs 0.7±2.2; p=0.0530), a significant, health-promoting increase in total protein foods (0.3±0.7; p=0.0153) – with opposing effects (including surprising reductions in dairy consumption) in response to the exclusion of eggs from their diets (−1.3±2.9; p=0.0188). Accordingly, the authors conclude that their “study may serve as guidance to nutrition researchers and professionals who provide dietary guidance to people with type 2 diabetes on foods to displace when including eggs in their diets” (Njike 2017).
  • As previously hinted at, the proteins in the mTOR cascade didn’t show treatment differences, either, and suggest, as the scientists rightly point out that “this anabolic pathway was maximized from the previous performance of resistance exercise and food ingestion” (Vliet 2017). This makes it at least significantly less likely that the differences can be explained by the use of an insufficient amount of protein (you will remember that some studies suggest that you need more than 20g of high leucine protein – and eggs are not exactly high – to maximize protein synthesis).
    Figure 2: The plot of the whole-body leucine metabolism refutes the assumption that the increased energy intake w/ whole eggs reduced the amino acid catabolism and thus contributed to increased FSRs (Vliet 2017).

    With the EAA profiles of the two treatments being virtually identical, the absence of evidence from previous studies that anything beyond baseline insulin levels would be necessary to minimize amino-acid catabolism (Greenhaff 2008) as well as the confirmation of a lack of difference in the use of amino acids for oxidative “fuel” – despite a sign. difference in energy intake (256kcal vs. 73kcal), …

    …we are left without a confirmed explanation for the superiority of whole eggs, as of now.

    Vliet et al. are yet right to point out that everything points towards “‘extra’ nutritional food constituents” as the underlying reason for one or both of the inter-treatment differences: (a) the marginal differences in absorption kinetics – with a more rapid appearance of leucine in the egg white, only, group, and (b) the (subsequent?) increase in FSR in the whole vs. egg white, only, group. Potential candidates the scientists list are:  microRNAs (learn more), vitamins & minerals, and lipids [e.g., phosphatidic acid, palmitic acid, and DHA] – all of them may, theoretically, have modified pathways related to transcriptional or protein translational control.

  • New meta-analysis of the egg <> cardiovascular disease link in diabetes patients says: It’s not different from the general population, i.e. unproven (Richard 2017)

    With significantly different results from observational studies, a re-analysis of the relationship between egg consumption (and dietary cholesterol) and the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in individuals with type 2 diabetes was almost overdue.

    Table 2: Evaluation of the risk for bias in randomized controlled trials that assessed the impact of egg consumption on cardiovascular risk factors in subjects with type 2 diabetes (Richard 2017).

    Richard and colleagues have recently conducted this review. Based on 10 articles (6 original trials, all sponsored by the egg industry, but of generally high quality, see Table 2) the authors conclude that …

    …the majority of studies found that egg consumption did not affect major CVD risk factors in diabetic patients.

    In fact, the consumption of 6 to 12 eggs per week had no impact on plasma concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, insulin or C-reactive protein in all studies that reported these outcomes in comparison with control groups, at all.

Figure 3: Whole Egg High Fat Diet: Cumulative Body Weight Gain. The sign. differences occured in the absence of differences in food intake between the casein vs. whole egg powder groups (Hahn 2017).

A new model study even suggests that eating more whole eggs may be an effective dietary strategy to attenuate both, diet and gene-related diabesity. Accordingly, the study’s authors criticize the still prevalent controversy about the consumption of whole eggs by those with T2D. After all, their experiments on the relationship between the consumption of whole eggs and obesity in both a genetic-mediated and diet-induced (i.e., high fat feeding) T2D obese rat model show quite convincingly: (1) eggs reduce weight gain(40% decrease in diet-induced obesity, 20% reduction in genetic diabesity model) and (2) cut significant amounts of body fat (4-5%).

  • An increase in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol with egg consumption was observed in 4 of 6 studies. Results from randomized controlled trials suggest that consumption of 6 to 12 eggs per week, in the context of a diet that is consistent with guidelines on cardiovascular health promotion, has no adverse effect on major CVD risk factors in individuals at risk for developing diabetes or with type 2 diabetes.
    Figure 4: Only US studies show an increase in T2DM risk for each 50 g/d increase in eggs  when data is stratified by low risk of bias studies, high vs. low intake, gender, follow-up, geographic location, number of cases, dietary assessment method, and outcome assessment (Schwingshackl 2017),

    However, heterogeneities in study design, population included and interventions prevent firm conclusions from being drawn… and yes, skepticism may remain due to the involvement of the Egg Nutrition Center/American Egg Board, the Australian Egg Corporation, and the Egg Nutrition Center in all studies (but hey, someone has to pay for the studies if the government refuses to acknowledge that its over-generalized anti-cholesterol advice has misled people for decades). Against that background, we do at least have to raise the question why only US studies find strong positive associations between egg consumption and T2DM, while all Asian and European studies don’t (Schwingshackl 2017).

Figure 5: Plasma choline (a) and trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) (b) concentrations following a 2-week washout period (0 eggs/day), and after consuming 1, 2, and 3 eggs/day for 4 weeks each as part of an randomized cross-over trial, which refutes the claim that eggs will increase TMAO based on acute phase studies like Cho 2017. Values are presented as means ± SD for n = 36 young, healthy men and women. Bars with different superscripts differ at P < 0.05 as determined by repeated measures ANOVA with LSD post hoc analysis and adjustment for multiple comparisons (DiMarco 2017).

What’s left to say? Well, (a) whole eggs seem to be more anabolic than egg whites alone. They are (b) not a toxic and pro-diabetic heart killer. And (c) the last hitherto not directly addressed issue that their high choline intake could act not just as a heart-disease promoter, but also as pro-carcinogen, because it will increase trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) has just recently been disproven by a 14-week crossover study with thirty-eight subjects [19 men/19 women, 24.1 ± 2.2 years, body mass index (BMI) 24.3 ± 2.5 kg/m2] in which the subjects consumed 1, 2, and 3 eggs/day for 4 weeks, each.

In fact, even though that was a US study, the results were nothing but beneficial: BMI, waist circumference, systolic BP, plasma glucose, and plasma triacylglycerol did not change throughout the intervention. Diastolic BP decreased, HDL levels increased, LDL levels dropped and the LDL-c/HDL-c ratio improved significantly (P < 0.01), when the subjects ate 1-3 eggs/d. Similarly, the plasma choline increased dose-dependently with egg intake (P < 0.0001). The fasting plasma TMAO levels and thus any potential heart-disease or cancer risk was yet unchanged | Comment!

References:
  • Cho, C. E., Taesuwan, S., Malysheva, O. V., Bender, E., Tulchinsky, N. F., Yan, J., … & Caudill, M. A. (2017). Trimethylamine‐N‐oxide (TMAO) response to animal source foods varies among healthy young men and is influenced by their gut microbiota composition: A randomized controlled trial. Molecular nutrition & food research, 61(1).
  • DiMarco, D. M., Missimer, A., Murillo, A. G., Lemos, B. S., Malysheva, O. V., Caudill, M. A., … & Fernandez, M. L. (2017). Intake of up to 3 Eggs/Day Increases HDL Cholesterol and Plasma Choline While Plasma Trimethylamine-N-oxide is Unchanged in a Healthy Population. Lipids, 52(3), 255-263.
  • Greenhaff, P. L., Karagounis, L. G., Peirce, N., Simpson, E. J., Hazell, M., Layfield, R., … & Rennie, M. J. (2008). Disassociation between the effects of amino acids and insulin on signaling, ubiquitin ligases, and protein turnover in human muscle. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 295(3), E595-E604.
  • Hahn, K., Coonts, C., & Reed, C. (2017). Whole Egg Consumption Attenuates Weight Gain in Obese Type 2 Diabetic Rats.
  • Njike, V. Y., Annam, R., Costales, V. C., Yarandi, N., & Katz, D. L. (2017). Which foods are displaced in the diets of adults with type 2 diabetes with the inclusion of eggs in their diets? A randomized, controlled, crossover trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care, 5(1), e000411.
  • Richard, C., Cristall, L., Fleming, E., Lewis, E. D., Ricupero, M., Jacobs, R. L., & Field, C. J. (2017). Impact of Egg Consumption on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes and at Risk for Developing Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Nutritional Intervention Studies. Canadian journal of diabetes.
  • Schwingshackl, L., Hoffmann, G., Lampousi, A. M., Knüppel, S., Iqbal, K., Schwedhelm, C., … & Boeing, H. (2017). Food groups and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
  • Vliet, et al. (2017) “Consumption of whole eggs promotes greater stimulation of postexercise muscle protein synthesis than consumption of isonitrogenous amounts of egg whites in young men.” AJCN. First published ahead of print October 4, 2017 as doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.159855.

40+% Increase in Protein Synthesis W/ Whole Egg vs. Egg Whites (Both 18g Protein) PWO | Plus: Eggs and ‘ur Risk of Diabetes, Obesity, CVD, Cancer (Choline → TMAO?) syndicated from http://suppversity.blogspot.com

New Form of Chromium Boosts Protein-Induced Increase in Protein Synthesis Even W/ High Intakes | Plus: Novel Whey Isolate W/ Increased Potency (20:27) – #ISSN17 Special IV/IV

The “Crispy Cauliflower Pizza (low-carb, high protein, high fiber, gluten-free)” from Honey What’s Cooking will 26g of protein to what can become >4g protein/kg per day for 2 years without triggering measurable ill health effects on kidney, liver, or bone (Ellerbroeck 2017).

Even with this final installment of the #ISSN’17 series, I haven’t addressed all the interesting presentations the results of which have been abstracted in the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo. If you’re into going right to the source, I’d thus suggest you (re-)visit the long list of presentations at the JISSN website.

With Anya Ellerbroek, Corey Peacock, Tobin Silver, and Jose Antonio’s presentation of the results of their 2-year follow-up to the previously discussed high protein study/-ies (more), I have in fact saved one of the most relevant presentations for this last installment of the series. To complement it, I’ve selected 3×1+2×1 studies dealing with ways to get the most of (lower) protein intakes: the use of a novel chromium supplement and a novel way to produce an allegedly ‘enhanced’ whey protein isolate (ioProtein™).

High-protein diets are much safer than some ‘experts’ say, but there are things to consider…

Practical Protein Oxidation 101

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

More Protein ≠ More Satiety

Satiety: Casein > Whey? Wrong!

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

High Protein not a Health Threat

The question that has to be answered now is obvious: Are amylopectin-chromium and the novel whey protein isolate also worth the extra bucks they’re certainly going to cost you compared to classic whey protein? This SuppVersity article will hopefully help you make up your mind.

  • Rodent data supports hypothesis that amylopectin/chromium complex promotes the protein-induced increase in skeletal muscle protein synthesis (Komorowski 2017a).

    For quite some time chromium was all the rage within the fitness community. In view of the lack of results supplement consumers saw and with the insulin scare of the early 2000s the pro-insulinogenic trace-mineral disappeared more or less from the list of TOP-selling fitness supplements, though. I guess this may change in the future. After all, the rodent study Komorowski et al (2017a) presented at the latest #ISSN is a follow-up on a previous human study by Ziegenfuss et al. (2017) with similar results, which has the potential to repopularize chromium or, rather, the patented amylopectin/chromium complex (ACr; Velositol®)

    Table 1: Overview of the study groups in Komorowski et al’s amylopectin/chromium complex study.

    In said study, young (8-week old) male Wistar rats (250-300 g) were randomized into nine groups (n=8 in each group | see Table 1). All groups had to run on a treadmill at the same speed of 26 m/min for 2 hours and were then fed protein or water according to their assigned group.

Warning – the studies discussed in this series are not yet peer-reviewed and published! Since the write-up is based on abstracts, only. I cannot discuss and scrutinize the results with the same degree of detail and healthy skepticism you’re used to from other SuppVersity articles.
  • Approximately one hour later, rats were injected with a bolus dose (250 mg/kg body weight, 25 g/L) of labeled phenylalanine, and ten minutes later, muscle tissue samples were taken to measure the fractional rate of protein synthesis (FSR).
    Figure 1: Relative change in fractional protein synthesis rate (% Change over Exercise | Komorowski 2017a).

    The results show two things (1) protein + exercise per se increases MPS compared to the exercise alone (p<0.05), and (2) all WP plus ACr groups (VI, VII, VIII and IX) increased MPS over their corresponding WP only groups (Fig. 1; p<0.05) – in short: regardless of how much protein the rodents were fed, the ACr supplement always added to the effect.

    What the study does not tell us – at least not the abstract – is how exactly these improvements came about, but it backs recent data from a human study

    In view of the fact that the study didn’t assess potential underlying mechanisms, it is unlikely that the full text will allow us to make conclusive statements about the underlying mechanism. Otherwise, I would have waited for the full-text to be written, to pass peer-review and to be published in what I suspect is going to be the Journal of the ISSN. The same journal, in which Ziegenfuss et al. argued in their previously referenced study that the observed benefits could be …

    • Figure 2: Mean ± SD post-treatment fractional synthesis rates using plasma precursor enrichment values for WPACr and WP 4 h after the administration of 6g of protein with and without ACr. The within-trial change (4 h post-treatment FSR vs. baseline FSR data) for FSR was p = 0.0004 for WPACr vs. p = 0.23 for WP. In addition, independent t-test comparing post-treatment FSR between trials was p = 0.045. (Ziegenfuss 2017).

      a result of chromium’s ability to favorably alter insulin metabolism – more specifically, its ability to increase the internalization of insulin and markedly increase leucine uptake Evans and Bowman observed in cultured rat skeletal muscle cells (Evans 1992)

    • a result of the previously alluded to significant increase in insulin production as it has been previously observed in by Cefalu et al. (2002) and potential downstream effects via p-AKT/m-TOR and/or a reduction in amino acid catabolism (incl. serum AA, which would then be available for FSR – would be interested to see effects on net protein synthesis, too)

    Further studies will be necessary to confirm these or identify other potential mechanisms, but as of now new study by Komorowski et al. adds practically relevant evidence (to the results presented by Ziegenfuss et al.) that adding the human equivalent of 2 g of the amylopectin-chromium complex (WPACr | that’s ~150mcg chromium-III by the way) may have beneficial effects on protein synthesis even if the baseline protein intake is high (Ziegenfuss administered ‘only’ 6g of whey protein, while the study at hand used human equivalents of up to 40g in their rodent study).

“2 grams, isn’t that madness?” — Notes on dosing and safety: Concerns about potential toxicities of chromium picolinate lack substantial scientific evidence. Data from studies using >200µcg chromium from ~1.7mg of CrPic per day in the long-run is yet missing (Suksomboon 2014). Since no real long-term safety data exists for amylopectin-chromium, safety is thus, at least as of now, not a reason to switch from ~1.7mg of CrPic to 3.2mg of ACr (note: you need more ACr to get to the often-used ~200mcg elemental chromium, because amylopectin is a significantly heavier molecule than the classic chelator picolinate).
  • With two other studies that were presented at #ISSN17 reporting similar effects with BCAA (Komorowski 2017b) and pea protein (Komorowski 2017c) instead of whey, respectively, it seems as if the effects are not protein-dependent (although PEA and whey are not different enough in terms of their anabolic to say that for sure | learn more). A comparison that’s not yet there, but warranted, are direct head-to-head comparisons of amylopectin-bonded chromium to the classic picolinate-bound form of chromium.
  • Proprietary processed whey protein isolate (redux) as effective as regular whey at lower dosages – practical usefulness? At least questionable (Campbell 2017).

    While I don’t know why one would want to buy an expensive new whey protein to safe 7g of whey per serving, Campbell’s et al’s study investigating the effects of two different types of whey protein dietary supplements (standard whey protein isolate [Standard WPI] vs. a reduced volume of a proprietary processed whey protein isolate [Novel WPI] – ioProtein™) on body composition. Still made it into the ISSN17 special. Why? Well, it’s one of the rare long-term comparisons of novel supplements that don’t rely on potentially confusing markers of protein synthesis, but actually measured the gains of resistance-trained males in response to an 8-week resistance-training program (#PracticallyRelevantStudyDesign ;-).

    The participants in this double-blinded study, N=32 resistance-trained males (22.2±4.3 years; 177.3±7.8 cm; 77.6±12.6 kg), were matched according to fat-free mass and then randomly assigned to consume either 27g of regular whey protein isolate or the novel WPI plus 7 g maltodextrin to match the volume of the Standard WPI serving size. The protein had to be consumed “bro-style” immediately (do not shower, ingest protein right away… just kiddin’ 😉 after each resistance training session (4x/week), which consisted of two lower-body and two upper-body workouts/week for 8 weeks.

Why would anyone need yet another form of whey protein (isolate)? While “protein optimization” sounds nice, its practical use may not be immediately obvious. In all fairness, I should thus tell you that Plasma Nutrition’s ioProtein™, the protein from the (sponsored) Campbell study, wasn’t designed to maximize the muscle gains of the average fitness enthusiast. Rather than that, corresponding products target dieters and the elderly or other populations who are at risk of protein malnutrition – with “potential applications [in the production of] reduced calorie protein” and functional foods which “help that part of the population – like seniors – who have difficulty taking in large amounts of food” (Chris Flynn-Rozanski on the product website).
  • At baseline and following 8-weeks of training, participants were assessed for body composition (FFM, dry lean mass [DLM], fat mass [FM], and body fat percentage [BF%]). Data were analyzed via a 2-factor [2×2] between-subjects repeated measures ANOVA and pre to post changes within each group by a paired-samples t-test.
    Figure 3: Abs. (kg) changes in fat free and dry lean mass over the course of the 8-week study (Campbell 2017).

    I guess it’s not surprising that “no differences existed between the two groups for body composition measures at baseline” – with a significant effect for time for FFM (p<0.001) and DLM (p=0.05), but no group x time interactions, we cannot, in the absence of a no-protein group, even tell if the protein had any effect at all.

    No significant difference, but I’d still like to point out that the absolute gains were higher (p > 0.05, though) w/ 27g of classic whey isolate (+1.2kg vs. +0.7kg).

    The scientists paired samples t-test revealed a similar superiority of the standard WPI supplement with a significant increase in FFM over time in the Standard WPI group (p=0.001) and only a trend for significance in the Novel WPI group (p=0.082), respectively.

    To use this statistically non-significant differences to say that one was superior to the other isn’t scientifically warranted, though. Plus: The 2nd ISSN17 presentation, which dealt with the strength increases the subjects experienced (Best 2017), also supports the producers’ claims that their patented production technique yields whey protein isolates which are – at ~25% lower doses – as potent as regular whey isolate. 

More Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Protein Synthesis at ~30g of Whey and/or 23g of Whey + 5g of Leucine in Young (and Old?) | Plus: mTOR is no Reliable Marker of MPS | more

Bottom line: Today’s installment featured two, or rather five studies (three of them about ACr) which dealt with agents/processing methods that would improve the lean mass increase per gram of protein you consume.

Proven benefits of supplemental amylopectin-chromium or a volume reduced whey protein isolate compared to simply increasing the dosage of regular whey (or other forms of protein/AA mixes) have yet not been observed. Accordingly, we’ve got to ask the almost heretic question:

Who needs a protein amplifying chromium product and/or an “innovative” whey protein isolate?

Now, it’s not as if a true “need” has ever been the main driver of supplement sales, but let’s be honest: with the most important paper presented at #ISSN17 showing that there are no detrimental effects of ‘too much protein’ (>2.2g/kg per day on avg.; max. 4.0g/kg/d over two years | Ellerbroeck 2017) in your diet on kidney, liver, or bone health, the only really reasonable motivation to spend money on protein enhancers or enhanced proteins that don’t add to the effect of simply consuming more regular protein seems to be obsolete… and to assume that any of the products would help you break through the “muscle full/ceiling” effect observed in previous studies, which investigated the effects of ever-increasing loads of protein on protein synthesis, are slim for chromium and even slimmer (IMHO) for the “innovative” whey protein isolate | Comment!

References:

  • Best et al. (2017). “The effects of whey protein isolate vs. a reduced volume of a proprietary processed whey protein isolate supplementation in conjunction with resistance training on maximal strength in resistance trained males.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Campbell, et al. (2017). “The effects of whey protein isolate vs. a reduced volume of a proprietary processed whey protein isolate supplementation in conjunction with resistance training on body composition in resistance trained males.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Cefalu, W. T., Wang, Z. Q., Zhang, X. H., Baldor, L. C., & Russell, J. C. (2002). Oral chromium picolinate improves carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and enhances skeletal muscle Glut-4 translocation in obese, hyperinsulinemic (JCR-LA corpulent) rats. The Journal of nutrition, 132(6), 1107-1114.
  • Ellerbroeck, et al. (2017) “Two years on a high-protein diet: much ado about nothing.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Evans, G. W., & Bowman, T. D. (1992). Chromium picolinate increases membrane fluidity and rate of insulin internalization. Journal of inorganic biochemistry, 46(4), 243-250.
  • Komorowski, et al. (2017a) “The effect of the addition of an amylopectin/chromium complex to increasing doses of whey protein on muscle protein synthesis in rats.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Komorowski, et al. (2017b) “The effect of the addition of an amylopectin/chromium complex to branched-chain amino acids on muscle protein synthesis in rats.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Komorowski, et al. (2017c) “Muscle protein synthesis of pea protein is significantly enhanced with the addition of an amylopectin/chromium complex.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) Conference and Expo 2017.
  • Suksomboon, N., Poolsup, N., & Yuwanakorn, A. (2014). Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the efficacy and safety of chromium supplementation in diabetes. Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 39(3), 292-306.
  • Ziegenfuss, T. N., Lopez, H. L., Kedia, A., Habowski, S. M., Sandrock, J. E., Raub, B., … & Ferrando, A. A. (2017). Effects of an amylopectin and chromium complex on the anabolic response to a suboptimal dose of whey protein. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 14(1), 6.

New Form of Chromium Boosts Protein-Induced Increase in Protein Synthesis Even W/ High Intakes | Plus: Novel Whey Isolate W/ Increased Potency (20:27) – #ISSN17 Special IV/IV syndicated from http://suppversity.blogspot.com