Fat-Blocker Effect of Tea Catechins Confirmed (?) in Man - Sign. Abdominal Fat Loss (5-8%) in 12 Weeks W/Out Diet

Tea catechins (which can also be found in black and jasmin tea | see Figure 3) can help you keep particularly unhealthy abdominal fat (Després. 2012) at bay.

It is one thing to have in-vitro and rodent data that green tea can inhibit the digestion of dietary fat (reported previously in the SuppVersity Facebook News); it is another thing, however, to have a human study like the one Makoto Kobayashi and colleagues are about to publish in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Food & Function that shows that the "[i]ngestion of a green tea beverage enriched with catechins with a galloyl moiety (THEA-FLAN 90S) during a high-fat meal reduces body fat in moderately obese adults" (Kobayashi. 2015).

Ok, the abdominal fat loss does not, as the previous quote from the conclusion appears to suggest, occur instantly right after you've consumed your first tea w/ a single meal.

You can learn more about green tea at the SuppVersity

GT Boosts Res- ting & Ex. Indu- ced Energy Exp.

Water Temp. Influences Effects of Tea

Green Tea Can Reduce Your Testosterone

1L+ of Green Tea per Day Mess Up Your Thyroid

Aluminum, Lead & Arsenic & MORE in Your Tea

Will Drinking Tea Solve Your Sugar Problem?

Rather than that, 124 subjects (two of the initially 126 subjects 2 dropped out for personal reasons unrelated to the trial), 53 men, 71 women, who consumed similar, albeit non-standardized diets (see Figure 1 | note: physical activity was also identical) and began the study with body fat levels of ca. 31-35% had to consume the previously mentioned tea beverage that contained tea catechins (250 mL with 215.3 mg green tea catechins containing 211.0 mg green tea catechins with a galloyl moiety) twice or three times daily during mealtimes for 12 weeks, before the significant reduction in body fat became visible.

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition (in g an % of energy) of the non-energy reduced diets the subjects consumed; the values in the left pie chart represent a group average of all three intervention groups. Since the data is based on food records with photographs, it is probably more reliable than in your average diet study (Kobayashi. 2015).

Now, in view of the fact that this is not the first study to demonstrate weight loss effects in overweight subjects consuming green tea or, as in most other studies, green tea extracts, the word "during" and thus the fact that the green tea beverage was consumed with at least two of the three meals per day should be highlighted as a specific feature of the study at hand that is highly relevant to its interpretation.

Figure 2: Detailed analysis of the rel. change in fat area in the abdominal depot of the subjects (Kobayashi. 2015)

It is after all the requirement that the green tea beverage had to be consumed with a (preferable high fat) meal that allows the authors to conclude that the significant fat loss Kobayashi et al. measured by the means of computer tomography predominantly in the abdominal area are the result of an inhibition or slowing of the intestinal fat absorption and thus warrant the conclusion that "the ingestion of green tea beverages enriched with CGM together with high-fat meals may be an effective strategy for reducing body fat in moderately obese adults" (Kobayashi. 2015) - an observation of which I would like to add that the underlying mechanism is not 100% certain.

What about weight and, even more importantly, muscle loss? No, losing lean mass was not an issue in, because weight loss (-0.6 and -0.8% in the low and high dose group, respectively | measured by bio-electrical impedance vs. computer tomography as it was the case for the abdominal fat area) was actually not an issue, either. If you want to measure your success on the scale, green tea is thus not going to be the "diet tool of choice" (unless you use it alongside an energy-reduced diet)... however, if you take into account that the placebo group actually did what the average Westerner does, these days, i.e. gain weight and body fat over the 12-week study period, you may argue that you can still see the results on the scale which could finally stand still after years of displaying subtle, but eventually relevant increases in body weight.

The authors base their conclusion that it is "unlikely that absorbed green tea CGM leads to increased energy expenditure, followed by reduced abdominal body fat area" (Kobayashi. 2015) on two reasonable, but experimentally (in this study) not confirmed assumptions which are that little to no catechins actually made it into the bloodstream, because ...

1. the low caffeine content of the beverage limits the bioavailability of EGCG & co (caffeine enhances its bioavailability | Nakagawa. 2009) and
2. the ingestion of the beverage with a meal has been shown to significantly reduce the bioavailability of green tea catechins in comparison to the fasted state (Chow. 2005).

The assumption that its just a blockade of the digestion of fat becomes even more questionable, if you (re-)read my 2014 article on the carb blocking effects of tea... Well, eventually, though, you may argue that it does not matter if the reduction in abdominal fat was due to thermogenic effects, thermogenic and fat-blocking effects or, as the scientists believe, mediated exclusively an "inhibit[ion] or slowing [of the subjects'] intestinal fat absorption" (Kobayashi. 2015). And let's be honest, I guess you're right. What matters is that there were significant reduction ins abdominal fat (visceral, subcutaneous and total abdominal fat area). Reduction of which the data in Figure 2 tells you that ...

1. 

   Table 1: Catechin composition of the test beverages.

   the fat loss in the abdominal area was dose dependent - even if the differences between the low and high dose group did not reach statistical significance (for the exact catechin composition see Table 1 on the right) - and that 
2. roughly 50% of the benefits were lost within only 5 weeks when the subjects stopped consuming the green tea beverage, even though their diet didn't change at all (in fact, they consumed minimally less energy in the withdrawal phase from week 12-17).

Now, (b) is obviously good news for green tea lovers, but bad news for those who cannot imagine consuming green tea containing beverages "for the rest of their lives".

Green tea forever, it is then!? Well, as usual we have to consider what limits the generalizability of the results. Firstly, we are dealing with a group of people who have more than a few pounds of extra-weight on their hips. An abdominal fat loss of 8% in 12 weeks is thus not impossible, but not exactly likely to be seen in someone who starts at a body fat percentage of 15% or less (which is half what the subjects in the study at hand began with).

Figure 3: Catechin content (mg/10ml) of black, green and jasmine tea prepared from commercial tea w/ different infusion times (Bronner. 1998).

The second thing we have to keep in mind is the beverage itself. As you've previously read, it has been enhanced with catechins with a galloyl moiety (CGMs | EGCG, ECG, GCG, CG). Does this mean that you cannot achieve similar results if you simply drink green tea? Luckily, data from Bronner, et al. (1998) suggests otherwise. As you can see in Figure 3, it would take only 100 ml of commercially available freshly brewed (infusion time 3 min) green tea and even less black tea to achieve similar concentrations of EGCG and the other catechins with a galloyl moiety in your tea. Accordingly, the second obstacle to the gene- relizability of the study is actually irrelevant.

Third- and lastly, there's yet still the fast reversal of the effects which suggests that it is necessary to become a habitual tea drinker to see long-term / lasting benefits of green tea (or as the data in Figure 3 suggests even catechin containing tea in general) on your body weight and, more importantly, body fat you're carrying around | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bronner, W. E., and G. R. Beecher. "Method for determining the content of catechins in tea infusions by high-performance liquid chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 805.1 (1998): 137-142.
• Chow, HH Sherry, et al. "Effects of dosing condition on the oral bioavailability of green tea catechins after single-dose administration of Polyphenon E in healthy individuals." Clinical Cancer Research 11.12 (2005): 4627-4633.
• Després, Jean-Pierre. "Body fat distribution and risk of cardiovascular disease an update." Circulation 126.10 (2012): 1301-1313.
• Kobayashi, Makoto, et al. "Green tea beverages enriched with catechins with a galloyl moiety reduce body fat in moderately obese adults: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial." Food & Function (2016).
• Nakagawa, Kiyotaka, et al. "Effects of co-administration of tea epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and caffeine on absorption and metabolism of EGCG in humans." Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry 73.9 (2009): 2014-2017.

Abdominal Fat Annihilation With Clay-Wraps, Microcurrents & Aerobic Exercise? There is Something in This List That Works, But It's Probably Not the Clay ;-)

This, probably won't cut it (the fat), because the electrodes and the wraps are missing.

I suppose that the headline of today's SuppVersity article will probably split the SuppVersity Readership into two camps. Those who say: "Pah, I am not a pussy: Clay-Wraps are not an option. I'd rather do a couple of additional HIIT sessions than getting one of those!" And the other camp saying: "Wtf, finally I have a reason to go to the spa regularly!"

In the end, it does not matter on which side of this divide you are, the results a group of scientists from the Oporto Polytechnic Institut in Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal present in their most recent paper in Clay Sciences (no, this is not a joke, there really is a peer-reviewed journal on "clay science"), will probably surprise all of you.

"Clay wraps? Really?"

Assuming you would read the full-text of the study, you would, just like me, initially be enlightened that clay has been used for centuries not just as a cosmetic to make your skin look younger and healthier, but also as a means to reduce abdominal fat (Melo. 2013). Usually, these clays are composed of "green clay" (which has natural calcium and aluminum as components), green tea and magnesium sulfate. The clay is impregnated in a bandage that compresses the tissue and enhances fluid drainage from the abdominal region through the superficial lymphatic system (Standring. 2008).

• 

  Green tea reduces thyroid hormoness. Reason for concern? (learn more)

  Green tea: I am quite certain that all of you are familiar with the fat liberating effects green tea has on adipose tissue, as well as its ability to induce apoptosis in mature fat cells, to inhibit adipogenesis (storage of fat) and differentiation of preadipocytes (formation of new fat cells). Accoding to Belo (2009) and Heinrich (2004) these effects are retained within the adipose tissue, when its applied topically and only very little of the agent will actually make it into circulation.

• Magnesium sulfate: Being an essential mineral to the activity of hormone-sensitive lipase, magnesium can facilitate triglyceride breakdown. It's topical application may be particularly useful, in people with circulatory problems (as in cellulite; learn more). The way the author's present it as an "active fat burner" (in between the lines, only) is yet unwarranted.

• Calcium: Contrary to magnesium, calcium actually plays a more active role in the promotion of body fat loss. An increase in extracellular calcium concentration leads to an augmented enzymatic activity and promotes a reduction of calcitriol (active vitamin D) that will in turn trigger lipolysis (Somaet. 2003; Zemel. 2005). Whether this works via topical application has AFAIK not been well-established.

Another not fully understood factor that could make clay and the minerals in it a valuable tool for minimalist local body reshaping is their ionic nature. The latter can have direct effects on the microcurrents (electrolipophoresis; the movement of molecules due to electric currents) and may thus promote triglyceride degradation by increasing bloodflow and metabolism and by provoking changes in cell membrane polarity.

Ultrasound, caliper and body impedance

The subjects the scientists selected for this research were 20 young women (faculty students), with a body mass index that would rank them as either normal (18.5–24) or pre-obese (25–29). To make sure they would not be fooled by mere changes in the fluid levels of the tissues, the scientists used a combination of ultrasound, body fat caliper and body impedance measures, to access the effects of the "clay-wrap intervention" on the body composition of the ladies.

For the women in the active arm of the study, the protocol, which they went trough two times a week over a course of five weeks (10 interventions altogether) looked like this:

1. 

   In case it's not the amount of fat, but the orange peel look you want to get rid off, check out the SuppVersity Cellulite Special and listen to the show.

   Vigorous 5 min massage with an alcoholic extract of green tea (96% ethanol) macerated for 5 days, about which the scientists say: "[A] combination of ethyl alcohol with green tea provides a good extraction of the tea components . In addition, ethanol promotes the mechanical removal of contaminants and dissolves lipids in the lipid membrane, increasing the permeability of the skin" (Melo. 2003)
2. Application of a solution of 33.79 g of green clay combined with 18.56 g of magnesium sulfate (proportion in volume of 6 measures of green clay for 4 measures of sulfate) dissolved in 16.67 ml of distilled water to the abdomen. 
3. Application of a low elasticity bandage soaked in an infusion of 3.12 g of green tea, 6.94 g of magnesium sulfate (1 measure, in volume) and 0.5 l of water was applied with increased pressure from the center to the periphery. 
4. Application of microcurrents to the abdominal region with electrodes in a parallel position, and at an intensity below the sensitivity threshold (max. of 1 mA, frequencies of 25 Hz and 10 Hz) for 15 minutes. The polarity changed every second.

The protocol also included 30 min of aerobic moderate-intensity exercise (50%) on a cycloergometer
which had to be performed with the clay body wrap on the abs.

Figure 1: Before vs. after local (ultrasound) and total (body fat caliper in %) in the active arm of the study (Melo. 2003)

If we look at the main study outcomes, it's hard to argue that the intervention was kind of successful. "Kind of", in this case, implies that the effects were not earth-shattering and nothing you couldn't achieve by diet + exercise alone. More importantly, though, the results of the control group were within statistical margins the same. So what does that tell you about the usefulness of clay wraps?

---

If you are in his position, clay is certainly the last thing you want to rely on, to reduce your weight to a healthy level. Stick to what works dieting and the glucose repartitioning effects of exercise about which you've read in an article from Friday, July 5 (read it)

Bottom line: So what can we learn from a study like this? Well, personally, I would say: "Just because it's science, this does not mean it does make sense!" And I guess you will concede that going through the ardeous procedure is not exactly worth the statistically non-significant additional 1 cm reduction in waist circumference in the intervention group.

Not convinced,yet, well if you put any faith in the data from body-fat calipers and body impedance devices which tell us that the total trunk fat loss was (non significantly) larger in the control group (-2.1% vs. -1.6) and the total body fat loss measured using triceps, suprailiac, thigh and abdominal skinfolds, were -1.9% and -1.8% for the women in the control and intervention group, respectively, I guess that should suffice to shelve the idea of going to the spa to actively burn fat. That does not mean, however that the relaxing effect it can have may eventually promote body fat loss, but this would be the topic for another study ;-)

References:

• Belo SE, Gaspar LR, Maia Campos PM, Marty JP. Skin penetration of epigallocatechin-3-gallate and quercetin from green tea and Ginkgo biloba extracts vehiculated in cosmetic formulations. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2009;22(6):299-304.
• Heinrich M, Barnes J, Gibbons S, Williamson EM.Fundamentals of Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy. Churchill Livingstone—Elsevier Limited. 2004.
• Melo et al. Clay body wrap with microcurrent: Effects in central adiposity. Applied Clay Science. 2013; 80-81:140–146.
• Soma MR, Gotto AM Jr, Ghiselli G. Rapid modulation of rat adipocyte lipoprotein lipase: effect of calcium, A23187 ionophore, and thrombin. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1989 Jun 28;1003(3):307-14.
• Standring S. Anterior abdominal wall (chapter 61). Standring, S, Gray's Anatomy—The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. Elsevier, 40th Churchill Livingstone. 2008; p1059.
• Zemel MB, Richards J, Milstead A, Campbell P. Effects of calcium and dairy on body composition and weight loss in African-American adults. Obes Res. 2005 Jul;13(7):1218-25.

Switch From Chicken to Lamb to Rid Yourself of Belly Fat, Reduce Your Triglyceride and Basal Insulin Levels

If you consider this, i.e. you suprailaic body fat (here measured by a caliper, just as it was done in the study at hand), ditching the chicken for some lamb, may be one of the myriad factors that could help you "solve" the problem.

Chicken, rice and broccoli. That is still the dietary paradigm, most people have on their minds, when average Joes and Janes are talking (often with some disdain) about what "healthy eating must look like".

Now, a recent study from GENUD, the "Growth, Exercise, Nutrition and Development" Research Group at the Universidad de Zaragoza in Spain (Graffe. 2013) suggests that at least item #1 on that list, namely chicken, would have been better replaced with a protein source of which I suspect even most of you won't be consuming on a regular base: Lamb!

That a proper sleep hygiene is of utmost important for your health and body composition is something you, as a SuppVersity veteran will be highly familiar with (if you are a newbie read yourself smart, here).

"Switch out the light and dish up the lamb, bro!"

That the second part of the jovial imperative in the above headline could be another factor to take into consideration, on the other hand, is true news (even for me) and should - with only one study backing it up - be considered more of an empirically grounded hypothesis than a "100% certain scientific result".

Table 1: Cooking methods for both lamb and chicken (Graffe. 2013)

Nevertheless, the observations, María Isabel Mesana Graffe and her colleagues made, when they put a group of healthy 16-26-year old "men" and "women" (I know, when I was sixteen, I thought I was a man, too - little did I know ;-) from Teruel and Zaragoza on an 8-week dietary regimen containing either...

• 150 grams of chicken, three times per week, or
• 150 grams of boneless lamb, three times per week,

... are quite intriguing. The participants received their otherwise (roughly) identical diets in in their local university accomodation halls:

"To ensure harmonisation, product-rich diets were served during lunch time and with each chef of the designated university accommodation halls were given instructions on the cooking methods." (Graffe. 2013; cooking methods, see table on the right)

The whole study design was in fact pretty straight forward and resembles an ideal world, where the citizens obey to dietary recommendations like "eat at least three meals with 150g of lamb per week" as if their lives depended on it (is it ironic or just sad that it actually does depend on the pathetic advice people are given?).

After an initial visit at which the medical history of all participants was assessed, a first blood draw, as well as anthropometric, blood pressure and heart rate measures were undertaken. After an 8-week period, all subjects came in for a second visit and the second testing session and crossed over to the other other group, i.e. subjects who had been consuming chicken for the first 8-weeks were then assigned to eat lamb and vice versa.

2x 8 weeks + an intermediate 5-week washout later...

Thus, after 8 weeks on diet A, a 5-week washout and another 8-weeks on diet B, all subjects had been consuming one or the other diet for 8 weeks, when they eventually arrived for the third and last assessment of their cardiovascular risk markers, body composition, blood pressure and heart rate.

Figure 1: Changes in skinfold thickness (before vs. after) and corresponding arm, hip and waist circumferences in the participants after 8 weeks on the "chicken" vs. "lamb diets" (Graffe. 2013)

As I know that "looking good naked" is much sexier (in the literal, as well as the figurative sense), than being healthy, we'll take a look at the anthropometric data, first (see figure 1). It probably doesn't take much explaining on my side. The general trends speak for themselves and I guess, you won't complain that it is in the change of the amount of fat that's covering the abs, where the scientists observed the only significant inter-group differences - do you?

Figure 2: Changes in blood lipids cardiovascular parameters, glucose and insulin levels during the 8-week chicken / lamb diet phases; only non-pastel bars are statistically significant  (Graffe. 2013)

With the fat mass differences being most significant in the abdominal area, it is also no surprise that the major changes among the cardiovascular risk parameters were (a) reduced triglyceride levels and (b) improved insulin levels - exactly those parameters that are usually most closely related to abdominal obesity and "all things metabolic syndrome".

Not chicken or lamb, "chicken or egg" - that's the question!

These observation do obviously rise the usual SuppVersity question: "What's the mechanism, here?" What is certain is that the beneficial effects on abdominal fat, trigs and insulin are not due to the clenbuterol residues in chicken (up to 224ng/g; cf.Malucelli. 1994) cyclists love to use as an excuse, when they have once again been busted for the abuse of beta-agonists. Why? Well than eating chicken should help not hinder leaning out. Could it be the remnants of antibiotics in the chicken meat, as proposed by eg. Nicholson et al. (2005)? Or is it simply the bad arachidonic acid chicken common wisdom will tell you that it was so high in chicken meat?

Figure 3: Fatty acid composition of beef, lamb, pork, chicken, duck and turkey in % of total lipids (left) and arachidonic acid content in mg/100g (Li. 1998)

If you peek at the data in figure 3, which is obviously not based on the dietary intake of the subjects in the study at hand, but displays the general fatty acid composition of various meats, including lamb and chicken (both marked with grey boxes) as they were reported by Li et al. in 1998, it would appear as if "everybody's favorite devil", the essential omega-6 fatty acid arachidonic acid can hardly be blamed for the superiority of lamb - after all there is about the same amount of it in lamb as there is in chicken (for Ducks and dark poultry things are different!)

Did you know that lamb is the #1 dietary source of CLA?

Lamb contains 5.6 mg/g CLA, whereas beef and veal contain only 2.9–4.3 mg/g and 2.7 mg/g, respectively.

Non-ruminant meats such as chicken and pork, contain 0.9 mg/g and 0.6 mg/g, respectively (Mulvihill. 2001).

Eggs contain no CLA, at all - unless the chicken are fed with CLA enriched diets and the yolk between 3mg and 14-32mg/100g total fat (Jones. 2000; Raes. 2002).

Whether the CLA is at the heart of the effects in the study at hand is yet questionable, after all one of the side effects is insulin resistance and that's the opposite of what the sign. decrease in insulin would suggest.

What could be a culprit, though is the overall higher n-6/n-3 ratio of chicken. There is no debating that there is a statistically significant difference between chicken with 9.73g of omega-6 fatty acids per omega-3 vs. lamb in which every omega-6 fatty acid is "appropriately (?) buffered" with 0.57g of omega-3s (the corresponding n3/n6 ratios are 1.59, 1.78, 13.92, 9.73, 10.82 and 10.53 for beef, lamb, pork, chicken, duck and turkey, respectively; data based on Li. 1998).

But is it really that easy? The n3/n6 ratio - again!? I 'd say no. Also, or rather particularly in view of the relatively lose dietary control... I mean, if you have to eat chicken at least three times a week in the canteen, you are certainly more likely to grab a burger with "red meat" (or whatever it is they put in-between the patties) on the weekends or in the evening.

This and other confounding factors would obviously negate neither the previously mentioned n3/n6 ratio hypothesis, nor the scientists' very own hypothetical explanation that the "the presence of unsaturated fats [...], such as oleic acid and conjugated linoleic acid" which are naturally high in ruminant meat (see infobox on the right), can have figured here, as well. It should however remind you that there is, if anything, only one single reason that "we are fat" and that's the way "experts" base their advice on observations like these, cherry pick those they like and discard the ones they don't like until the various net result - call it the "XY diet" or the "dietary guidelines" - confuse the hell out of the poor average Janes and Joes who are looking up to those "experts" to rescue them before the obesity pandemic carries them off just like the 35.7% of the US adults who are already obese (the latest data is still based on figures from 2009-10; cf. Ogden. 2012)

---

If you work anyway similar to a male rodent, 4g/day Tongkat Ali, could help with the abs, your testosterone levels and "other issues", as well (learn more)

Bottom line: My personal take away message from the study at hand is not "never eat chicken again" or "eat lamb everyday", but rather: "Don't forget about how lucky we are that we have so many foods to chose from." So don't get stuck on only one of them - and that regardless of what common wisdom, recognized or unrecognized experts or individual studies may suggest would be "best" for the way you look and feel!

There is no magic bullet and no singular reason that "we" are fat and I am 100% sure that eating chicken instead of lamb is the smallest obstacle standing between your and a shredded set of abs.

 References:

• Jones S, Ma DW, Robinson FE, Field CJ, Clandinin MT. Isomers of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) are incorporated into egg yolk lipids by CLA-fed laying hens. J Nutr. 2000 Aug;130(8):2002-5.
• Li D, Ng A, Mann NJ, Sinclair AJ. Contribution of meat fat to dietary arachidonic acid. Lipids. 1998 Apr;33(4):437-40.
• Malucelli A, Ellendorff F, Meyer HH. Tissue distribution and residues of clenbuterol, salbutamol, and terbutaline in tissues of treated broiler chickens. J Anim Sci. 1994 Jun;72(6):1555-60.
• Mulvihill, B. Ruminant meat as a source of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Nutrition Bulletin. 2001; 26: 295–299. 
• Ogden CL et al. Prevalence of Obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS Data Brief No. 82 January 2012.
• Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Wilson ID. Gut microorganisms, mammalian metabolism and personalized health care. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005; 3:431–438.
• Raes K, Huyghebaert G, De Smet S, Nollet L, Arnouts S, Demeyer D. The deposition of conjugated linoleic acids in eggs of laying hens fed diets varying in fat level and fatty acid profile. J Nutr. 2002 Feb;132(2):182-9.

Dietary Zinc & Copper Improve Glucose & Lipid Metabolism. High Cortisol Amplitudes Counter Belly Fat. Hypoxic Hearts Love Creatine + Ribose. Apples Counter Cancer & Obesity

I guess this is about as close as we have hitherto gotten to understand why we got fat. Wrt to the hilarious pace at which we got fat and are still getting fatter, we are much better informed though.

After you've learned about the general importance of exercise for your health and a couple of tweaks that may or, as in the case of sugary "energy drink", may not help you maximize the benefits and performance gains on Saturday. The focus of today's SuppVersity article is on the results of non-exercise related studies that highlight non-exercise related confounders of your health.

Before we get to the actual news, I would yet like to invite all of you to take a look back at the increasingly obese history of the US... I suppose those of you who have not yet seen the link on my Facebook wall, will enjoy the animated obesity map in the Atlantic article from April 11. I mean, even if we still don't have anything but over-simplistic cookie-cutter "explanations" of why we get fat, the map shows that we do at least know how fast we got fat!

You don't feel knowing about how fast we got fat is good news? Ok, maybe you'll like one the following results from recent studies better:

• Dietary zinc & copper influence glucose & lipid metabolism in women (Shab-Bidar. 2013) According to a recent study from the Obesity Research Center at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran, there is a gender specific effect of copper and zinc in the diet on glucose and lipid metabolism of men and women in Iran - statistical significant effects were observed only in women with...

  

  Odds ratios for the MetS and low HDL across quartiles of copper intake (Shab-Bidar. 2013)

  • higher zinc intakes being associated with higher HDL-C, lower triglycerides (TG) and lower 2-hour blood glucose, and 
  • higher copper intake correlating with higher HDL-C, lower fasting blood glucose (FBG), significantly lower TG and a huge 81% reduction in the risk for suffering from metabolic syndrome (highest vs. lowest copper intakes)
  These observations stand in contrast with the current notion of the "bad" copper and the "good" zinc and reamphasize the importance of both nutrients for metabolic health.

  ---

  Remember: Two questions that will still have to be resolved pertain to (a) the gender-specificity of the effects and (b) confounding effects of food quality / choice and thus whether the same beneficial effects would be observed with the standard American diet.
  For both, but espicially for copper a little more than the RDA does not appear to hurt: What's particularly interesting, is that contrary to the zinc intakes in quartile 4 (>14mg/day; RDA 9mg/day) the copper intake in quartile 4 was more than 3x higher than the current RDA for women (0.9 mg). In fact, even the copper intake in the lowest quartile ~1.5mg/day was way above the RDA. If that's something we have to be surprised about is yet questionable, after all, there is not exactly much research on "optimal copper nutrition" (much contrary to zinc, by the way) and the RDA is based on age-old depletion-repletion studies and will thus probably reflect the absolute minimum to maintain "normal" serum levels.

• Evidence from human study: Flat cortisol profile not averages or spikes are associated with increased adiposity and visceral obesity (Sharp. 2013) In their most recent paper that's soon going to be published in the American Journal of Human Biology Dan S. Sharp and his colleagues from the Center for Disease Control and the State University of New York provide conclusive evidence for the irrelevance of mean cortisol levels with respect to the purported negative effects of cortisol on visceral obesity.

  

  Associations between sextiles of within-subjects cortisol standard deviation (SD) in 217 Buffalo policemen and adjusted lean-mass trunk index (Sharp. 2013)

  As the data in the figure above clearly shows, the police officers with the greatest cortisol fluctuations (spikes and troughs) had the highest ratio of lean body mass to trunk mass. It is thus, as the scientists phrase it,
  

  "not the average level of salivary cortisol among 18 specimens on each officer that drives the association; it is the variation among specimens."

  The oral cortisol measures were taken on 3 subsequent days in standardized procedures that involved a venipuncture and a standardized high protein meal as "challenges", on day 1, six measures that were taken by the police officers over the course of the day, on day 2, and series of tests that was taken after a dexamethasone challenge after waking on day 3 (the subjects had ingested 0.5mg of dexamethasone the night before).

  ---

  Bottom line: While the scientists are careful in pointing out that it will still have to be established that the results translate to other populations. The results corroborate the uselessness (if not potential detrimental effects) of "cortisol blockers", I've discussed in my previous in the Science Round Up Seconds on March 29, 2013 (read more).

• Combination of creatine and d-ribose heals damaged, but unscarred rodent-hearts (Caretti. 2013) While the many of the "daggered" claims* on the boxes of various "advanced" creatine products (learn more about their uselessness) are probably a little overblown (*the dagger refers to the "not verified by the FDA"), that's nothing compared to the absolutely disappointing results trainees had with d-ribose. Meanwhile, it seems as if even the last jerk knew that the unbearably sweet simple sugar is nothing worth spending his/her money on.
  
  

  

  Ribose regulates the novo synthesis and restoration nucleotides, can relieve the energy toll of ischemia  and its usefulness in the context of CVD is backed by rodent and human studies (Shecterle. 2011)

  In view of it's physiological role in the recovery of ATP levels (Helsten. 2004), it was assumed that supplementatal D-ribose would ameliorate the ATP depleting effects on exercise and improve endurance in glycolytic and/or long endurance activities, yet...
  

  "[...s]tudies examining the effect of ribose on performance during intense intermittent exercise and rowing have not been able to demonstrate improved performance in humans." (King. 2012)

  Other than the non-existence of side-effects, pertaining studies, which used up to ∼40 g/day, as well as acute and chronic supplementation regimen did  yet not yield any positive results
  
  Now, the aforementioned studies on the ergogenic effects of d-ribose were conducted in healthy individuals, in whom the ATP re-synthesis obviously does not depend (and not even benefit) from the provision of the monosaccharid that was discovered by Emil Fischer in 1891, when he analyzed the carbon structure of gum arabic (Prince. 2012). "Healthy" would yet not be the correct term to describe the rodents in the recently conducted study by Caretti et al. who observed that five week-old mice who were exposed to an atmosphere containing 10% O2 for 10 days in order to induce right ventricle hypertrophy and left ventricle apoptosis did not show any signs of cardiac damage, when they were gavaged creatine + D-ribose, every day.
  
  And while both phenotypes, i.e. the hypertrophy of the right and apoptosis of the left ventricle, were blunted to a certain degree by creatine or d-ribose, only their reversed the pathogenic changes to the heart muscle "almost" completely, by normalizing the expression of AMPK and Akt signaling in the hearts of the rodents.

  ---

  

  Light micrograph of representative nuclear pro-files (background, red = atypical, green = normal nuclei; my emphasis) and volume (%) of atypical cardiac cells in anterior left ventricle of rodents on caffeine + nicotine + ephedrine combo (learn more)

  Bottom line: While they may not be beneficial for the average trainee, people "on" the literally heart-breaking combination of nicotine + caffeine and ephedrine, could be able to reduce their detrimental effects on the heart (learn more), by adding this combination of proven (creatine) and disproven (d-ribose) ergogenics to their supplement regimen. People with sleep-apnea and other conditions which will leave the heart poorly oxygenized for longer time-periods should obviously benefit, as well.
  
  Based on the likewise promising results of previous studies in (human!) subjects with congestive heart failure (e.g. Omran. 2003), a daily dose of 5g d-ribose, along with the tried an proven chronic ingestion of 5g of creatine appears to be a good starting point, until respective human trials have been conducted.

• Further evidence for the "An apple a day..." theory (Rago. 2013) In an allegedly methodically complicated, but very comprehensive analysis of the effects of raw, whole apples on the plasma metabolome of rodents, researchers from the University of Copenhagen found
  

  

  Total antioxidant activity (µmol vitamin C equivalents/g) of various fruits (Boyer. 2004)

  "that the intake of fresh apple in rats has a considerable and specific impact on the plasma metabolite profile, reflecting altered gut microbial metabolism, retarded lipid- and protein catabolism, and lowered metabolic, oxidative and steroid-related stress". (Rago. 2013)

  These results stand in line with the recent observations a group of Spanish researchers made, when they added a polyphenol extract from apples to the chow of rodents on an obesogenic high-fat + high sugar (HFS) diet:
  

  "Our results from histological studies demonstrated that supplementation of HFS with AP markedly reversed the enlargement of adipocyte volume induced by HFS diet intake in the epididymal fat pad, reducing it by almost 28% [...it also] reversed the increase in the population of large epididymal adipocytes, especially with diameters higher than 130m." (Boqu. 2013)

  The visceral specific effects of the apple polyphenols in the Boqué study could thus be interpreted as supportive evidence for the real-world significance of the metabolomic changes Rago et al. observed in the afore-cited study.

  ---

  Bottom line: No reason to be scared of the "high fructose fruit" apple. It comes with all HFCS sweetened beverages don't have. Polyphenols, vitamins, minerals and most importantly a flesh from which the fructose is extracted only slowly. Still, I have to warn you: Apple consumption can have profound beneficial effects on your health, such as (random examples)
  
  •  - 17% colorectal cancer risk (Michels. 2006)
  •  - 37% wheeze risk in your offspring (Willers. 2007)
  •  - 21% reduced risk for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx (Gallus. 2005)
  •  - 25% reduced risk for oesophagus (Gallus. 2005) 
  •  - 18% / -15% / -9% risk red. for breast / ovary / prostate cancer (Gallus. 2005)
  and obviously the - 15% reduced breast cancer risk, the if you want to avoid these, you should thus better keep obsessing about the high fructose content of apples and stick to sausages and lard ;-)

References:

• Boqué N, de la Iglesia R, de la Garza AL, Milagro FI, Olivares M, Bañuelos O, Soria AC, Rodríguez-Sánchez S, Martínez JA, Campión J. Prevention of diet-induced obesity by apple polyphenols in Wistar rats through regulation of adipocyte gene expression and DNA methylation patterns. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013 Mar 25.
• Boyer J, Liu RH. Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits. Nutr J. 2004 May 12;3:5.
• Caretti A, Bianciardi P, Marini M, Abruzzo PM, Bolotta A, Terruzzi C, Lucchina F, Samaja M. Supplementation of creatine and ribose prevents apoptosis and right ventricle hypertrophy in hypoxic hearts. Curr Pharm Des. 2013 Apr 10. [Epub ahead of print]  
• Gallus S, Talamini R, Giacosa A, Montella M, Ramazzotti V, Franceschi S, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Does an apple a day keep the oncologist away? Ann Oncol. 2005 Nov;16(11):1841-4. 
• Hellsten Y, Skadhauge L, Bangsbo J. Effect of ribose supplementation on resynthesis of adenine nucleotides after intense intermittent training in humans. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2004;286:R182–8.
• Michels KB, Giovannucci E, Chan AT, Singhania R, Fuchs CS, Willett WC. Fruit and vegetable consumption and colorectal adenomas in the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer Res. 2006 Apr 1;66(7):3942-53. PubMed PMID: 16585224.  
• Omran H, Illien S, MacCarter D, St Cyr J, Lüderitz B. D-Ribose improves diastolic function and quality of life in congestive heart failure patients: a prospective feasibility study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003 Oct;5(5):615-9.  
• Price, NPJ. The Name of the–ose: An Editorial on Carbohydrate Nomenclature. J Glycobiol. 2012; 1(e105).
• Rago D, Kristensen M, Gözde G, Federico M, Morten P, LarsOve D. LC–MS metabolomics approach to investigate the effect of raw apple intake in the rat plasma metabolome. Metabolomics. 2013; 1573-3882.
• Shab-Bidar S, Hosseini-Esfahani F, Mirmiran P, Mehran M, Azizi F. Dietary intakes of zinc and copper and cardiovascular risk factors in Tehranian adults: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. Nutrition & Dietetics. 2013
• Sharp DS, Andrew ME, Fekedulegn DB, Burchfiel CM, Violanti JM, Wactawski-Wende J, Miller DB. The cortisol response in policemen: Intraindividual variation, not concentration level, predicts truncal obesity. Am J Hum Biol. 2013 Apr 20.
• Shecterle LM, Wagner S, St Cyr JA. A sugar for congestive heart failure patients. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2011 Apr;5(2):95-7.
• Willers SM, Devereux G, Craig LC, McNeill G, Wijga AH, Abou El-Magd W, Turner SW, Helms PJ, Seaton A. Maternal food consumption during pregnancy and asthma, respiratory and atopic symptoms in 5-year-old children. Thorax. 2007 Sep;62(9):773-9. Epub 2007 Mar 27.
   

Cardio or Weights? What's The Best Tool For a Non-Obese Active Individual to Lose 20% of Belly Fat in 10 Weeks?

Slowly, painfully slowly the message transpires: Men and women are different, but the means by which they achieve the physique many of us desire are the virtually the same: Diet and exercise. Needless to say hat both lifting weight & doing "cardio" (LISS & HIIT) are obligatory for either sex. But is that true for fats and carbs, as well (learn more)?

If you are not one of those people who simply  ignore the fact that SuppVersity articles have "telling" titles, you will already have realized that the subject selection is one of the greatest strengths of the 10-week experiment Jorge Perez-Gomes and his Spanish colleagues have conducted recently. While we are bombarded with information on how walking in the park strips tons of body fat off the bodies of morbidly obese "big losers", detailed information on what works for people like the 26 healthy young men (age 22.5 ± 1.9 yr) who participated in the study at hand is surprisingly scarce.

"Dieting" does not necessary imply "eating less"

The participants, whose body composition was measured by the means of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were all healthy and physically active and with an average BMI ~22kg/m² and body fat levels of  ~17% at a level comparable to that of the average gymrat striving "to [eventually?] look good naked" ;-) According to the research design, all participants were required to keep their dietary habits unchanged during the 10-week study period.

Since they were free to eat as much as they wanted, you can however safely assume, that the subjects in the endurance and strength training groups did increase their caloric intake in response to the energetic demands of their workouts (the subjects trained three times per week).

Table 1: Detailed outline of the strength training protocol. The scientists had used the exact same protocol in a previous study in the course of which 18 male physical education students lost a whopping 7% BF in 6 weeks (Ara. 2006).

• endurance training group (EG) - "The EG performed running and cycling sessions with a load intensities ranging between the ventilatory threshold 1 (VT1) and 2 (VT2), during 90 minutes per
  session. The VT were calculated from the cardiorespiratory tests that were performed at the same time of the day (16:00-19:00 h) under similar environmental conditions (20º C; relative humidity, 45-55%, 720 mmHg) on an electrically braked cycle-ergometer" (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

• strength training group (ST) - "Briefly, RG trained with 5 different exercises (parallel squat, leg extension, inclined leg press, leg curl and hip flexors), for which 1RM was assessed before and after 10-week training. The ranged between 50-90% of 1RM values obtained were used for the training. A 90-s rest period was taken between exercise sets." (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

With the nutritional aspect off the table, you may be asking yourselves: "Why on earth we are we seeing a lower-body-only-workout, here?" Obviously, I cannot ask the scientists directly, but I would guess that it is a combination of (a) the proven efficiacy of the workout, which has been used by the same group of researchers in a previous study, in the course of which the 18 male physical education students had lost a whopping an statistically highly significant 7% body fat (Ara. 2006), and (b) the fact that it would be unfair to compare a whole body strength workout to a "leg only" endurance workout on a cycle ergometer.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition compared to baseline (Perez-Gomez. 2013)

Still, the advantage of the endurance training as far as overall fat loss is concerned is not a simple result of not training the upper body. You can even argue that the overall energy expenditure on a classic body part split would have been even  lower. With the latter, as well as the degree of dietary compensation for the "used" energy in the time between the workouts being the main determinant of the amount of weight you'll lose it should thus  not surprise you that a 90min of pretty intense cardio had an edge over a classic resistance training regimen (slow paced, progressive; cf. table 1)

Exercise doesn't just make you hungry

Don't trust anyone who wants to tell you that "exercise will just make you hungry" or that calories didn't count at all - regardless of how prominent he/she may be (learn why)

Now, you will probably remember that a fast paced, more versatile CrossFit-esque workout (learn more) would have been a better option for someone whose main goal is to shed that belly fat of his (or hers!), but could you honestly say that the 10 weeks of training on either protocol didn't server their purpose? I don't think so.

Moreover, the differential effects the two "types" of exercise had on the body composition of the subjects, as well as the observed correlations between improved HDL levels and increases in lean muscle mass (EG) and trunk fat (ST), and lower LDL levels with waist circumference (EG) do actually confirm that there is something healthy about striving to be lean and muscular.

---

Sometimes it also takes doing less, less of "dieting" and less of "training" to make progress again. I know it sounds like something only women who need a psychologist would fall for, but the Athlete's Triad (learn more) is neither a female thing, nor something only psychos would get trapped in. On the contrary! My personal experience tells me that it's often the smartest and most determined physical culturists who fall victim to their own burning ambition... much contrary to their often prominent role-models they don't have a team of shrinks and trainers to help them get back on track. So you better make sure not to sacrifice your friendships on your quest for perfection!

Bottom line: You don't have to reinvent the wheel. The simple combination of endurance and resistance training that has worked for the fathers of physical culture still works, today. If you need some inspirations on how you can combine them into a training program that matches your individual needs, professional schedule & social life and will take your physique another step closer to where you want it to be, check out the SuppVersity "Step by Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" (learn more)...

I guess, I don't have to tell you that 90min of LISS may be one way but certainly not the best way to improve on your physique - specifically if you are way past the "Homer Simpson" stage. You can learn more about training & dieting for your type and measuring your progress in one of the previous installments of the Intermittent Thoughts.

Ah, and one last word of wisdom: Don't forget that looking and feeling great is not all about having a cover model physique.

So, once you've got rid of the unhealthy blubber, it's often time to re-think whether taking the next and for the "non-genetic freaks" among us not necessary healthy step to being totally jacked is really what you want, or if the desire to look like X,Y or Z does not have much different roots.

References:

• Ara I, Perez-Gomez J, Vicente-Rodriguez G, Chavarren J, Dorado C, Calbet JA. Serum free testosterone, leptin and soluble leptin receptor changes in a 6-week strength-training programme. Br J Nutr. 2006 Dec;96(6):1053-9.
• Perez-Gomez J, Vicente-Rodríguez G, Ara Royo I, Martínez-Redondo D, Puzo Foncillas J, Moreno LA, Díez-Sánchez C, Casajús YJA. Effect Of Endurance And Resistance Training On Regional Fat Mass And Lipid Profile. Nutr Hop. 2013;28(2):340-346.

Some HIIT For Life & Less LISS For More! How to Burn 27,300 Kcal Extra W/out Losing a Single Extra Pound of Fat!

Image 1: Yep, you are right, the SuppVersity is the place to be to make sure you don't embarrass yourself during one of those potentially fatefully flirticious one-on-ones in the gym - Remember: Strong and Smart is the Newest Sexy ;-)

In view of the fact that you all seem to be enjoy the high intensity interval news aka "On Short Notice" items at the SuppVersity, I decided to do another double-feature today, somewhat similar to the "Weight Loss Threesome" three weeks ago. This time however not on sleep, TV and supplements, but on cardiovascular exercise for fat loss. For that purpose I have lined up a unique study about the longterm (!) beneficial effects of HIIT workouts on body composition, cardiometabolic risk factors, and conditioning of abdominally obese subjects (Gremeaux . 2012) and a study the results of which foster the surprising insight that 50% less can be 80% more when it comes to light intensity steady state (LISS) training for fat loss (Rosenkilde. 2012). So, let's get "without further delay" right to this sexually conservative, but contentwise highly experimentally one-on-one ;-)

Biggest Winners Combine Lifestyle Change With Optimized HIIT Workouts

In what the authors claim (and my personal readings in this area confirm) was the first study to analyze "the effects of a combined lifestyle intervention and optimized HIIT [regimen] on body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and exercise capacity in subjects with abdominal obesity", Vincent Gremeaux from the Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (EiPIC) at the Montreal Heart Institute found that their 9-months program which comprised of five individualized nutritional counseling by a trained dietician and 54-min (total) of supervised optimized high-intensity interval exercise and resistance training 2-3x times a week (+optional 2x continuous moderate-intensity sessions per week, such as walking and/or cycling) had profound effects on body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and exercise tolerance in the 62 of the 69 obese subjects (44 men, 22 women; BMI 35.8 +/- 5; age 53.3 +/- 9.7) from the babyboomer generation (Gremeaux. 2012).

Figure 1: Dietary and workout regimen, graphical overview (based on information from Gremeaux. 2012)

As my graphical summary in figure 1 goes to show, the workouts were a breeze compared to last week's Iranian HIIT Solution. And in view of the "guideline compliant" macronutrient composition it is actually quite astonishing, how pronounced the average and individual results of the subjects eventually were.
If anything than the loss of lean mass (figure 2, left) would be a thing to be slightly concerned about. On the other hand, this leaves much room for improvements, which would be easily achieved by

• really working out with weights you can only lift for 8-10 times and performing 3 circuits of free weight exercises with a focus on compound movements (if this is physically possible),
• using "all-out" sprints preferably also on the treadmill instead of the cycle ergometer for the HIIT workouts (as long as your conditioning allows for that)
• eating more protein and cutting back on carbs so that the total energy intake would keep about the same if you ate 1.5g protein/kg body weight per day and 20g+ of quality protein with every meal 

As long as you are still overweight that should suffice to get leaner, when you are already lean, though, you won't be able to make progress without a minor degree of temporary (2-6 weeks) caloric restriction in the ~20% range.

Tipp: Don't count calories, just eat some rice less, just one instead of two bananas, etc.; try to get used to the notion of eating food, not calories!

You see, the general rules apply to everyone, their practical realization, i.e. the number of workouts, the intensity and the duration will however be different and has, when all is said and done, to obey to one simple rule: You cannot expect your body to change, if the circumstances don't require change! This evolutionary-esque principle applies to anyone from the morbidly obese baby boomer to the ripped physique athlete in the prime of his twenties - regardless of who are and who you want to be, the only way to get there is to challenge yourself appropriately!

[for implications see end of today's post]

Burning 300kcal/day W/ LISS Produces Greater Fat Loss Than Burning 600kcal/day!

Image 2: If this looks like you on one of your twice daily 2h cardio workouts in the "fat burning zone", this must be your first time, here at the SuppVersity. If not, you already know that 5min here at the SuppVersity everyday will do more for your physique and overall health than with all the "cardio" you can possibly pack into your already overcrowded schedule!

Especially if you are a total beginner or someone who is already strength training intensely almost daily, you can run the risk of outtraining your regenerative capacities by adding in more than one longer HIIT workout. Moreover, my personal experience tells me that "mixing things up" and doing some "regular" light intensity steady state cardio, especially rowing or outdoor activities can really give you an unexpected edge, in terms of fat loss without really taxing your system. Interestingly enough, the results of a soon-to-be-published study be Mads Rosenkilde and his colleagues from the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Department of Human Nutrition at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark do actually support my experience, as the 64 moderately overweight (BMI: 25-30 kg/m², fat percentage ≥25%), sedentary yet healthy men without a past history of useless dieting (and over-exercising) who participated in the 13 week trial (compare that to the above 9-months trial!) lost an astonishing amount of 4kg of pure body fat with nothing else than "classic" steady state cardio (Rosenkilde. 2012)!

"Energy in - energy out = fat loss" - fail!

Over the course of 13 weeks, the participants took part in three supervised exercise sessions per week, which had to be performed at an average heart rate of >70% of their predetermined maximal heart rate. On the other four days they were free to engage in whatever physical activity they wanted, but had to wear a heart rate monitor that would allow them to decide, when they had fulfilled their daily 300kcal/day (MEDIUM) or 600kcal/day (HIGH) exercise dept. The log-files of the heart rate monitors were deliberately analyzed by the scientists every on a weekly basis, missed sessions had to be made good for and repeated non-compliance was penalized with immediate exclusion from the trial. Effectively, the guys in the HIGH dose arm of the study simply exercised longer at the same ~66-67% of their VO2_Max on the mean 6.2 "workout days" both groups had in common.

Contrary to what the scientists, who totally relied on their (stupid) calories in vs. calories out calculations, had expected these longer workouts and the associated increase in exercise induced energy expenditure did not result in either greater weight or fat loss in the highly compliant participants of the HIGH dose exercise group (compliance: 96% vs. 99% in the HIGH and MODERATE arms, respectively; statistically this difference was not significant).

Figure 3: Changes in body weight and fat mass (left) and "real" (=calculated based on weight loss) energy deficit the subjects accumulated over the 13-week study period (data based on Rosenkilde. 2012)

If you take a closer look at the data in figure 3 you will even realize that the 30 subjects who had initially been randomized to the MODERATE dose arm of the study and should thus expended ~27,300kcal less than their peers in the HIGH dose arm when the final measurements were taken, had lost slightly more total and fat weight than their harder training counterparts.

"Hey! Where are the weights, dude?"

Yet despite the fact that Rosenkilde et al. triumphantly report that the "energy balance was 83% more negative than expected in MOD, while it was 20% less negative than expected in HIGH" a closer look at the data in figure 3 will also reveal that the ratio of total to fat mass loss, i.e.

• 1.1 g of fat per 1g of total mass in the MODERATE dose group
• 1.4 g of fat per 1g of total mass in the HIGH dose group

does still speak in favor of doing a little bit more, than what is necessary to lose weight (I almost forgot: During the study period, the energy intakes did not differ between the groups and there were no significant differences between the subjects on low carb and the subjects on high carb diets wrt to the study outcome). This is all the more true, because the +1kg increase in lean mass (compared to a third sedentary control group this was even statistically significant) in the HIGH dose group went hand in hand with a significant increase in resting energy expenditure (+205kcal/day in HIGH vs. +192kcal in MODERATE).

However, I guess I don't really need to tell you the reason why I highly recommend that you still stick to short(er) and/or less frequent LISS (=light intensity steady state) workouts, do I? Yeah, right! Used more as a regenerative means, to play basketball or soccer with friends to take the dog for a walk or jog with your beautiful significant other through the park short(er) LISS workouts constitute an excellent counterpart to your obligatory weight lifting sessions and won't force you into the dreaded vicious circle of over-training (and under-eating), due to which the fat loss of so many trainees stalls, when the first couple of pounds have literally fallen off their hips.

Implications: Collectively these two studies would support the notion that all physical activity has its merit. They also emphasize the under-appreciated simple truth that both, the combination of a high intensity strength and moderate intensity LISS regimen (+ the occasional short HIIT workout) and a moderate intensity strength and high intensity interval training program (+optional moderate intensity LISS training) constitute effective ways to reduce your body fat percentage! With the former being more geared to the advanced trainee who is also looking to build some quality muscle mass and the latter being the workout of choice for the beginner who "just wants to look good naked", there are more than a billion permutations you will have to experiment with in order to identify not the best routine, but your best routine at a given timepoint in your career as a beginning, advanced, or elite physical culturist(highly suggested read: The "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine").

References:

• Gremeaux V, Drigny J, Nigam A, Juneau M, Guilbeault V, Latour E, Gayda M. Long-term Lifestyle Intervention with Optimized High-Intensity Interval Training  Improves Body Composition, Cardiometabolic Risk, and Exercise Parameters in Patients with Abdominal Obesity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Jul 30.
• Rosenkilde M, Auerbach PL, Reichkendler MH, Ploug T, Stallknecht BM, Sjödin A. Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic exercise - a randomized controlled trial in overweight sedentary males. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012 Aug 1.

Man or Woman, Trunk or Leg Fat - Adding a Full Body Strength Workout to Your Aerobics Will Burn the Fat Off!

Image 1: "Get up and move!"

Doing cardio is better than doing nothing. In the end, aerobic training does yet rarely produce those changes in body composition most "dieters" have in mind, when they embark on their daily jogging regimen and combine those with the latest and greatest diet fad they read about in magazines or on the Internet. If these people just added a few strength workouts to the equations, though, their bodies would begin to change; and what's even more exciting, according to a soon to be published study from the Pamukkale University in Denizli, Turkey, they will do that in the absence of any dietary changes and in exactly those problem areas, men and women usually hate the most about themselves: The trunk, for men, and the legs, for women (Sanal. 2012).

"Dieting"? Why, if working out alone elicits favorable changes in body composition?

The 92 healthy, yet sedentary and overweight men and women in the study were randomly assigned to either aerobics only (AE) or the combined aerobic + resistance exercise (ARE) regimen. Dropout rates (N=12 and N=11) were identical between the two 12-week interventions, which involved

• AE: 3x per week 15 min @50-80% maximum heart rate in the 1st, 4x per week 20-30min in the 2nd and 5x per week 30-45min in the 3rd month aerobic training on the cycle ergometer
• AER: Same as AE but additionally 2x per week full-body workouts with 2 min rest between sets and 3-6 sets of 10 repetitions @50% of their 1RM in the first 6 weeks, and 2-3 sets of 10 repetitions @75-80% of the 1RM during the second 6-week phase of the study

With the resistance protocol simply being added on top of the initially light aerobic workouts, it is quite clear that aside from the fundamental beneficial effects of strength training, the subjects in the AER group would capitalize on the overall higher workload, as well. After all, it is not very likely that the formerly sedentary study participants suddenly lead a more active life outside of their scientifically prescribed duties.

Figure 1: Relative changes in BMI, waist circumeference and hip circumference during the 12-week study period (calculated based on Sanal. 2012)

Against that background it may be initially counter-intuitive that the resistance aerobics + resistance training group did not lose more weight than their lazier peers (cf. figure 1), if you look at the data in figure 2, however, it becomes obvious why doing aerobics only really is not worth it, if your goal is to look better and get healthier, which both depend mainly on reducing your body fat levels, and not your body weight!

Figure 2: Relative changes in fat (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) in the course of the 12-week study period (DEXA data; calculated based on Sanal. 2012)

The dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA; very precise method to measure the exact body composition) data confirms what every good trainer will be telling his clients, when they complain about "not losing weight" - the highly desirable changes in body composition are oftentimes not detectable with regular scales; and as this example shows, sometimes not even with my favorite tool, the measurement tape!

Men are different women, too, and strength training works for both!

And though this may sound like yet another prejudice, my personal experience tells me that women are usually much much more focused on the non-significant figures on the scale. Against that background I feel that the detailed analysis of sex difference with respect to the relative loss in body fat and increases in lean mass are of paramount importance, because they confirm: It does not matter if you are a man or a woman. If you want to look better, you got to lift weights!

Figure 3: Additional changes in body composition in aerobic + resistance training vs. aerobic only group (data calculated based on Sanal. 2012)

And while the added bonus of resistance training may be overall larger in men, than in women. It should be noted that the decrease in fat which was present in both groups, happened to be prominent in exactly those body parts which are usually held to contain sex-specific fat depots, i.e. the pot-bellied trunks of obese men and the "they are too fat for my skinny jeans" legs of chubby women.

Get going, don't stop eating, damnit!

Image 2: Some of you may remember my previous blogpost on the superior effect of HIIT vs. classic "cardio" on appetite and energy intake in obese boys. This is also why the SBSG Fat Loss Workout relies on both LISS and HIIT training.

Aside from the sex-specificity, this study provides an even more substantial argument in favor of exercise and against the "exercise just makes you hungry" hypothesis than the previously cited study (cf. "Dr. Oz Was Right, Taubes Wrong"). The question should thus no longer be "Shall I add exercise to my diet?", but rather which diet is most appropriate to propel the exercise-induced changes in body composition I am striving for.

In view of the fact that the study participants in this study, simply continued on their regular dietary regimen, you can only speculate how profound the changes would have been if the same 5x per week aerobic + 2x strength training regimen had been combined with a revised, not even necessarily energy deficient whole foods diet!?

Whey or Casein? Which Would be the Better "Staple" Protein Source for Your Trip to Desert Island?

Image 1: They are both sourced from cow's milk, but which is the better part? Whey, the byproduct of cheese production, or casein the cheese protein, itself? A recent study would suggest that it's the "waste product" you would have to chose if you could only have one.

"Whey is the way to go!" I suppose even I have had a headline like that in one or even several of the daily news items, here at the SuppVersity - and rightly, so! With it's high content of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) this fast-digesting protein source is certainly the #1 choice for anyone whose goal is to build lean muscle tissue. Whey's slow-digesting brother casein, on the other hand, is often hailed as the "muscle-preservative", the 24h-protein source that will prevent muscle catabolism, when for whatever outrageous reason (like sleep, for example) you cannot ingest your bi-hourly protein shake... well, I guess those of you who have been following the Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting will already be "rolling on the floor laughing", but hey! Do we really know whether casein or whey would be the better "staple" protein - I mean, if you sipped it throughout the day?

Casein vs. whey - which one to chose if you cannot have both?

While I would not say that one study could provide a definite answer to this question, the results of a recently published paper by Stéphane Walrand et al. (Walrand. 2011) provides further evidence that whey, not casein would be your best choice - regardless of the diminished return that comes with sipping it.

Figure 1: Ingredients of the 6 diets the rats in the Walrand study were fed for 5 months; CAS = casein, WHEY = whey (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)

In their long-term (5 months!) feeding study, the scientists supplied 21 week old male Winstar rats (at the beginning of the study the animals were thus "middle-aged") with one out of 6 experimental diets (cf. figure 1). The composition of the diets differed not only in their total energy and protein content (ad libitum = 440kj/day; energy restricted only 60%, i.e. 264kj/day), but also with regard to the protein content and source (casein vs. whey). In that, it is particularly noteworthy is that the "energy restricted" diet was actually a "high protein" diet. After all, the protein content of the latter was identical to the one of the rats that had free access to  (the group that was "only" energy restricted received was matched to the average protein consumption of the ad-libitum fed rats.

Figure 2: Effect of 5 months of the experimental diets on muscle and fat weight of male Wistar rats (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)

Contrary, to what you may have expected, the "protein deficient" protein & energy restricted diet did yet not lead to profound losses of lean muscle tissue (cf. figure 2). On the contrary, the protein & energy restricted group that received whey protein as their exclusive protein source had 5% and 2% greater soleus and tibialis anterior mass than the ones that received the "high protein" energy restricted diet. Before you start questioning the value of "high" protein intakes when dieting, you should yet better take a look at the impact of the "high" protein content of the non-protein-restricted diet had on the diet induced reductions of the abdominal fat mass. I mean -87% reduced abdominal fat in the energy & protein reduced group is impressive, the neigh complete annihilation of the abdominal fat (-93%) in the non-protein restricted group, on the other hand, is mind-boggling.

Figure 3: Effect of 5 months of the experimental diets on muscle and fat weight of male Wistar rats (data adapted from Walrand. 2011)

If we also consider the nitrogen balance and the absolute rates of muscle protein synthesis (cf. figure 3), it also becomes evident why the rats on the protein & energy reduced diets retained slightly more lean mass (+3%), when they were fed whey protein, instead of casein. The rats who received whey as their main protein source simply had a favorable nitrogen balance and increased muscle protein synthesis.

Image 2: Sardines for diabetes prevention!?

Before you now throw away your eggs, your cheese, your beef and whatever else, I want to briefly introduce you to the results of two other recently published studies, which would indicate that rotating in some sardines or sheep meat could produce even more favorable results than living on whey alone. While Madani et al. found that sardine protein ameliorated fructose-induced hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia and inflammation (vs. casein) in a 2-months rodent study (Madani. 2011), Feng et al. report that the consumption of sheep meat instead of casein lead to increases in free T3 (thyroid hormone) and statistically significant increases in energy expenditure in Sprague-Dawley rats that were fed otherwise identical diets (Feng. 2011).

Despite these and the results of previous studies, most of which would suggest that if you had to chose just one protein source, whey or casein, whey should be the protein of choice, I hope that I do not have to tell you, as a diligent student of the SuppVersity that imbalances are the root cause of many, if not most modern diseases. So, getting all your protein from whey and nothing but whey should not be something you should even remotely take into consideration. And in case you forgot about that: Milk has both of them and a ton of other vital nutrients ;-)