20% Calorie Deficit + BB Split + Whey = Strength ↑, Fat ↓ + Muscle ↕ | Preconditioning and Cryotherapy for Strength

Whey protein can help you shed body fat while upping your PB on squats. 

If you're looking for the latest papers on building muscle, running faster, lifting more and getting jacked look no further, today's installment of the Strength and Conditioning Update (Feb'17) discusses all interesting papers from the latest / upcoming issues of the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Papers that investigate the size and time-course of low-intensity 'pre-conditioning' that could make the difference between victory and defeat at the Olympic Games and elsewhere, the lean mass preserving, fat loss promoting and strength increasing effects of whey protein supplementation during diet phases and, last but not least the immediate strength boost of cooled muscles.

Read about exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

TeaCrine®, Tribu-lus, Cordyceps, ALA, Sesamin...

Aug '15 Ex.Res. Upd.: Nitrate, Glycogen, and ...

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

BFR-Preconditio- ning Useless for Weights?

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

• 24h-pre = optimal timing for performance enhancing low-intensity 'pre-conditioning' (Tsoukos. 2017) -- In their latest study, US and Greek researchers examined the often-overlooked delayed effects of a power type training session on explosive performance.
  
  Seventeen well-trained male power and team-sport athletes (age: 22.7+/-5.5 y, height: 181+/-8 cm, body mass: 80.7+/-8.6 kg, body fat: 9.2+/-1.7 %, 1-RM half-squat: 163+/-29 kg) performed four sessions (2 experimental and 2 control) one week apart in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Explosive performance was assessed before, 24 and 48 h following a low-volume, power-type training session (5 x 4 jump squats at 40% 1RM with 3 min rest), as well as before and after 24 and 48 h of rest (control).

  

  Figure 1: Time course of changes in countermovement jump (CMJ) performance (Tsoukos. 2017).

  If you're now asking yourself why it would be important to know that, following training, CMJ was improved by 5.1 +/- 1.0% and 3.0 +/- 1.0% at 24 and 48 h, respectively, you are probably no professional athlete or trainer. Those small, but significant performance gains you see 24h and 48h after the last training session could, after all, make the difference between winning the gold medal and flying home without a trophy for Olympic (and obviously other) athletes.
  
  In that the scientists observations that, compared to baseline, the reactive strength index (RSI) improved by 10.7 +/- 2.1% only at 24 h, provides additional evidence that 'pre-conditioning' w/ a low volume workout 24h before a competition is the way to go "before competition or a high-quality training session to improve their performances" (Tsoukos. 2017).
• Whey for strength, no carbohydrate for endurance improvement while dieting? (Wesley. 2017) -- A recent study from the College of Charleston yielded not on, but two noteworthy results: (a) the pre- and post-supplementation with 2x28g of whey protein will non-significantly enhance your body fat loss (over isocaloric carbohydrate control) and help you maintain lean mass, and it will (b) also allow you to keep gaining strength while dieting.
  
  In their 8-week study, Wesley et al. put sixteen resistance trained men (24+/- 1.6 years of age), who had been on a regular, consistent resistance training for at least two years prior to the onset of the study, and were currently engaging in whole body resistance training, on a combined diet + exercise (bodybuilding split style resistance-training, 60-90 min 4 days per week | Chest/Triceps, Day 2: Legs, Day 3: shoulders, Day 4: Back/Biceps) regimen. All subjects...

  

  Table 1: Diet card for an off-day (Wesley. 2017).

  "[...] completed a 4 d/wk body building style split resistance training program for eight weeks in conjunction with a pre, peri-, and post-exercise ingestion of whey protein (WHEY) nutritional supplement or carbohydrate (CON) based nutritional supplement [while consuming a highly standardized diet containing] 30% carbohy-drates, 35% protein and 35% fat on training and 25%carbohydrates, 40% protein and 35% fat on off days" (Wesley. 2017)

  Each individual’s daily caloric and macronutrient intakes were determined using the Harris Benedict formula with an activity factor of 1.35 (lightly active individual engaging in light exercise 1-3 days/week) for workout days and 1.125 (sedentary individual) for off days. Practically speaking, the subjects did thus consume ~13% and 27% less, on the workout and off days, respectively, than they should need according to the Harris Benedict formula (the mean deficit on a weekly basis was thus 19%).
  

  

  Figure 2: Absolute changes (kg) in lean and fat mass (Wesley. 2017).

  As you'd expect in a well-designed study, there were no differences in body mass change between the WHEY and CON groups. Over the course of the study, this, and more importantly, the subjects' body composition changed: While both groups lost body mass (p<.05), the WHEY group maintained their lean mass (LBM) while the CON group lost (p<.05) lean mass, and the WHEY group lost FM (p>.05) and the CON group did not, though the change in FM between groups was not different.
  

  

  Figure 3: Changes in squat and bench press performance (Wesley. 2017).

  Furthermore, both the WHEY and CON (p<.05) groups significantly increased lower body strength, only the WHEY group, however, increased upper body strength (p<.05) while the CON group saw a non-significant decline in bench press strength (see Figure 3).
  
  So, whey is vastly superior? Well, I guess "vastly" would be too much. After all, not all differences are statistically significant and the higher CHO intake in the CON group even allowed for a statistically significant increase in lower body and upper body repetitions to fatigue in the CON group (p<.05). For people focussing on strength endurance, the 2x28g of whey protein are thus not necessarily the best choice. For almost all other variables gymrats are interested in (body composition, bench press & squat strength etc.), the provision of 2x28g of whey protein before and after workouts is yet the better of the two supplementation options.

• 

  Figure 4: In contrast to what you would expect from a study assessing the effects of cooling on handgrip strength, the scientists used an expensive whole body cryo-therapy device, the "Space Cabin" by the "Criomed Ltd" (de Nardi. 2017). 

  Cryotherapy before workouts or competitions could up your strength, study in healthy non-athletes claims, but... (De Nardi. 2017) -- Cooling is usually thought of as a means to recover faster - a means with sign. downsides as discussed in previous SuppVersity articles - it can yet also be used acutely right before a workout and/or competition; and if the results of the latest study from the Universities of Genoa and Turino translate from recreational athletes' handgrip strength to the average gymrats' and/or professional strength athletes' quads, biceps and other muscles this is a quite effective means to achieve potentially relevant strength increases in no time...
  
  Don't go mad if you don't own a "Space Cabin" (see Figure 2), it's not yet worth it. After all, the question whether the results translate to more relevant muscle parts is not the only issue one can have with the study at hand. With an inter-group difference of only 1.9kg (treatment) vs. 0.52 kg (no treatment), the absolute change is very small.
  
  But let's not get judgemental before we have at least looked at the study design: For practical reasons, the authors of the study at hand tested the change in maximum handgrip strength (JAMAR Hydraulic Hand dynamometer), not the previously mentioned quads or biceps in two-hundred healthy, who were randomly assigned to be treated with single partial-body cryotherapy (PBC) session before the test or no treatment [a placebo treatment would have been nice, but honestly, how would you do that - after all, the subjects would certainly have noticed if the Space Cabin by Criomed Ltd the scientists used (see Figure 4) was not even turned on, no?].
  

  

  Figure 5: Pre- (T0) vs. post-test (T1) handrgrip strength (de Nardi. 2017).

  When the authors compared the post-PBC strength test data to the previously measured initial handgrip strength, they found that a single 150 seconds session of PBC (temperature range between -130 and -160 *C; the subjects wore swimwear, a pair of gloves, woolen socks and wooden clogs to isolate the tested hand), they found a significant increase in handgrip strength in both groups - the effect that the T0 vs. T1 (pre vs. post) difference in the PBC group was higher, i.e. 39.48 kg vs. 40.01 kg in control and 39.61 kg vs. 41.34 kg, however, lead de Nardi, et al. to conclude that their study would "provide the first evidence that a single session of PBC leads to the improvement of muscle strength in healthy people" (de Nardi. 2017).
  
  In view of the fact that (a) grip strength is usually not the rate limiting parameter in sports, and that (b) the improvements are not exactly impressive, though, you may agree with me that the word "preliminary" are of great importance, here and that it is thus too early to conclude that "[t]he results of the study implies that PBC could be performed also before a training session or a sport competition" (de Nardi. 2017).

Can you even have too much whey? Find out in "Too Much Whey Today, Type II Diabetes Tomorrow " | more

So what do you have to remember? Whey protein works. It's as simple as that. After all, the study by Wesley et al. is only one in a long line of studies showing benefits not just during "cuts" (i.e. while you're trying to lose body fat), when it conserves lean mass and augments fat mass losses, but also during the various "bulk" or "maintenance" studies I have discussed in the 20+ articles about whey on the SuppVersity in the past years.

Whey does thus have something the strength pre-conditioning in Tsoukos- and, even more so, the cryotherapy in the De Nardy-study do not have. Ample of practically relevant evidence of its efficacy | Comment on Facebook! 

References:

• De Nardi, et al. "Acute effects of partial-body cryotherapy on isometric strength: maximum handgrip strength evaluation." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: January 20, 2017.
• Tsoukos, et al. "Delayed effects of a low volume, power-type resistance exercise session on explosive performance." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: January 24, 2017.
• Wesley, et al. "Effect of Whey Protein in Conjunction with a Caloric-Restricted Diet and Resistance Training." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: September 10, 2015

Drop-Sets Build, Don't Destroy Older Muscle - 50-Y+ Agers Gain >200% More Lean Muscle W/ Extra Creatine | What do Other Studies Say About the Power of Doing Drop-Sets?

Should she drop the weight and add another set? Whether dropsets are superior to regular workouts is unfortu-nately a question the study at hand cannot answer. To learn more, you should read the information in the red box.

What I really like about having a few thousand friends on Facebook is that you point me to the few interesting studies I may not have read yet. One of these studies comes from Darren Candow who posted a link to an interesting "dropset +/- creatine in the elderly" study (Johannsmeyer. 2016) on the ISSN Facebook page.

The study was published ahead of print a few days ago and deals with the "[e]ffect of creatine supplementation and drop-set resistance training in untrained aging adults" (Johannsmeyer. 2016). More specifically, the objective of the study was to investigate the effects of creatine supplementation and drop-set resistance training in untrained aging adults. What the study did not do, unfortunately, is to compare drop-set to regular training... bummer.

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2016? Find inspiration in these articles:

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

1, 2, or 5 sets per Exercise? What's "best"?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Will 2016 be the Year of the Kettlebell?

Full Squat for Size, Partial for Strength

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

Unfortunately, the participants were randomized one of only two groups: Creatine (CR: n = 14, 7 females, 7 males; 58.0 ± 3.0 yrs, 0.1 g/kg/day of creatine + 0.1 g/kg/day of maltodextrin) or Placebo (PLA: n = 17, 7 females, 10 males; age: 57.6 ± 5.0 yrs, 0.2 g/kg/day of maltodextrin) during 12 weeks of drop-set resistance training (3 days/week; 2 sets of leg press, chest press, hack squat and lat pull-down exercises performed to muscle fatigue at 80% baseline 1- repetition maximum [1-RM] immediately followed by repetitions to muscle fatigue at 30% baseline 1- RM). A non-dropset control and non-dropset creatine group were missing, though.

Practically speaking, this means that all subjects did the same "Drop-Set Resistance Training Program" where every set was performed to muscle fatigue (defined as the inability to perform the concentric phase of a muscle contraction; Candow et al., 2011), the scientists describe as follows:

Figure 1: Overview of the study design.

"During the study, participants exercised 3 days/week, on non-consecutive days, to reduce the risk of injury. Participants performed 2 sets of drop-set resistance training for the leg press, chest press, hack squat and lat pull-down exercises. Each set consisted of performing repetitions to muscle fatigue at 80% baseline 1-RM immediately followed by repetitions to muscle fatigue at 30% baseline 1-RM" (Johannesmeyer. 2016).

What is a bit odd, is the fact that the training load was not increased over the the 12 weeks of training and supplementation, as the purpose of the study was to overload the upper and lower body musculature by increasing the number of repetitions performed to muscle fatigue - not by increasing weights / loads.

"Dietary intake was recorded during the first and final week of supplementation and resistance training to assess differences in total energy and macronutrient composition between groups. Participants used a 3 day food booklet to record food intake for two weekdays and one weekend day. Participants were instructed to record all food items, including portion sizes consumed for the three designated days" (Joannesmeyer. 2016).

Next to body composition, strength and the training loads, the scientists also tested the levels of 3-methylhistidine (3-MH), an indicator of muscle protein breakdown which is (obviously) of particular importance for potentially catabolic elderly muscle.

Figure 2: Lean mass (kg) and protein breakdown (3MH) before and after the 12 week study (Johannesmeyer. 2016).

That this protein catabolism was lower than the exercise-induced anabolism for both groups becomes obvious when you look at the lean mass changes in Figure 2.

Goto et al.'s 2004 study is the only one showing a sign. lean mass advantage when comparing regular strength training (5 x 90%1RM; 3 min rest) to the same training plus a single extra-set at only 50% 1RM that was performed 30 s after the last of the 90%1RM sets. What is important to remember is that this advantage existed only in the strength phase of the linear periodization cycle Goto et al. choose, yet not when the subjects did nine sets of exercises at 80-40% of their 1RM in the hypertrophy phase.

What can other studies tell us about the efficacy of dropsets? Well, I've discussed this question only recently based on a study by Fisher et al. (2016) who were unable to confirm extra-gains in response to drop-sets in a much younger subject group. In contrast to the dropset protocol you are probably doing, the protocols in the Fisher study were however chosen "to allow parity between training load (the BD and CON groups both used the same relative load to begin; permitting 8–12 repetitions) and repetition volume (the HLBD and CON groups both performed a total of ~8 to 12 repetitions)" (Fisher. 2016). Thus the researchers eliminated the (probably) only relevant advantage of doing drop sets, i.e. a sign. increase in training volume, so that it is not really surprising that they didn't record sign. inter-group differences - after all, increasing the training volume was exactly what Sarah Johannsmeyer et al. had in mind when they combining heavy loads with light loads for their latest paper in Experimental Gerontology.

This doesn't change the fact that there's only little evidence that drop sets work: Goto et al. (2003) who had initially observed a sign. increase in GH when they had their subjects to extra low-intensity sets (50% of 1RM) immediately after the performance of a high-intensity sets, for example, observed in a follow up study (Goto. 2004) that drop setting resulted in a significant increase in the muscle CSA as opposed to doing the standardized baseline strength training program, alone. In contrast to the Fisher study, the training volume was not controlled for by Goto et al. (2004), though. Eventually it's thus not unlikely that it all came back to the benefits of an increased training volume - an advantage of which the Goto study also suggests that it exists only if the volume is rather low (strength phase vs. hypertrophy phase in the figure above).

A figure that also tells you that the "addition of creatine to drop-set resistance training significantly increased body mass (p = 0.002) and muscle mass (p = 0.007) compared to placebo" (Johannesmeyer. 2016).

Figure 3: Muscle strength (1-RM) for t (Johannesmeyer. 2016).t, chest press and lat pull down exercise and endurance measurements (repetitions to volitional fatigue with 80% baseline 1-RM for leg press and 70% baseline 1-RM for chest press) before and after 12 weeks of supplementation and high-low resistance training (Johannesmeyer. 2016).

That's in contrast to the data in Figure 3, which indicates that the changes in muscle strength (1-RM) for the leg press, hack squat, chest press and lat pull down exercise and endurance measurements (repetitions to volitional fatigue with 80% baseline 1-RM for leg press and 70% baseline 1-RM for chest press) before and after 12 weeks of supplementation and high-low resistance training did not differ sign. when the scientists compared the placebo (PLA) to the creatine (CR) group.

Table 1: Total calorie (kcal/day) and macronutrient (g/day) content of the CR and PLA group for 3 days during the first and final week of supplementation and resistance training (Johannesmeyer. 2016).

Whether the existing inter-group difference in total and lean mass gains, as well as the likewise significant sex-differences which indicate that males benefit more from creatine, strength-wise (lat pull-down only) than women have anything do do with the protein intake of the subjects (see Tablel 1) is merely speculative. If you do the math, you will realize that both groups consumed almost the same relative amount of protein with 1.28 g/kg in the creatine and 1.11 g/kg in the placebo group... thus, it seems very unlikely that the protein intake mattered.

Figure 4: Unfortunately, there's nothing you can learn about the efficacy of dropsets in 50-y+ agers from a study with only two experimental groups differing only by creatine supple-mentation (Johannsmeyer. 2016). For that we need the few existing studies that had these groups (see red box + discussion in the bottom line)

One thing's missing... eventually, even two things, namely a non-dropset PLA and CRE group that would allow us to modify the scientists conclusion that "[t]he addition of creatine to drop-set resistance training augments the gains in muscle mass from resistance training alone" with reference to the individual effects of doing dropsets.

Accordingly, the study at hand shows that drop sets won't burn old muscle and confirm that creatine at a dosage of ~7-8g/day will sign. improve the lean mass gains of men and women in their late 50s. What it does not do, however, is to give us any clue whether the subjects would have gained less than the 3kg of lean mass if they hadn't done dropsets. Previous studies in younger people (discussed in this SV Classic | Fisher. 2016) appear to refute that - if they don't contribute to sign. increases in training volume. If this increase occurs, as in the strength period of the Goto Study, however, things look good for dropsets | Comment!

References:

• Bubbico, Aaron, and Len Kravitz. "Muscle hypertrophy: New insights and training recommendations." IDEA Fitness Journal 2326 (2011).
• Fisher, James P., Luke Carlson, and James Steele. "The Effects of Breakdown Set Resistance Training on Muscular Performance and Body Composition in Young Men and Women." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30.5 (2016): 1425-1432.
• Goto, K., K. Sato, and K. Takamatsu. "A single set of low intensity resistance exercise immediately following high intensity resistance exercise stimulates growth hormone secretion in men." Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness 43.2 (2003): 243.
• Goto, Kazushige, et al. "Muscular adaptations to combinations of high-and low-intensity resistance exercises." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 18.4 (2004): 730-737.
• Johannsmeyer, Sarah, Candow, Darren G., Brahms, C. Markus, Michel, Deborah, Zello, Gordon A.  "Effect of creatine supplementation and drop-set resistance training in untrained aging adults." Experimental Gerontology (2016) - Published ahead of print on Aug 11 (doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2016.08.005).

Trying to Lose Fat & Get "Toned" W/Out Training or Diet? Taking 1-3 mg Melatonin Helps Women Lose 7% Body Fat, Gain 3.5% Lean Mass in Recent 12 Months-Long RCT

Since the natural melatonin production decreases as we age, it is (unfortunately) possible that younger women wouldn't see the same benefits as the >56 year-old subjects of the study at hand.

No, I am not recommending laziness here, and I doubt that you will arrive at a cover model physique with nothing but a handful of melatonin pills, but the results of a recent study from the Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark are too intriguing not to devote a whole SuppVersity article to them.

In said study, Anne Kristine Amstrup and colleagues tested whether there's anything to the rumors that have it that "melatonin [has] a positive effect on body weight and energy metabolism" (Amstrup. 2015). As the researchers rightly point out, previous "evidence for this relies mainly on animal models" (ibid). It was thus about time for someone to "determine the effects of melatonin on body composition, lipid and glucose metabolism in humans" (ibid).

Want to learn more about melatonin? The SuppVersity is the place to be.

Melatonin as potent as Letrozole

Melatonin for Bone & Tooth Health

M. Sleep Aid W/ Anti-Alzheimer's Effect

Melatonin vs. Fructose Overloads

Melatonin as Anabolic On-Switch

M. Anti-Alzheimer + Anti-Body Fat Agent

In this case, said human beings were 81 post-menopausal Caucasian women (aged 56-73 years) diagnosed with osteopenia (T-score between -1 and -2.5 in the hip or spine). The Danish scientists randomized the women to receive

• either melatonin, at a dosage of 1 or 3 mg per day, or
• an identically looking placebo nightly (timing matters!)

for a total time-period of 12 months. There were no dietary or exercise interventions, but all study subjects received a daily supplementation of 800mg calcium and 20ug vitamin D3 (which obviously wouldn't affect the results, also because all of the participants had taken Ca + D3 for at least 3 months before the study began). With DXA, ...

"To assess body composition, we used a whole body scan by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). We performed scans at baseline and after one year of treatment. Assessments included total and subtotal body mass (g), lean mass (g), fat mass (g) and percentages of body fat. We calculated body mass index (BMI) as body weight (kg) divided by height² (in metres)" (Amstrup. 2015).

... and a detailed analysis of the blood of their subjects, the body composition and biochemical analyses were similarly thorough as the randomization protocol which was performed by an external pharmacy (Skanderborg Pharmacy).

Beware! If you take melatonin anytime but 1-2h before bed (fasted), it may backfire! If you don't remember why and how timing matters, I suggest you re-read my 2014 article about how taking melatonin at the wrong time of the day may actually make you fat and insulin resistant.

Each block consisted of eight individuals. In the blocks, the women were randomly allocated to treatment, i.e. four received placebo, while two received 1mg of melatonin and two received 3mg melatonin.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition (left) and adiponectin (right) in response to 1-3mg of melatonin taken at night over a 12-months period without further exercise or diet intervention (Amstrup. 2015).

This is also why I have little doubt that we can rely on the data in Figure 1 which shows an astonishingly pronounced reduction in fat mass and a borderline-significant increase in lean mass in the melatonin groups, when the subjects on the placebo supplements gained total (and %) body fat and lost lean mass in the same 12-months period.

Melatonin As Potent as Letrozole in Inhibiting Aromatization | more

You are an athlete who does not care about losing weight? Data from a Spanish study leaves no doubt that you can still benefit from taking melatonin. In their soon-to-be-published study, researchers from the Universidad de Granada a high dose of melatonin restored the normal circadian rhythm of melatonin production, reduced the nocturnal activity and the activity and position during lunch/nap time - "[t]ogether, these data reflect the beneficial effect of melatonin to modulate the circadian components of the sleep-wake cycle, improving sleep efficiency," the authors say (Leonardo-Mendonça. 2015).

The one thing I would still like to repeat is what I already mentioned in the caption of the thumbnail to this article: Since the natural melatonin production decreases as we age and menopaus (Okatani. 2000), it is (unfortunately) possible that younger women wouldn't see the same benefits as the >56 year-old subjects of the study at hand.

Figure 2: Rodent studies also show that melatonin supplementation prolongs the lifespan of the average mouse (Pierpaoli. 1994) and rat (see data in graph) significantly (Oaknin-Bendahan. 1995).

In a similar vein, it cannot be said with any certainty, whether men will benefit to the same extent as the post-menopausal women in the study at hand. While studies in rodents clearly suggest that melatonin works its weight reducing, life pro-longing (see Figure 2) in both male and female middle-aged rodents (Rasmussen. 1999; Wolden-Hanson. 2000), as well as rats who are fed an obesogenic diet like the standard American diet (Prunet-Marcassus. 2003), men are no little mice... but I guess you know that ;-)

So what? Well, melatonin is a hormone, not one with that builds muscle, but as the study at hand proves one with non-debatable "beneficial effects on body composition in terms of reduced fat mass and borderline significantly increased lean mass in post-menopausal women".  What's particularly interesting is that this effect can be achieved with relatively small doses of melatonin (1 and 3mg/d) and without any of the unwanted effects on blood lipids, glucose metabolism or markers of kidney and liver health you would see with other hormonal substances with proven body-recompositioning effects.

Will Melatonin Reduce Your Testoste- rone Levels? A Review of the Existing Evidence Experimental Human Data Says: Unlike in rodents, the longterm administrationf melatonin to men appears to rather increase vs. decrease their T levels.

In this context it is also worth mentioning that the authors believe that their "findings may be explained by a melatonin-driven increase in osteogenesis resulting in decreased adipogenesis". Bone instead of fat cells? Well, as SuppVersity reader and follower of the SuppVersity Facebook News-Channel you will have read about the cellular underpinnings of this transformation before. Against that background it is not unreasonable of Amstrup et al. to conclude that "[o]n the basis of [their] study, melatonin maybe an interesting therapeutic agent for future treatment strategies against [...] age-related changes in body composition"  (Amstrup. 2105). Whether it is a must have supplement for younger (more athletic) individuals, though, will have to be determined in future human trials, of which I doubt that they will be publicly funded  | Comment on FB!

References:

• Amstrup, et al. "Reduced fat mass and increased lean mass in response to one year of melatonin treatment in postmenopausal women: A randomized placebo controlled trial." Clinical Endocrinology (2015): Accepted article.
• Leonardo-Mendonça RC,  et al. "The benefits of four weeks of melatonin treatment on circadian patterns in resistance-trained athletes." Chronobiol Int. 11 (2015): 1-10. 
• Oaknin-Bendahan, Sol, et al. "Effects of long-term administration of melatonin and a putative antagonist on the ageing rat." Neuroreport 6.5 (1995): 785-788.
• Okatani, Yuji, Nobuyuki Morioka, and Akihiko Wakatsuki. "Changes in nocturnal melatonin secretion in perimenopausal women: correlation with endogenous estrogen concentrations." Journal of pineal research 28.2 (2000): 111-118.
• Prunet-Marcassus, Benedicte, et al. "Melatonin reduces body weight gain in Sprague Dawley rats with diet-induced obesity." Endocrinology 144.12 (2003): 5347-5352.
• Rasmussen, Dennis D., et al. "Daily melatonin administration at middle age suppresses male rate visceral fat, plasma leptin, and plasma insulin to youthful levels." Endocrinology 140.2 (1999): 1009-1012.
• Wolden-Hanson, T., et al. "Daily Melatonin Administration to Middle-Aged Male Rats Suppresses Body Weight, Intraabdominal Adiposity, and Plasma Leptin and Insulin Independent of Food Intake and Total Body Fat 1." Endocrinology 141.2 (2000): 487-497.

Nutrient Overfeeding in the Metabolic Chamber: Protein, not Fat Triggers Compensatory Increase in Energy Expenditure

In case you are asking yourselves why the subjects didn't live in the metabolic chamber for the whole study period, take a look at the photo of the metabolic chamber of HealthQ as an example for the "ample" space in a research instrument like this. 

Scientist from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center have recently conducted a sstudy to quantify the effects of excess energy from fat or protein on energy expenditure of men and women living in a metabolic chamber.

A metabolic chamber is a small room a person can live in for a 24 hour period. It is used to measure the metabolic rate of said individual during meals, sleep, and light activities. To do so, scientists measure the heat released from a person's body to determine the energy expenditure of the individual continuously. Compared to "regular" VO2 based short-term measurements studies like the one at hand will therefore provide significantly more reliable information about the effects of certain foods, exercise and - as in this case - macronutrients on metabolic parameters.

You can learn more about protein intake at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?

In the study at hand, Bray at el. put 25 sedentary, but healthy subjects aged 18–35 years (BMI 19.7–29.6 kg/m²) on iso-caloric diets containing an extra 40% of energy for not just one, but 56 days.

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the study design. The figure shows the baseline period followed by the 8 wk of overfeeding and the timing of the experimental procedures (Bray. 2015).

The effects of the diets that varied in their protein content from 5%, to 15%, and 25% was measured on four occasions. On day 1, 14, and 56 of overfeeding and on day 57 while consuming the baseline diet. In addition, the scientists measured metabolic and molecular markers of muscle metabolism via skeletal muscle biopsy specimens.

"All food was prepared by the metabolic kitchen and provided to the participants in a 5-d rotating menu over the entire inpatient stay. Overfeeding diets provided 40% of energy above the final caloric prescription determined at baseline to maintain weight on the metabolic ward. Menus were prepared in duplicate and food composites analyzed for nutrient composition.  To ensure feeding compliance, all meals were consumed under supervision by inpatient personnel" (Bray. 2015).

When expressed per kilogram of weight, the 5% low protein group (LPD) consumed 0.68 +/- 0.07 g/kg per day, the NPD group consumed 1.80 +/- 0.25 g/kg per day, and the HPD group consumed 3.01 +/- 0.30 g/kg per day during the overfeeding period.

Figure 2: Macronutrient composition (g/day) of the diets before and during the intervention (Bray. 2015).

As Bray et al. point out in the corresponding paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the carbohydrate intake in grams per day was maintained throughout the overfeeding period with the balance of energy as fat. Practically speaking this meant that carbohydrates provided 60% of calories at baseline and 42–43% in all 3 overfeeding diets. Since the rest of the energy came from fat, this means that the subjects in the three study groups consumed 49% in the LPD, 42% in the NPD, and 30% in the HPD.

More protein = better? In case you are asking yourself what happens if you consume significantly more protein than the FDA allows... it won't fry your kidneys, but in a recent study by Antonio et al. it did have quite impressive beneficial effects on the body composition of the study participants | learn more. Please keep in mind, though: You cannot life off protein alone!

The results of the study are not really surprising. As it was to be expected based on previous studies which highlight that high fat overfeeding is the most, high protein overfeeding the least obesogenic way of stuffing yourself:

Figure 3: Relative changes in muscle mass and body fat (%) in the different groups (Bray. 2015).

• The low-protein and thus higher fat diet group did not experience an increase in 24EE and SleepEE and did thus gain the most amount of body fat
• The normal protein and the high protein groups on the other hand saw increases in both 24EE and SleepEE increased in relation to protein intake (r = 0.50, P = 0.02).
• All three diets increased the amount of adipose tissue (body fat), but only the normal and high protein diets lead to concomitant increases in muscle mass even in the absence of resistance training (see Figure 3).

It is also not exactly surprising that the scientists were able to show that the increase in energy expenditure over 8 weeks was correlated with protein intake (r = 0.60, P = 0.004). The amount of energy the subjects consumed, however, showed no significant correlation with the effect the diets had on 24hEE and SleepEE.

Figure 4: Scatter plots of the individual increases in 24h (left) and sleeping energy expenditure (middle) as well as the changes in energy expenditure in selected organs (right | Bray. 2015).

Similarly worth mentioning are the facts that (1) protein and fat oxidation were reciprocally related during overfeeding (meaning the more fat was oxidized, the less protein had to be burned as fuel) and that (2) the observed 24EE was higher than predicted on days 1 (P # 0.05), 14 (P = 0.0001), and 56 (P = 0.0007) and (3) it was not the muscle tissue but other organs that burned the extra energy (you can see the individual contributions in Figure 3, right).

Learn how high fat, high carbohydrate and high protein overfeeding affect your physique | here.

Bottom line: In the end you could argue that it was not really worth discussing the study here, but since I know that most of you are consuming a high(er) protein diet, I thought it may be nice to see some actual figures, such as those in Figure 4.

Speaking of figures: The exact figures or rather the fact that the measured increases in energy expenditure were higher than expected render the results of the study at hand relevant for anyone who is (albeit probably unsuccessfully) trying to calculate his "exact" energy expenditure on a bulk.

For most of us, however, the results have no practical implications we wouldn't have deduced from previous studies already: When in doubt, increase your protein, not your fat intake to increase the weight gain while bulking | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bray, George A., et al. "Effect of protein overfeeding on energy expenditure measured in a metabolic chamber." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2015): ajcn-091769.