Oral adenosine-5’-triphosphate (ATP) Supplementation - A Story of Mice & Men | Can ATP Be the Cornerstone of a New Generation of Innovative Pre Workout Pump Supplements

Photos like this helped BSN sell truckloads of their "mother of all pre-workouts" NO XPlode!

Increases in blood flow? That's something each and every of the first, second and third generation promises "pump supplements" to deliver. For the first generation it was arginine, for the second citrulline and for the third nitrates that were supposed to get the job done.

What? None of them worked for you? Well luckily the next "big thing" is already looming on the horizon: "Oral adenosine-5’-triphosphate (ATP) supplements," of which you'd think that they would be used to deliver immediate energy, are probably soon going to be marketed as "pump supplements".

I would alway chose creatine creatine over ATP supplements

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Better After Workout

ALA + Creatine = Max Uptake?

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

Why? Well, let me just cite the title of a recent study from the Auburn University, the University of Tempa, the University of Missouri-Columbia and the a couple of companies with a vested interest in preferably beneficial study outcomes:

"Oral adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) administration increases blood flow following exercise in animals and humans" (Jäger. 2014)

What? You're not impressed? Me neither, even though the body surface area, species adjusted human equivalent doses (HED) of either 100 mg (n=4), 400 mg (n=4), 1,000 mg (n=5) or 1,600 mg (n=5) of oral ATP as a disodium salt (Peak ATP®, TSI, Missoula, MT) the rodents in the study at hand received, the fact that the 400mg dosage of ATP that was used in the human arm of the study (12 resistance-trained male participants; 400 mg of ATP as a disodium salt daily 30 minutes before  breakfast  for  12 weeks + 400 mg of ATP 30 minutes prior to an acute elbow flexor bout consisting of 3 sets of 20 contractions at 50% of the subject’s 1-RM) produced rather mediocre elevations of post-workout.

Figue 1: Changes in Brachial Diameter at weeks 1, 4, 8, 12 were compared to control week by a paired t-test, ‡
p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 and +p < 0.10 (Jäger. 2014)

Maybe you want to disagree, but I don't really see how the transient and highly variable increase in blood-flow the scientists observed in the human trial (400mg/day) would be relevant for athletic performance or recovery. I guess, if it was not for the Wilson study (Wilson. 2014; read previous article) that reported recently that oral ATP supplementation can significantly impact athletic performance, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and recovery, I would not even have mentioned the study at hand, which suggests that the increase in "blood flow result[s] in improved oxygen and nutrient delivery to the muscle" and could thus be at the heart of the previously observed ergogenic effects of ATP supplements.

If it were not for the previously reported increases muscle mass, size and performance gains in Wilson et al.'s complex 12-week study with previously strength-trained subjects, I would yet say that we are probably dealing with yet another imposter supplement (re-read previous article).

If you are looking for an excuse to try ATP supplements, better take the Wilson study than this one.

Bottom line: I am similarly reluctant to call this study boring and non-significant, as I am reluctant to accept it as evidence that the good old marketing claim that pump supplements would exert their ergogenic effects by enhancing the blood flow. It may sound logical that this would improve the removal of metabolic waste products and nutrient delivery, but where is the evidence this is "anabolic", "ergogenic" or what not?

I don't want to say that this is not the case, but even if it was, will the real-world benefits in fact be more pronounced than they were with the 1st and 2nd generation "pump" supplements? I don't think so.

References:

• Jäger, R. et al. "Oral adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) administration increases blood flow
  following exercise in animals and humans." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2014:11-28
• Wilson JM, Joy JM, Lowery RP, Roberts MD, Lockwood CM, Manninen AH, Fuller JC Jr, De Souza EO, Baier SM, Wilson SMC, Rathmacher JA. "Effects of oral adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) supplementation on athletic performance, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and recovery in resistance-trained men." Nutr Metab (Lond). 2013:10:57.

Ingestion of 400mg Caffeine Before a Workout Can Prevent Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness in Resistance Trained Men

Too many side-laterals without coffee?

Still having DOMS despite Alex Leaf's article on "DOMS - Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: What Is DOMS & How Can It Be Managed? Science, Strategies, Supplements" (read more)?

In that case you are probably not a great fan of pre-workout products, coffee or energy drinks, because if you were, it is not unlikely that you had - instinctively, if you will - done everything right by consuming a hefty dose of the world's #1 OTC drug, caffeine, before each of your workouts.

400mg is plenty, but it does the trick

In case you have no clue what I am talking about, I'd suggest you take a look at the results of a recent paper by Hurley, Hatfield, and Riebe in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Hurley. 2013). In a series of tests that involved a strenuous biceps workout 4 sets of 10 bicep curls on a preacher bench, followed by a fifth set in which subjects completed as many repetitions as possible. The workout that was performed twice, with a one-week "wash-out" period - once with and once without the ingestion of 5mg/kg of caffeine 1h before the training session.

When the scientists compared the performance, perceived exertion and post-workout muscle soreness parameters they found that the ingestion of 5mg/kg caffeine ...

• had a beneficial effects on the perception of muscle soreness, 
• reduced the levels of perceived exertion, and
• lead to significant increases in performance

As you can see in Figure 1 the equivalent of ~2-3 cups of coffee did nut just ameliorate the pain on day 2 after the workout (that's usually when DOMS hits you hard). It did also speed up the "regeneration", or rather the reduction of pain.

Figure 1: Soreness values expressed relative to baseline testing (left) CK levels after the training session and number of repetitions on the all-out set (right; Hurley. 2013)

I have to admit, I was tempted to write that caffeine sped up the recovery process, but if you read part II of Alex' two-part series on DOMS, you will be aware that it is not warranted to use DOMS as a marker of regeneration ("DOMS - Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: No Pain, No Gain? Is DOMS Necessary to Build Muscle?" | learn more).

The repeated bout effect is the opposite of the anabolic resistance that can occur after weeks of training | learn more

What about the repeated bout effect? What if it skewed the results? The increase in performance and reduce in muscle damage upon the exposure to a "conditioned" stimulus could in fact have led to lower DOMS values in the second of the two testing session. Hurley et al. do however point out that this effect would be minized by counterbalancing and appropriate randomization as it was conducted in the study at hand.

The non-existent effects on the creatine kinase (CK) levels of the the 12 healthy resistance-trained men (age 18–25 years) supports Alex' assessment that the link between CK and DOMS is a temporary one: While the peak values of DOMS and CK occur at the same time, a high CK level does neither predict a high degree of delayed onset muscle soreness, nor vice versa.

So what's the mechanism here

In view of the fact that the continuous provision of caffeine throughout the recovery phase did not lead to similar / increased reduction in DOMS, it appears certain that the effects of caffeine are acute. This means it works only, if it is ingested 1h before the workout and will thus achieve it's peak value when you are actually working out (depending on the dosage and delivery method, the caffeine levels peak after 40-60 min).

As Hurley et al. point out, the effect could be brought about by a partial blockade of the natural increase in muscular adenosine concentrations that have been observed to increase in the working muscle and blood after high-intensity exercise in previous studies (Tarnopolsky, 2000; Davis. 2003; Motl. 2006). It would also stand in line with the (unsurprising) observation that the subjects’ perceived exertion was significantly lower with caffeine in the final 3 sets of exercise - an effect that has also been attributed to the adenosine-inhibiting effects of caffeine (Davis. 2003):

"This response is attributed to the role of caffeine as a CNS stimulant and inhibiting adenosine receptor activity. Caffeine stimulates the CNS by secreting serotonin into the cerebral cortex, which results in mood improvements, increased mental awareness, and decreased fatigue and tiredness. This is all a result of inhibited adenosine activity thus reducing perception of pain, which could increase ability to perform more repetitions." (Hurley. 2013)

In view of the fact that the adenosine levels have not been accessed, the authors are eventually still stuck for an answer with respect to the exact underlying mechanism of the anti-DOMS effects of caffeine. Adenosine is a likely candidate, though, and before I would do a follow up study on this, I would rather take some money to find out whether 400mg of caffeine taken before a PM workout won't be doing more harm than good by having profound negative effect on your sleep quality.

Sometimes the things we learn from scientific studies have questionable, limited or no practical relevance. For others, like the study at hand or a previous study on the "muscle shaping effects" of certain exercises, this is luckily not the case (read more)

"Who cares about mechanisms, if it works?" I guess in view of the many in-vitro studies we are being bombarded with on a daily basis, most of you will probably agree that not knowing the exact mechanism of the DOMS-reducing effects of 5mg/kg of coffee is less problematic than knowing about the mechanism by which a certain substance works, but being clueless whether and at which doses it will produce the desired effects in humans - right?

Right! Unfortunately, even the results of the study at hand come with a small "*" [asterisk] to indicate that the benefits were observed in subjects who consumed coffee and caffeinated beverages only occasionally. Based on the observation that the performance enhancing effects of caffeine do not differ between habitual / non.habitual caffeine consumers (Tarnopolsky. 2000; Astorino. 2007), it does however appear likely that this is not going to be an issue.

References:

• Astorino TA, Rohmann RL, Firth K, Kelly S. Caffeine-induced changes in cardiovascular function during resistance training. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2007 Oct;17(5):468-77.
• Davis JM, Zhao Z, Stock HS, Mehl KA, Buggy J, Hand GA. Central nervous system effects of caffeine and adenosine on fatigue. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003 Feb;284(2):R399-404. Epub 2002 Oct 24.
• Hurley CF, Hatfield DL, Riebe DA. The effect of caffeine ingestion on delayed onset muscle soreness. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Nov;27(11):3101-9.
• Motl RW, O'connor PJ, Tubandt L, Puetz T, Ely MR. Effect of caffeine on leg muscle pain during cycling exercise among females. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Mar;38(3):598-604.
• Tarnopolsky M, Cupido C. Caffeine potentiates low frequency skeletal muscle force in habitual and nonhabitual caffeine consumers. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 Nov;89(5):1719-24.

Opuntia Ficus-Indica (OFI) - A New Insolinogenic Star at the Post-Workout Heaven and Perfect Synergist to Leucine?

The meager increase in glucose disposal observed in the study at hand is not likely to do anything, but be good for another confusing graph on the label of the licensees' first OpunDia powered supplements.

Against the background that insulin still has a pretty bad rep, it is actually quite funny that its fiercest enemies and most loyal followers of low-carb diets are usually the guys and girls who spent tons of money on 100% useless "insulin mimetics". Insulin mimetics like the cactus extract that's at the heart of a recent study by Louise Deldicque, Karen Van Proeyen, Monique Ramaekers, Ivo Pischel, Hartwig Sievers and Peter Hespel? Or could it be possible that Opuntia Ficus-Indica is the infamous exception that proves the rule?

To answer this question, it is obviously necessary that we take a closer look at the corresponding paper in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN). I mean, it is not impossible that this is finally the "next big thing" we've all been waiting for, right?

Leucine + Herb = Win?

Before we dig further into the methods and results of the study, it it probably suitable for me to tell you about the meaningful letters "™" behind the word OpunDia and the openly declared competing interests of Ivo Pischel and Hartwig Sievers.

Note: A competing interest is nothing to be ashamed of, it does not - if it is openly declared - reduce the credibility of the research and without it we would see even fever human studies on dietary supplements be conducted, so you better think twice before you give a sniff at the results.

Enough of the foreplay , though, let's finally take a look at the design and the results of this human trial that was conducted by the Exercise Physiology Research Group at the Department of Kinesiology of KU Leuven in Belgium (Deldicque. 2013).

What exactly is in the supplement: According to the researchers, "OpunDia™ is a preferred blend of Opuntia ficus-indica cladode and fruit skin extract containing 75% cladode extract and 25% fruit skin extract (for both extraction solvent: water; DER (drug-to-extract ratio) 2–4:1; 50% native extract, 50% collagen hydrolysate as excipient)." (Deldicque. 2013) - personally I'd say it's cactus extract ;-)

Things you don't need to know: Wiese et al. report in a 2004 paper that OFI is also a passable hangover cure (Wiese. 2004)

There were 11 male subjects who participated in the study. All were physically active and the mean age was 21.1 ± 0.9 years. With a body weight of of 74.5 ± 4.2 kg and a VO2 max (~fitness level) of 65 ± 4 ml·min/kg), they are probably representative of the average, but not necessarily the extra-extraordinaire trainee.

After the usual pre-testing procedures, the guys were randomized to receive either

• 1,000 mg LUVOS Heilerde serving as placebo (PL),
• 1,000 mg OpunDia™ (OFI), 
• 3,000 mg of old-fassioned leucine (LEU), or 
• 1,000 mg OpunDia™ + 3,000 mg leucine (OFI+LEU).

After each of the four randomized cross-over testing session that involved 30min of rather casual cycling at 70% of the predetermined VO2 max (90-100 rpm) the subjects received capsules containing one of the above formulations and the 75g of glucose that were used for the oral glucose tolerance tst.. Needless to say that all capsules had identical appearance and the number of capsules ingested was the same for each condition.

It works, but what does that tell us?

In a previous trial, Van Proeyen et al. had already observed that the ingestion of an identical supplement stimulates the peripheral disposal of oral glucose before and after exercise in healthy men. If you will, you may thus call the study at hand a follow up, which did - what a surprise (!) - confirm the effects of OFI and a certain, but not exactly impressive synergism between the plant extract and everyone's favorite amino acid leucine, one of the branched chain amino acids and, as SuppVersity readers know, likewise highly pro-insulinogenic (learn more about leucine).

Figure 1: Glucose and insulin iAUC after oral glucose test performed subsequent to the ingestion of PL, OFI, LEU or LEU + OFI supplement and 30min of "cardio" at 70% of the VO2max (left); glucose levels in the 2h after the OGGT (Deldicque. 2013)

A cursory glance at the data in Figure 1 should suffice to see two things: (1) There was the expected / hoped for synergistic effect of leucine and OFI, but (2) only the OFI-only trial, and not the combination treatment led to significant reductions in the area under the glucose curve.

Is this even an improvement?

Remember that chromium picolinate can worsen the insulin sensitivity in  healthy non-diabetic, non-obese individuals by up to 25% | learn more

"Add Leucine and get more insulin, but a lower rate of glucose disposal"... I don't know what you'd say, but for me this sounds much like insulin resistance or let's rather say no improvement over the provision of OFI alone. The first take-home message is thus that the addition of leucine to OFI may produce a synergistic effect on insulin, the effect we are actually looking for, namely the increase in blood glucose uptake and glycogen synthesis is however absent. And what's more, neither I nor the researchers have an real clue as to what it is that triggers the short-lived increase in insulin production that's brought about by the ingestion of 1,000mg Opuntia Ficus-Indica extract.

Accordingly, it is very difficult to give any prognosis whether more would help more, or the whether we'd see similar detrimental effects as with chromium upon dose escalation.

"When Hype Meets Reality" aspartic acid is another supplemental non-starter | more

Litmus question: Is this cactus useful? There are still questions to be answered (mechanism, counter-intuitive effects of leucine, etc.), but if you asked me we don't have to wait for the answers to be found to be able to tell that the effects we see in the study at hand are statistically significant, but physiologically irrelevant.

By now even the last bro should know that the natural up and down in insulin is not going to build muscle. The "spike" either leucine or OFI produced in the study at hand is thus not going to make anything grow and the pathetic increase rate of glycogen repletion is 100% irrelevant for the average trainee. 

References:

• Manders RJ, Little JP, Forbes SC, Candow DG. Insulinotropic and muscle protein synthetic effects of branched-chain amino acids: potential therapy for type 2 diabetes and sarcopenia. Nutrients2012. 4:1664–1678.
• Van Loon LJ, Saris WH, Kruijshoop M, Wagenmakers AJ. Maximizing postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis: carbohydrate supplementation and the application of amino acid or protein hydrolysate mixtures. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000,72:106–111.
• Van Loon LJ, Kruijshoop M, Verhagen H, Saris WH, Wagenmakers AJ. Ingestion of protein hydrolysate and amino acid-carbohydrate mixtures increases postexercise plasma insulin responses in men. J Nutr. 2000, 130:2508–2513.
• Van Proeyen K, Ramaekers M, Pischel I, Hespel P. Opuntia ficus-indica ingestion stimulates peripheral disposal of oral glucose before and after exercise in healthy men.Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2012,22:284–291
• Wiese J, McPherson S, Odden MC, Shlipak MG. Effect of Opuntia ficus indica on symptoms of the alcohol hangover. Arch Intern Med. 2004 Jun 28;164(12):1334-40.

Are We Whey-sting Money? Study says: No Increase in Size or Strength Gains With Peri-Workout Protein Supplements. Plus: Pegylated Whey & Leucine - Worth the Extra Bucks?

Protein, sugar or plain water - what if it would not even matter what was in his bottle, as long as he is still young, works out hard and gets his 1.2g+ protein per kg body weight from whole foods?

If this is not the first time you're here at the SuppVersity you are unquestionably aware that the effect size of the tried and proven peri-workout supplementation is totally overrated. Notwithstanding, a protein supplement and especially a fast digesting whey protein is one of the SuppVersity Suggested Staple Supplements; one of those supplements of which even I claim that 99% of the trainees can benefit. So what do we do with the results of a recently published paper by Ashley A. Walter and her colleagues from the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Kansas, the California State University-San Bernardino, the University of North-Carolina-Chapel Hill and the University of Central Florida?

Have we been doing it wrong, all the time?

Do we simply ignore their data, which indicates that 8 weeks of resistance training (three times per week, chest + legs) does increase muscle performance and size similarly among all groups "regardless of supplementation" (Walter. 2013). Why no? I mean let's wrap this up and simply say, the study must be flawed. No wonder, actually, after all the idea to investigate the differential effects of different forms of protein (regular vs. "bioenhanced" = pegylated* whey), different workout volumes 3 vs. 5 sets and a placebo vs. a "no supplement at all" control group looks like one of the classic mistakes science greenhorns ake. A mistake I know only all to well fro the real world university (not the SuppVersity), where overeager students of mine who try to write the "Jack of All Traits" Bachelor or Master thesis in 99% of the cases produces a garbled mess with little or no scientific value.

What is pegylation? Pegylation refers to the process of binding a molecule, like a small peptide or amino acid to polyethylene glycol in order to increase its bioavailability. It's common practice with pharmaceuticals and has already shown some promise in previous studies with pegylated creatine (e.g. Camic. 2010). Especially in the case of PEG creatine, it is however questionable, whether the higher bioavailability, which does nothing, but reduce the dosage requirements (Herda. 2008), would be worth the additional costs. My personal answer to that question clearly is "no" and the fact that these expensive products actually never had a breakthrough on the market would confirm that the marginal utility is zero (or negative ;-)

On the other hand, there is no debating that the study at hand, with its 106 healthy active male volunteers (mean age 21 years, body fat 10-25%; ~60% with aerobic training, ~40 percent with resistance training experience or both, as well as 60% performing other recreational sports regularly) and thus ~20 subjects per group is not underpowered, as you would expect and should thus in fact be able to spot differences between the 5 arms of the 8-week randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial:

• bio-enhanced whey* protein with low volume training (BWP LV , n=22)
• bio-enhanced whey protein with moderate volume training (BWP MV, n=20)

• standard whey protein with moderate volume training (SWPMV, n=22), 

• placebo with moderate volume training (PLA, n=21), 
• control (=no suppleent) with moderate volume training (CON, n=21).

The supplement itself was chocolate-flavored and ingested on both workout days and off days: one before, one after the workout or a single shake at a self-chosen timepoint on the off day. The main difference between the "bio-enhanced" and the regular whey was the addition of 5g of polyethylene glycosylated (PEG) leucine to the baseline amount of 20g of whey. The placebo contained pure maltodextrin and the control group did not receive any drink whatsoever... actually this is something I have not seen before - a neat way to answer the question: How much of the efficacy of a tried and proven staple supplement lke Whey is actually in your head, only?

Enough of the presquabble let's take a look at the results

Looking at the plots in figure 1 certainly does not look like there would not be any differences to begin with, but once you realize the "differences" are almost exclusively negligible and well within the standard deviations of the respective parameters.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition (left), strength and strength endurance (right; Walter. 2013)

There are just two things that stick out, #1 is the statistically non-significant but still obvious fat loss advantage of not supplementing at all (marked by an arrow) and the other one is the lean and total mass disadvantage of the ...

• Note: Both programs involved training chest and legs thrice a week, which should obviously be enough of a growth stimulus. If you doubt that or believe that it may even be too much, take a look at the success of the guys in the control groups.
  low volume training program , which involved an onramp up to 3 sets of 6 reps with 80% 1-RM on the bench and the leg press,compared to the

• high volume program, in the course of which the subjects performed 5 sets of 6 reps with 80% 1-RM on the bench and the leg press

This observation does in fact fit pretty well with rationale the scientists use to explain the non existence of any measurable differences between the 5 arms. "[A]midst the anabolic stimulus of resistance training." (Camic. 2013), the additional growth stimulus any amount of protein could add to the already high basal level of workout induced MPS in young men would simply be negligible (cf. Volpi. 2001; Yarasheski. 2002).

"This may partially explain why this study showed no significant effects of protein supplementation beyond the resistance training during the 8- week study period, regardless of treatment group.[...] Our primary outcome variable was muscular strength changes. While the present study indicated strength changes in all groups, the importance of a lack of additional change in the groups with protein supplementation." (Walter. 2013)

What is yet interesting is tthat not just the protein supplementation but also the ~40-45% higher volume in the "-MV"-groups (medium volume training) vs. the "-LV"-group (low volume training) did bring about significant changes in 55-59% of the resistance training volume elucidated significant differences in strength or size gain.

Suggested read "Greater & Steadier Strength Gains w/ 8 Sets of Squats." (Article I) and "Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs,  Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps." (Article II)

Unfortunately, it cannot be said if the protein supplementation did in this case create an equal playing field or not, although the researchers' statement that 

"[...] these findings suggest that when a moderate- or high-volume of resistance training is not possible, consuming protein and amino acids in conjunction with a low-volume resistance training program may be sufficient for achieving equivalent results" (Walter. 2013).

 appears to suggest just that: The fallicious believe that you can "out-supplement" suboptimal training routines. This does not necessarily mean that you got to to 5 sets of every of the X exercises you do, but if you stick to only one, you better make sure to have at least five sets esp. for legs and other large muscle groups (check out the suggested reads on the right for more information: Article I, Article II)

Apropos level playing field 

A brief glance at the data in figure 1 shows that (a) the protocol did work out as it is supposed to be and only the guys in the protein supplement groups did actually exhibit a significant increase in protein intake, and (b) that the overall protein intake on a per kg of body weight base was - quelle suprise (!) - exactly where the many ofthe latest reviews say it has to be, in order to support optimal protein synthesis in young men: in the +1.2g  range (e.g. Coleman. 2012).

Figure 2: Protein intake before (pre, no supp) and during the study period in the different arms of the study (left) and respective protein intakes relative do body weight in the different groups (right)

Without significant differences in any other of the established nutritional parameters - first and foremost the overall energy intake, the only argument left would be that consuming even more protein on a daily basis may make the difference.

The lack of MPS data is a definitive, but by no means rare downside of the study

Figure 3: Fractional  protein synthesis (FSR) in the Moore study (young participants leg curls + leg extension medium intensity, red), in which a ceiling effect occurred and the Yang study (old participants rel. light workout, blue), where the latter was absent (originally published on February 11, 2012)

If we did yet follow this rational we would have to discard 90% of the muscular protein synthesis (MPS) data from previous studies we have become so fond of. After all, 90% of the pertinent and heavily cited data is based on trials using only 20-30g of whey after a workout. And if taking the protein before and after the workout would be a problem this would only compromise the body recompositioning effect, superior strength and size gains should yet still be visible. And taking more? Well, the 40g of whey (20g pre and 20g post) used in this do actually already approach the "ceiling level" after which the marginal utility of additional protein approaches zero - at least in young trainees and after a reasonably intense workout (read up on my previous comparison and elaborations on the data from young and old individuals from studies by Moore et al. and Yang et al.; cf. figure 3).

In the end, comparisons like the former involving MPS / FSR studies like the ones by Moor et el. with the study at hand would yet require the presence of respective data for the early mid- and end-phase of the Walter study. Since this data is not present and in view of the fact that we do actually have to be as skeptic about the prognostic value of MPS data measured in the immediate vicinity of a workout as we are about the heavily scrutinized "anabolic" response to a workout (cf. yesterday's post and the suggested reads), the overall significance of the study at hand remains questionable.

As questionable, by the way, as the researchers discussion of the "practical implications". After stating for the fifth time that supplementation clearly did nothing to augment the exercise induced increase in size and strength, the researchers suddenly don't dare to speak out the only logical consequence, i.e. "there is no use in protein supplementation" and walk the eggshells instead when they state:

Acutually you could also argue that using stevia as a sweetener may benefit older trainees and people on low volume routines. I've written about its potential effect on satellite cell recruitment over a year ago, already (learn more)

"Furthermore, athletes could benefit from a  low-volume regimen in conjunction with protein supplementation while recovering from injury and completing their prescribed rehabilitation program. This may potentially speed up the recovery  process and decrease the event of post-injury complications. As active adults age, they are encouraged to maintain or increase activity. However, less is known about how older adults may respond to whey protein and leucine supplementation in conjunction with chronic resistance exercise. A lower-volume of resistance exercise plus supplementation can potentially benefit untrained or detrained individuals, similar to moderate-volume without protein supplementation.

It is also possible that older adults and elderly patients may have a higher aptitude to respond to  the anabolic effects of protein supplementation and resistance exercise. Additionally, it is possible that PEG may be more beneficial for the absorption of the amino acids in those with  difficulties digesting nutrients, rather than healthy young men that already have a high basal MPS rate." (Walter. 2013; my emphases of the conditionals and speculations)

I don't know about you, but in my mind the best term to describe aftertaste that remains after reading this "conclusion" is  "Much Ado About Nothing" ;-)

---

Bottom line: Since the above "practical implications" are probably of little use to you, let me give you mine. Forget about everything but the fact that protein synthesis may not be the best indicator of long(er) term real world strength and size gains and stick to the tried and proven. Mix 20-30g of whey (plus 10-20g casein, optional) after your workout add 1-2 bananas / or some instant oats (amount depends on whether you are trying to build muscle or cut body fat), head home, have a full meal within the next hour or so (don't freak out if it takes 61 or even 90min until you get something to eat) and - last but not least - make sure that each of your whole food meals has at least 20-30g of EAA rich whole protein in it. That's it! Easy, right?

Hydrolysates have clear advantage over EAAs (learn more). Plus, w/ the isoleucine-dipeptides they may even outperform regular whey. The study to prove that in a realistic scenario has yet to be conducted, though.

What? Oh yeah, you want to know if you should buy PEG whey? Well, I guess the results of this study speak for themselves, don't they? So even if the claims I've found in a patent by someone who goes by the telling surname "Guru" and reports a 5x higher amino acid accumulation from micronized PEG enriched whey compared to its conventional counterpart were not just the result of non-peer-reviewed   "experiments" (Ramanathan. 2010), which have been conducted for only one purpose, i.e. making the patented product shine, you probably don't have to worry that you could be missing out on this one.

If you insist on trying something different, I would rather suggest you take a look at the readily available and as of now no longer that expensive protein hydrolysates. No, not for their fast absorption, but rather for their unique small peptide structure (suggested reads: Isoleucine-dipeptides and  GLUT-4, hydrolysate vs. EAA)

References:

• Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ. Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window? J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2013 Jan 29;10(1):5.
• Camic CL, Hendrix CR, Housh TJ, Zuniga JM, Mielke M, Johnson GO, Schmidt RJ, Housh DJ. The effects of polyethylene glycosylated creatine supplementation on muscular strength and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Dec;24(12):3343-51.
• Coleman, E. Protein Requirements for Athletes. Clinical Nutrition INSIGHT: September 2012; 38(9):1–3.
• Herda TJ, Beck TW, Ryan ED, Smith AE, Walter AA, Hartman MJ, Stout JR, Cramer JT. Effects of creatine monohydrate and polyethylene glycosylated creatine supplementation on muscular strength, endurance, and power output. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 May;23(3):818-26.
• Moore DR, Robinson MJ, Fry JL, Tang JE, Glover EI, Wilkinson SB, Prior T, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
• Ramanathan, Guru. Dietary Ingredient With Enhanced Bioavailability. United States Patent Application. Pub. No. US2010/0209558A1. August, 2010.
• Volpi E, Sheffield-Moore M, Rasmussen BB, Wolfe RR. Basal muscle amino acid kinetics and protein synthesis in healthy young and older men. 2001; JAMA 286:1206-1212.
• Walter AA, Herda TJ, Costa PB, Ryan ED, Stout JR, Cramer JT. Muscle Performance, Size, And Safety Responses After Eight Weeks Of Resistance Training And Protein Supplementation: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Feb 25.
• Yang Y, Breen L, Burd NA, Hector AJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Josse AR, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Resistance exercise enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis with graded intakes of whey protein in older men. Br J Nutr. 2012 Nov 28;108(10):1780-8.
• Yarasheski KE, Welle S, Nair KS. Muscle protein synthesis in younger and older
  586 men. JAMA. 2002; 287:317-318.

Science Round-Up Seconds: The Latest Data on Periworkout Nutrition - Protein, Carbs, HMB & More: Is it Possible You Have Done It All Wrong?

Honestly, even if they had available back in the day, I am not sure if Arnold would have preferred a virtually carb-free whey protein isolate over his mixture of two cups of milk, 1/2 cup of dry, nonfat milk solids (the old-school version of protein powders ;-), one egg and 1/2 cup of flavored ice cream.

I must confess that after going >30min over time on yesterday's installment of the SupppVersity Science Round-Up (click here to download and listen to the podcast if you missed the live show) I have run out of "Seconds". Since the SuppVersity buttery ... ah, I mean archive, is well stocked, this is yet not real problem. I just have to go down into the basement and pick some fresh ingredients for today's installment of the Seconds.

For my liking yesterday's show was a bit "healthitarian", meaning the topics centered mostly around health issues. Now, don't get me wrong. The show was outstanding and topics such as the "egg / chicken prostate cancer connection" or the "omega-6 for heart health study", of which you would actually have to say in retrospect that it bordered murder by negligence are obviously highly relevant, but I am a fan of diversity and well aware that there may be some topics many of you may not be that interested in. So what would be more obvious than switching things up completely and preparing an "erogogenitarian" menu today?

Now, tell me: What are everyone's favorite ergogenic? Right! Those are protein powders and amino acids ranging from BCAAs and EAAs, to creatine, glutamine and more exotic but still interesting stuff like HMB. Luckily, two groups of researchers from Iran, and the UK, Australia and Spain who have submitted their papers to the Journal of Exercise Physiology and the European Journal of Experimental Biology a couple of weeks ago must obviously feel the same. And since both articles made it into the February issues of the respective journals, they are still fresh and thus qualify as ingredients for today's installment of the SuppVersity Science Round Up. So, bon appetit, then ;-)

Are carbohydrates, not protein the most important part of "anabolic" peri-workout nutrtion

(Kazemzadeh. 2013) -- I guess this will be a shocker for some of you, but the headline is not entirely provocative only. In their most recent paper, Yazer Kazemzadeh and his colleagues from the Islamic Azad University and the Hamedan University of Medical Sciences in Teheran, Iran, are actually suggesting that the

"[...] ingestion of carbohydrate during resistance exercise may be [more potent in] inhibiting the catabolic hormone (cortisol), increasing the anabolic hormone (insulin) and creating a hormonal milieu for anabolism [than] whey protein." (Kazemzadeh. 2013)

They do yet also point out that "other anabolic markers need greater investigation" (Kazemzadeh. 2013) and we all know that these "other anabolic markers" that are related to the protein-exclusive increase in protein synthesis are what makes the largest contribution to your muscle gains in the long term... at least as you provide yourself with the fuel you need to train and this is where the hormonal effects of the ~750 ml 6% CHO beverage ten out of the 20 untrained young men (age:22.3±3 y, bodymass: 74±5 kg) in the study consumed during the sets of a 75%RM strength training regimen that consisted of

• 4 exercises for lower body, which were leg presses, leg curls, leg extensions and calf raises, and
• 4 exercises for upper body, namely lat pull downs, bench presses, barbell biceps curls and supine triceps extensions

All exercises were performed for three sets of 8-10 reps to failure. With one minute rest between sets and two minute rest between the individual exercises, the total duration of the workouts was <60min and the workouts were performed in the late afternoon 16:00-18:00h to minimize the influence of natural diurnal variations of cortisol, testosterone and GH.

Figure 1: Cortisol, insulin, growth hormone and total testosterone levels before and after the workout with carbohydrate (CARB) or protein (PRO) drinks being ingested between the sets (Kazemzadeh. 2013)

As you can see from the plots in figure 1 the carbohydrate beverage, which contained a 10ml/kg of a 6% mix (=6g of carbs per 10kg body weight) of fast and slow digesting carbs from glucose (fast) and Quaker oats (slow) did a pretty decent job in establishing an allegedly optimal anabolic hormonal milieu by cranking up the GH, insulin and total testosterone levels and blunting the cortisol response.

Insulin up, cortisol down - how important is that?

The total amount of carbohydrates the CARB group in the study at hand consumed during their workouts does actually come pretty close to the 130-150g of carbs even the most sedentary slob can easily stash away in the glycogen stores of muscle and liver on a daily basis. If you want to learn more about the reaoning behind these figures, I suggest you go back to my previous post on "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land" (read the whole article).

With insulin and cortisol being the only parameters that responded significantly more favorable to the glucose load, the picture that emerges is unquestionable more conducive to protein anabolism. Based on dozens of previous studies, I can however guarantee that the actual protein synthesis rates, which were not measured in the study at hand, were higher in the whey protein arm of the study (2g protein per kg body weight).

That being said, the addition of carbs could still have had a beneficial effect on exercise recovery and ultimately  - probably only after weeks of training and in an otherwise low carb scenario - yield significantly greater increases in strength and lean muscle tissue. With the total amount of carbs well within in the <150g range and the maintenance of the GH response, of which many people claim it would be blunted by the ingestion of nutrients, in particular carbs, during or after a workout probably even without compromising your body composition (assuming that you compensate for the additional kcal in the subsequent meals).

The latter hypothesis of mine does actually make an excellent segue into the next study, so just keep on reading, if you want more ;-)

Performance enhancing supplement Cyclone first and foremost "fat enhancing"

(Cooper. 2013) -- I promised you that in the last sentence of the previous "course" of this installment of the SuppVersity Science Round-Up Seconds and here it is: Certainly somewhat surprising scientific evidence that 56g of carbs alone won't, but an isocaloric serving of the commercially available carbs + protein + creatine Cyclone will make you you fat.

Figure 2: Nutrient content of supplement and placebo (Cooper. 2013)

Now that I have got your full attention, let's take a look at the context in which these counterintuitive effects occurred. You can see the macro and, in the case of the commercial protein + mineral + amino acid combo, also the micronutrient composition of the supplements in figure 2 on the right hand side. As already mentioned, the amount of calories in the products was identical. Any differences in strength and mass gains, as well as changes in the body composition that arose in the course of the 12-week training regimen would therefore have to be attributed to differences in the macro / micronutrient composition.

If you follow your gut feeling, I guess you'd say that using a supplement full of more or less proven ergogenics while you train four times a week, following an

• upper body = bench press; bent over row; shoulder press, bicep curls, and triceps extension,
• lower body = squat, stiff leg deadlift, lunges, and dynamic upright row

split (training days: Mo, Tue, Thurs, Fri), in the course of which you perform 4 sets per exercise with 6 to 12 repetition at 65 to 80% of your one-repetition max  (2 min rest between sets) should actually produce measurably superior results to the ingestion of the meager amount of 56g of maltodextrin, right?

Figure 3: Changes in strength and body composition after 12 weeks on a upper-body, lower body split trained 2x per week on Mo & Tue, as well as Thurs & Friday (Cooper. 2013)

Right! At least that's what I had expected, as well. The results I plotted for you in figure 3 do yet speak a very different language. Ok, the overall lean mass increase of the 13 healthy already resistant trained men (23.5 ± 2.7 yrs old, body mass (BM) = 80 ± 13 kg, height = 179 ± 6 cm, body fat % ~11-18%)  was higher in the group that used the "professional" multi-component supplement. If your goal is "lean mass", however, the allegedly fattening carbohydrate drink which produced a small, but significant increase in lean mass without any accompanying fat gains, does yet suddenly look unexpectedly attractive, doesn't it (see figure 3, right)?

As far as the strength gains go, things actually don't look much different. Due to the small sample size, none of the he intergroup differences reached statistical significance and the scientists way of resorting to effect sizes instead of group averages, based on which they argue that "the lack of significance due to CYC supplementation does not mean the supplement was ineffective" (Cooper. 2013) Tells me that they were similarly surprised as I am about the outcome of this 12-week trial.

"That's impossible, so where is the design flaw, here?"

I know the above is what you are thinking now, so let's check the usual and not so usual suspects.

• 

  There are three things you need to succeed in your efforts to achieve optimal health, a decent physique and a long and active live: A plan, the guts to stick to it and change / tweak it, whenever that's necessary and - often overlooked - the right tools to measure your progress. And I can tell you a scale "body fat or not" is not among those tools (read more about goal setting, planning and stock taking).

  Diet? The subjects were "instructed to maintain the recommended dietary habits throughout the duration of the study" when necessary, specific tweaks were applied to make sure that they would hit the 1.5-2g of protein, 5-6 g of carbs and a fat intake of ~25%-30% of their daily total caloric intake. So, if we simply assume that any deviations from that regimen were similar in the two groups this cannot explain the differences.
• Body fat scales? Not a problem, because the body composition was assessed by whole body densitometry using air displacement in a Bod Pod® - whether that may have skewed the results due creatine induced water retention is yet not 100% certain. On the other hand, lower fat gains would imply even greater lean mass gains and that's not realistic given the fact that the subject's strength levels did hardly improve.
• Missing training sessions or not training with adequate intensity? Since the scientists don't mention that the training sessions were supervised, this could have been an issue. On the other hand, why would that happen only in the CARB, but not in the Cyclone group?
• Misreporting by the scientists: Actually I have now checked three times, whether it may be possible that the researchers simply messed up with the data in the tables and put the results for the CARB group in the Cyclone row and vice versa. Based on the discussion at the end of the paper this does yet not appear to be the case.

So, if all these don't apply what's left then?

• 

  The "anabolic window" turns out to be more of a barn door, which is unlocked by the key of exercise and nutrition science (learn more)

  Following the manufacturers advice instead of common practice: This is actually one the scientists came up with in their discussion. In the majority of previous studies with similar supps, the products and placebo were consumed before and after the workout. In the study at hand, they were consumed as prescribed by the manufacturer after breakfast and after the workout. Not likely that this is the reason? Well, honestly, I would agree. 
• Having way too small group sizes: This is certainly an important fact to consider. If you don't test training vs. not training having 7 subjects in the active and 6 in the placebo arm is not very likely to produce significant differences. On the other hand, this does not explain that the non-significant differences are more or less opposed to what you may have expected.

Now, even if this was all I could come up with, I would still not  suggest you give up on protein powder, creatine and your preferred carb source and switch to maltodextrin, only, as your post workout nutrition of choice! God forbid! After all I do still have an ace up my sleeve, which is

• 

  Don't worry, the 10g+ of EAA with every meal (20-30g+ of quality protein) rule of thumb to get lean and stay lean does still apply (read more). A single study won't change that overnight. And while the current carb-scare is hilarious and misplaced, carbs alone, just like protein only, don't build magnificent, athletic and healthy physiques.

  Not starting on a level playing field: If you take a brief look at the baseline body composition data there is one thing that shoul leap out. The initial body fat levels! While the Cyclone group started out with a six-pack and 11% body fat, the guys in the placebo group were running around with 18% on average and - this is even more important - a standard deviation of 10%! In other words, it's not unlikely that two or even three of the guys in the CARB group actually lost body fat, over the 12-week training period. This would nullify any fat gains in the rest of the group and yield a net increase of less than 0.1% body fat for the CARB group. Some of the guys in the cyclone group, however were in that peculiar <10% range (the standard deviation here was +/- 5.4%), where it's really hard to shed additional body fat and actually pretty easy to bounce back into your bodies comfort zone.

If that does not soothe your concerns that you could have done all wrong over the years, just take my word for it: This study is one of those highly educative outliers which are mostly SuppVersity newsworthy, because they offer a chance to practice your critical thinking skills and remind you of the value of single scientific paper.

References:

• Cooper R, Naclerio F, Larumbe-Zabala E, Chassin L, Allgrove J, Jimenez A. Effects of a Carbohydrate-Protein-Creatine Supplement on Strength Performance and Body Composition in Recreationally Trained Young Men. JEPonline 2013;16(1):72-85.  
• Kazemzadeh Y, Zafari A, Bananaeifar A, Moghadam RH, Abasrashid N, Shafabakhsh F. Comparison of whey protein and carbohydrate consumption on hormonal response after resistance exercise. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 2013; 3(1):10-15 .

The Latest on Sodium Bicarbonate: Serial Loading Almost as Effective as Acute Loading + Free of Gastrointestinal Side Effects. Plus: Can You Use Potassium HCO3 Instead?

NaHCO3 loading has been most successful in events lasting from 1 to 7 minutes (Linderman. 1994) - so either track sprints or volume training

Do you remember my last post on sodium bicarbonate and what I said about the SuppVersity being the place, where you would read about the latest studies on the wonders of baking soda, first? Well, at least I have not seen today's SuppVersity news being covered anywhere else, so I guess for the vast majority I am about to deliver on yet another promise, when I briefly summarizing the latest findings on the "effects of serial and actue NaHCO3 loading in well-trained cyclists" from University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Institute of Sport in Lanceston, Australia (Driller. 2012; study will be published in the October issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research).

Why don't we just "load" on NaHCO3 over a longer timespan?

Interestingly, Matthew W. Driller, John R. Gregory, Andrew D. Williams and James W. Fell must have asked themselves a very similar question as I did a couple of weeks ago:  

How come, that there is "limited research describing the use of serial NaHCO3 loading?"

Or put simply: Wouldn't it be likely that we would see similar, in the long haul even superior, results from the chronic ingestion / slow loading of NaHCO3 with less side effects compared to the standard practice of downing 30-50g at once?

Figure 1: The doses on day 1-3 were taken with breakfast, lunch and dinner, the 5 doses on the day of the test (day 5) within 90min before the test; placebo capsules contained microcrystalline cellulose

To answer this question Driller et al. came up with a double-blind placebo controlled, randomized design in which each cyclist underwent 3 experimental trials over a 3-week timeframe:

• AL - acute NaHCO3 loading
• SL - serial NaHCO3 loading 
• P - placebo loading condition 

You can see the "exact" protocol in figure 1 to the right. The main performance variable was a 4-minute cycling test (TT), a choice the scientists explain by referring to it as an approximation (at least duration-wise) of a "complete a 4,000-m individual pursuit in track cycling" and refer to previous research by Lindermann & Gosselink from 1994, which confirms that "NaHCO3 loading has been most successful in events lasting from 1 to 7 minutes" (Driller. 2012).

If you do the math on the figures, you'll see that the respective absolute amounts, i.e. P = 0mg, AL = 0.3mg/kg and SL = 0.9mg/kg were not identical.

You could also argue that the SL group should at least have stuck do their regular protocol on the day of the test, but (1) the higher total dosage in the serial loading trial seems reasonable - after all, your body uses the NaHCO3 also, when you don't work out so you got to build an even greater buffer, and (2) it would have been hard to distinguish the "chronic" from the acute effects if the SL protocol had involved supplementation on the day of the test.

The exercise protocol: A time trial simulates a 4k race

Can I use potassium bicarbonate instead? NO! You can combine both, but from a physiological standpoint it does not makes sense to increase your serum potassium levels before a workout, because especially strength training will leech potassium from the cells into the blood anyways. Moreover your body conserves potassium pretty well during a workout, while you lose a comparably large amount of sodium in your sweat. In other words, you risk offsetting the peculiar balance of the extra-cellular sodium ions and the intracellular potassium ions. While weakness or skeletal muscle hyperexcitability would be rather harmless, but certainly ergolytic consequences, this can - in the worst case - lead to bradycardia (=abnormally slow heartbeats), arrhythmias and even sudden cardiac arrest as it was observed in the two "salt-phobic" bodybuilders in the case report I already cited in the comments on the "Sodium Bicarbonate for High Volume Strength Training" post (cf. John. 2011; there were probably confounding factors at play, here, but still, the risk of developing hyperkalemia is nothing you can totally exclude, if you ingest tons of potassium within a couple of minutes).

If you feel that you don't get enough potassium in your diet, anyway, I'd suggest you mix them at a 3:1 ratio as you usually see it for "normal" sodium and potassium in electrolyte products.

A pros pos "day of the test", on the latter, the participants, 8 well-trained male cyclists (age = 28y; height = 181cm; mass = 73.5 +/- 8.5 kg; VO2peak =66.8 +/- 8.4ml/ kg/min), who were all cyclists currently competing at the state or national level and in their on-season, ingested the placebo or bicarbonate capsules with a tightly controlled amount of water (10 ml /kg body mass) 90 minutes before they hopped onto an air-braked cycling ergometer to perform their time-trial test.

"All the cyclists performed a standardized warm-up before the test, which was replicated before each TT. The warm-up consisted of 3 set intensities relative to the cyclists’ body mass, each lasting 4 minutes. [...] During the exercise test, each cyclist was encouraged to give a maximal effort during the TT. The investigators providing the encouragement were blinded to the trial each cyclist was undertaking. The VO2peak was taken as the highest VO2 value recorded over a 30-second period during the TT." (Driller. 2012)

After the test the cyclists were provided with a modified gastrointestinal side-effects questionnaire which allowed them to quantify the side effects on 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "none" to 10 = "unbearable".

The results: Serial loading with accute effects, but less side effects

Blood samples were taken before and after the trials, the subjects performed in a rested and hydrated state after fasting for at least 2h. They also filled 3-day food and training diaries for the days before the experiment. Since the scientists don't mention those in the FT to the study, I assume there were no significant intrapersonal differences between the trials), so that the results I summarized in figure 2 are not distorted by 3-days of overtraining or 3-days of McDonalds dieting ;-)

Figure 2: Relative power (W/kg), peak blood lactate (mmol/l), HCO3 post loading and post test (mmol/l), pH post loading and post test, VO2 peak (l/min); p < 0.05 for all but the HCO3 post test value - the figures above the bars indicate the percentage of participants which did see practically relevant improvements in the respective parameter (vs. those with improvements that were trivial or even negative; based on Dreher. 2012)

As you can see both the acute, as well as the alternative serial loading protocol yielded the desired improvements in exercise performance. On average, the alkalizing effects, as well as the increases in VO2max were yet more pronounced in the acute compared to the serial loading test... but let's be honest: What's that worth if you get the runs during a race or workout? To be fair, in the study at hand no athlete developed diarrhea, but three felt bloated after the AL protocol, whereas not a single study participant experienced any side effects from the serial loading.

Why not simply stay "on" sodium bicarbonate?

In view of what I have said before about the experimental necessity of not providing any NaHCO3 to the study participants on day 4 of the SL trial, the logical next step in the "evolution of bicarbonate science" would be to probe my previous suggestion to administer the baking soda chronically and keep the study participants "on" NaHCO3 for a week or two during their regular training, without dropping the dose (alternatively even escalating it) on the day of the exercise test / training days.

Figure 3: Latent acidoses can set you up to become obese and prevent your hamper your fat loss (Berkemeyer. 2009)

I would speculate that this would also allow them to exploit the previously cited plethora metabolic benefits of being in a more or less alkaline state (see figure 3 and "How Bicarbonate Could Help You Lose Fat & Build Muscle") and would thus turn something as "profane" as an ergogenic aid into a weight loss and health supplement. This appears even more likely in view of the fact that the study at hand clearly shows that it does not matter whether you use a bicarbonate buffer before your workout, or not, when you're done with it, your HCO3 levels will be rock bottom (assuming that you have trained with maximal intensity). That being said, it appears only prudent not to restrict the use of the buffer to the pre workout window, only, but to use it to re-alkalize your body immediately post workout, as well.

And while I doubt that we will see that study being done in the near future, you know that there is no better place to check for the latest news on sodium bicarbonate, aka baking soda or NaHCO3 than right here, at the SuppVersity ;-)

Update => Dr. Andro's Bicarbonate Protein Pudding: Since Spencer asked me on Facebook how / when I use baking soda and I already betrayed my "secret protein pudding recipe" *lol* I thought I'd post it here, as well.

How it's done: You take some quark (this is a German dairy product you US guys usually know as curd cheese; depending on how hungry you are you use ~100-300g), add water maybe 100ml and stir it, you will soon notice that it does not become a smooth pudding, no matter what you do. So, next you add a scoop of casein or protein powder for the flavor you like best, e.g. chocolate, (casein works best, because it also adds to the creaminess). Mix the protein with the white "soup" and then add 1-2 teaspoons of sodium bicarbonate. You will soon realize that what happens now verifies the term "baking soda": your pudding-to-be is going to start raising like dough, keep the water and some stevia at hand and add water + stevia until the stuff has the consistency and sweetness you like best.  

Voila! Dr. Andro's Quark Based Protein Laden Alkalizing Bicarbonate Pudding is Ready! Makes an excellent last meal of the day, as well... but watch out it is really filling ;-)

References:

• Berkemeyer S. Acid-base balance and weight gain: are there crucial links via protein and organic acids in understanding obesity? Med Hypotheses. 2009 Sep;73(3):347-56. 
• Driller MW, Gregory JR, Williams AD, Fell JW. The Effects of Serial and Acute NaHCO3 Loading in Well-Trained Cyclists. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct;26(10):2791-7.
• John SK, Rangan Y, Block CA, Koff MD. Life-threatening hyperkalemia from nutritional supplements: uncommon or undiagnosed? Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;29(9):1237.e1-2.
• Linderman, JK,Gosselink, KL. The effects of sodium bicarbonate ingestion on exercise performance. Sports Med 18: 75, 1994.

Pre Workout Protein Supplementation 101: Slow or Fast, Bolus or Pulse? Protein Synthetic Response is Identical!

Should she drink her protein shake all at once or in 33ml gulps every 15min, if she has it before her workout? And wait, wouldn't it be better to have the shake afterwards, anyway? A recent study provides some answers.

I don't know if you notices, but it has been a while since the last study from the Exercise Metabolism Research Group at the Department of Kinesiology of the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, hit the SuppVersity news. Allegedly, I mentioned Stuart Phillips only a couple of days ago, when I referenced the West study on "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength" (West. 2012), in the context of the questionable significance of post-exercise increases in testosterone levels, as far as muscle and strength gains are concerned - for those who missed that, it was  in the "Anabolic Workouts Revisited" post from last Monday. That was however about it as far as the news of the last weeks are concerned. So I was already wondering, when the first of you would be showing initial signs of "acute protein synthesis in response to protein ingestion study withdrawal symptoms", when I hit onto the latest study Phillips' group at McMasters participated in. The lead author of the study is however Louise M. Burke who's currently working at the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, Australia.

What happens if you ingest your post-workout protein before the workout ;-) ?

The aim of the study, of which the authors explicitly state that it is a quasi-followup to previous results which have conclusively identified fast acting protein sources (mostly whey, in some instances EAAs) as superior triggers, or I should say, promoters of post-exercise protein synthesis, was

"[...] to investigate the effects of manipulating patterns of aminoacidemia from protein sources consumed before a bout of resistance exercise bout." (Burke. 2012)

To this end, Burke et al. simulated the ingestion of slow or fast protein sources by bolus vs. pulse feeding of a leucine-enriched (+5g) whey protein drink (Nestec by Nestlé, sponsor of the study; the reason for the enrichment was to make sure that there would be a decent amount of leucine in each pulse serving).

• Bolus (B) - 1 x 500ml w/ 25g whey + 5g leucine drink, 14 x 33ml placebo every 15 min
• Pulse (P) - 1 x 500ml placebo drink,  14 x 33ml w/ 1.79g whey + 0.36g leucine each
• Placebo - 1 x 500ml placebo drink, 14 x 33ml placebo drink

The subjects, 12 resistance-trained men (age: 27y; body mass: 94.3kg; 1 RM single leg ext.: 42.8kg) with greater than 2 yr of experience of regular (at least twice per week) strength training, who had followed a standardized diet before each of the testing sessions (energy content of 80kcal/kg BM; 45%/34%/21% of the energy from carbs/fats/protein), started consuming their large 500ml beverage and the subsequent 14 small 33ml servings (every 15 min) 45min before they performed a standardized leg training session:

"This bout consisted of a  standardized warm-up, followed by 10 sets of 8–10 repetitions of leg extension at a workload equivalent to 80% of the specific leg 1 RM with 2-min recovery between sets. The leg that performed exercise was alternated for each trial. The duration of the resistance bout was approximately 45 min." (Burke. 2012)

Before during and after the exercise bout blood samples were collected. Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis of the exercised leg were taken 45min before, as well as after 1 h and 5 h of recovery.

Figure 1: Serum leucine and insulin levels after bolus and pulse ingestion, expressed relative to placebo group (left) and fractional protein synthesis rate (in %/h) during the 5h following the rest period after the workout (right; based on Burke. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 the results basically confirmed the scientists expectation that the provision of protein before a workout would work just as well, because - more than anything else - it is the availability (or should I say abundance?) of amino acids in the blood stream that is the main determined of post the actual fractional protein synthesis rate (FSR) after moderate  volume workout like the one the participants conducted in the study at hand. In addition it did, at least as far as the protein synthetic response goes, neither make a significant difference, whether the subjects had all their protion at once before the workout or consumed it in 15min intervals before and during the workout.

Bolus or pulse = fast or slow? Pulsed whey does not equal casein (imho)

What I am personally not happy with, though, is the way Burke et al. equate the "pulse" protocol to the ingestion of a "slow" protein source, such as a micellar casein protein, for example. While they put that into perspective in the discussion of the results (see below) and despite the fact that do see the rationale of Burke et al. not to use a real slow digesting protein like casein in order to have absolutely identical amino acid compositions and to exclude other confounding factors, it is at least in my humble opinion somewhat confusing for the "average" reader. And while it is likely that the results for a "real" slow digesting protein would be similar, this would warrant direct experimental evidence. A fact the authors only hint at indirectly towards the end of the discussion of their results, when they state:

"[...] A specific issue in interpreting the finding of these previous studies and in increasing the utility of the concept of ‘‘fast’’ and ‘‘slow’’ dietary proteins is the difficulty of determining the individual and interactive contributions of the different AA composition of protein-rich foods and the digestibility of proteins or protein-rich meals to the pattern of delivery of these AAs. Our protocol, in which the same (fast) protein was consumed to achieve its traditional AA profile or as a series of small divided feed-ings to replicate the plasma leucine response associated with a slow protein, provides an opportunity to differ-entiate these effects." (Burke. 2012)

But hey, who knows, maybe that's going to be the research question of the next paper... and in the mean time it will spare you to buy two or even more different protein powders ;-)

"So what's better Dr. Andro? Pre- or post-workout protein supplementation?"

I guess most of you won't care anyways, as there is another question that's now preying on your minds... but to be honest, I can't provide you with a definite answer to it (see headline). What I can do, however is compare the study by West et al. (West. 2011) which used 25g of whey protein post workout to the one at hand (Burke. 2012).

Figure 2: Fractional protein synthesis (FSR in %/h) after the workout with post workout protein ingestion (West. 2011) and pre workout protein ingestion (Burke. 2012) on the left; relative increase in FSR in the two trials (compared to fasted for West. 2011 vs. Placebo for Burke. 2012) on the right (please mind that this is by no means a scientifically valid comparison, it's more of a "food for thought illustration"!)

I've done just that for you in figure 2, and what this comparison tells you is that it does not make a difference, whether you ingest all your protein as a bolus after a workout or start "pulse ingesting" (mind my words in the previous paragraph wrt to "slow != pulse") your protein 45min before the workout - at least, if you take the relative increase in fractional protein synthesis as a measure (figure 2, right).

Unfortunately, both the composition of the protein supplement (25g whey in West. 2011 vs. 25g whey + 5g leucine in Burke. 2012), as well as the exact outcome variables that were measured (1-3h and 3-5h FSR in West. 2011 vs. 5h post workout FSR in Burke. 2012) were different, so that the comparison of the relative increases in protein synthesis I plotted on the right hand side of figure 2 is actually not 100% valid.

Moreover, and this is something I know a couple of you will now be thinking of, this comparison does by no means allow for any quantitative predictions with respect to the question of ...

What would happen, when you do both: Pulse ingest before and bolus ingest afterwards?

If  you don't remember or - even worse ! - have not read the previous SuppVersity post "Protein Synthesis Beyond the '20g Limit': Study Shows Exercise Facilitates 32% Greater Increases in Fractional Protein Synthesis With 40g Instead of 20g of Whey PWO" click on the image and (re-)read it ;-)

In view of the fact that the existence of a "threshold level" of protein intake, where the addition of even more protein won't yield any further benefits appears to be self-evident, the exact amount of this limit has yet still to be determined. At least after a workout, it seems that this threshold would be higher than the 25g and 20g of protein the subjects ingested in the Burke and West studies, respectively (please read my previous post "Protein Synthesis Beyond the 20g Limit" for a more detailed discussion of this topic).

That being said, it is reasonable to assume, but would likewise warrant experimental verification, that the combination of both protocols could increase the fractional protein synthesis even further. Yet while I am 100% sure that they won't simply add up, I would hesitate to bet money that the difference would actually reach statistical significant... at least with a low volume leg extension workout as it was used in the studies at hand.

References:

• Burke LM, Hawley JA, Ross ML, Moore DR, Phillips SM, Slater GR, Stellingwerff T, Tipton KD, Garnham AP, Coffey VG. Preexercise aminoacidemia and muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Oct;44(10):1968-77.
• West DW, Burd NA, Coffey VG, et al. Rapid aminoacidemia enhances protein synthesis and anabolic intramuscular signal-ling responses after resistance exercise. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011; 94:795–803. 
• West DW, Phillips SM. Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Jul;112(7):2693-702.