SuppVersity - Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone

It would be nice to see if this form of "long-term"-refeeds or diet-breaks works for leaner men as well.  You will remember that I've previously discussed the advantages of cycling your energy intake in both, classic intermittent fasting or alternative-day fasting contexts, as well as refeeds . Just like the protocol that was used in a recent study from the University of Tasmania  (Byrne 2017), all these diets belong to a category of diets that is characterized by what scientists call "intermittent energy restrictions". The latest RCT by Byrne et al. (2017), which has just been published ahead of print , took a slightly novel approach to energy cycling, though. Compared to IF and ADF, regimen, the energy intake in form of very long intervals (weeks vs. days or hours): more specifically, 8x2 weeks of dieting interspersed by 2 weeks on a maintenance diet. Despite these differences, the reasoning behind the study design was pretty much the same bodybuilde...

While "calories count" when it comes to losing body fat, the notion that you would always burn the same amount of energy with a given workout - irrespective of your energy intake - is completely bogus and only one of the reasons why meticulous calorie counting won't work.  Let's address it right away: Yes, the paper Tariq I. Almundarij et al. published in the peer-reviewed journal "Physiological Reports" (Almundarij 2017) deals with a rodent experiment, but  with the goal of the study being to identify the fundamental mechanisms behind, not the extent of metabolic adaptation to calorically reduced energy intakes, this does not disqualify its results as irrelevant for humans - on the contrary (and trust me, I'd prefer a human or at least a pig study, too). With that being said, let's take a look at what the scientists did to "investigate the role of MC4R in the modulation of muscle work efficiency, and test the hypothesis that energy restri...

There are two types of alleged fat burners: Type I are the stimulants with proven beneficial effects on you resting metabolic rate and beneficial "side effects" on energy levels and (reduced) appetite. Type II are non-stimulant "fat burners". Two of those have been tested in a recent study ... learn what the study says. Amanda J. Salacinski, Steven M. Howell, Danielle L. Hill, & Steven M. Mauk, researchers from the Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education  at the Nothern Illinois University didn't miss that weight loss supplements are becoming increasingly popular - even in people with with chronic diseases (usually as a consequence of obesity). Even in healthy individuals, the list of side effects that have been reported for the various fat burners is long (Salacinski et al. highlight G.I. distress, and liver inflammation, which may accompany weight loss resulting from chronic supplementa-tion, in particular)... and while it is long, very lon...

From a health perspective it may be good that green tea does not contain all-too much caffeine. From a fat loss perspective, it clearly lacks caffeine. When it comes to dietary supplements, people like to pay tons of money for unproven ingredients with funky names and dubious or non-existent safety profiles; agents that have been scientifically proven to work, are safe and cheap, on the other hand, are non-sellers or at least considered to be non-effective. Obviously, I cannot really explain why that is the case (I suspect it is because people effect drug-like effects without drug-like side-effects from supps and are thus always on the lookout for the "next big"... hoax), I can tell you, though, that a recent study that is going to be published in one of the upcoming issues of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Jo. 2015) shows that caffeine and green tea, two supplements that belong to the previously described category, are everything but useless. You...