Double Your Muscle, Maximize Your Endurance Gains: Train in the PM, not the AM, and Do Your Cardio Before Weights

Both, time and exercise order matter - at least when untrained subjects have trained for at least 12 weeks.

The debate about whether you should (a) do cardio and weights together and (b) whether you shall do either or both in the AM or PM for maximal muscle anabolism is older than the SuppVersity and has thus been addressed in many of the hitherto published approx. 2300 articles on suppversity.com.

The reason you should still read today's article, however, is that the approach to the topic is a bit different than usual, so that the study, which certainly leaves much to be desired (more on that in the bottom line), adds more practically relevant (which you cannot say about studies measuring the testosterone : cortisol ratio, for example) data.

AM or PM, you got to make sure you slept / sleep enough & well before or after workouts

Sunlight, Bluelight, Backlight and Your Clock

Sunlight a La Carte: "Hack" Your Rhythm

Breaking the Fast to Synchronize the Clock

Fasting (Re-)Sets the Peripheral Clock

Vitamin A & Caffeine Set the Clock

Pre-Workout Supps Could Ruin Your Sleep

Said data has been gathered over 24 weeks during which previously untrained, but healthy participants none of which belonged to either an extreme morning or evening chronotype or worked night shifts followed identical strength (S) and endurance (E) training regimen. The interesting and uncommon thing was was, that these workouts took place either in the AM (m, as in morning) or in the PM (e, as in evening) and were, on top of that, differently ordered (i.e. endurance (E) before strength (S) = E+S or strength (S) before endurance (E) = S+E) - according to cocker we should thus have 2x2 = four groups... and indeed, here they are:

• mE+S n=9, training in the morning, endurance before strength
• mS+E n=9, training in the morning, strength before endurance
• eE+S n=12, training in the evening, endurance before strength
• eS+E n=12, training in the evening, strength before endurance

In that, the workouts were identical with two workouts per week in the first and two-to-three workouts per week in the second 12-week-period (an additional session was added every two weeks so that all participants performed 5 training sessions in a 2-week period, the reasoning behind this was to "allow further progression in training adaptations" | Küüsmaa. 2016). Here are some details:

"The morning training groups (mE+S and mS+E) performed all training sessions between 6:30-10:00h, while the evening training groups (eE+S and eS+E) performed their training sessions between 16:30-20:00h. The training programs were identical for the E+S and S+E group independent of the training time, only the sequence of strength and endurance training was reversed. Endurance and strength training were combined into the one training session so that no more than a 5-10 minute break was allowed during the two training sections. The duration of the combined endurance and strength training sessions progressively increased from 60 to 120 minutes. All the training sessions were supervised.

Strength training consisted of exercises aimed at improving both maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy and was planned as a whole body periodized program with the main focus on knee extensors and flexors as well as hip extensors. Each training session consisted of three lowerbody exercises: bilateral dynamic leg press, seated dynamic knee extension and flexion. Four to five exercises were performed for other main muscle groups (lateral pull down, standing bilateral triceps push down, bilateral biceps curl, seated military press, or bilateral dumbbell fly, trunk flexors and extensors). Strength training was designed to improve muscular endurance in the first 4 weeks, which was performed as circuit training (intensity 40-70% of 1 RM). The subsequent 4 weeks (weeks 5-8) were designed to produce muscle hypertrophy (intensity 70-85% of 1 RM) and followed by 4 weeks (weeks 9-12) of mixed hypertrophic and maximal strength training (intensity 75-95% of 1 RM). A similar strength training program with slightly higher intensities was carried out also during the second 12 weeks of training" (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The cardio workouts were a mix of interval and continuous cycling on an ergometer. The sessions averaged from 30-50 minutes. Interval (85-100% of HRmax for 4x4 min, 4 min active rest in between) and continuous (65-80% of HRmax) training protocols were performed weekly.

Yes, this study really had it all, HIIT, steady state, weights... and no, that does make it more reliable. Rather than that, it makes it more difficult to identify cause and effect and thus to interpret the results. This is why I would like to warn you: do not to assume that either of the initially raised questions for the optimal workout time and order would be answered by this single study once and for all. Needless to say that this doesn't mean the study results are worthless, but if you feel what worked for the subjects in the study at hand doesn't work for you, don't be a lemming and stick to a protocol of which you feel and see after giving it a fair chance (3-4 weeks) that it's bad for you.

As you'd expect it from a study like this, participants were tested for dynamic leg press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and time to exhaustion (Texh) during an incremental cycle ergometer test both in the morning and evening before, during (12-week, see Figure 1) and after the 24-week intervention. all relevant information to address the practical value of training in the AM vs. PM and doing endurance before or after weights - a fact I would like to highlight (and applaud to), because that is unfortunately not the case in many other studies that lack practically relevant study outcomes, such as performance increases (here 1RM and Texh) and gains (here CSA values).

Figure 1: Study design and measurements. 1 RM = one repetition maximum in the dynamic leg press; Texh = time to exhaustion during the incremental cycling test; CSA = cross-sectional area; m = morning; e = evening (Küüsmaa. 2016)

I mean, who cares about acute (post workout) levels of exhaustion, 2-6h max protein synthesis or the testosterone to cortisol ratio and its diurnal rhythm if neither of these values can answer the question we are actually asking: Does it help you make extra strength, endurance or muscle gains? Not me (if you care, here's another of these studies, just out, speculating based on questionable markers of a "differential hormonal milieu" and free to read | Burley. 2016), because all these values are as reliable predictors of muscle gains as yesterday's weather forecast for Christmas... well, ok, maybe a bit better, but eventually it's results like those, Küüsmaa et al. present in their recent paper in Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, that matter:

• 

  It's the Same (!) Time of the Day That Matters If You Want to Excel | Learn more about the effects of habitual training times on performance!

  1RM gains were similar in the morning (14-19%; p<0.001) and evening (18-24%; p<0.001); no sign time-of-day-effect
• CSA increased in all groups by week 24 (12-20%, p<0.01), however, during the training weeks 13-24 the evening groups gained more muscle mass; time-of-day main effect; p<0.05)
• Texh increased in all groups in the morning (16-28%; p<0.01) and evening (18-27%; p<0.001), just as the 1RM gains without effect of the exercise order, but with the data suggesting an advantage of doing cardio first (E+S) at 12 and 24 weeks

The overrated testosterone to cortisol ratio, the scientists assessed as well and even its diurnal rhythms, on the other hand, remained statistically unaltered by the training order or time at any point in the study. So that the study only confirms what I have said before to use the Bro's "holy yardstick of anabolism", i.e. the testosterone to cortisol ratio (T/C) after or in the vicinity of your workouts as an "anabolic guide" won't work, because it's simply not an acceptable predictor of any of the previously mentioned relevant training outcomes (strength, muscle size, and endurance).

Figure 2: Change (%) of the CSA of vastus lateralis (left), endurance performance in the AM (right, top) and PM (right, bottom) in the different training groups - left figure: *sign. (p < 0.05) within-group increase; # sign. different from controls; & sign. time-of-day main (TOD) effect | right figures: ¤ sign. between group differences as indicated; # sign. different from controls; $ sign. order main effect; sign. time-of-day (TOD) main effect (Küüsmaa. 2016).

The actual relevant messages of the study at hand have thus nothing to do with the T or C values or the T/C ratio. Rather than that, the present study "indicate[s] that combined strength and endurance training in the evening may lead to larger gains in muscle mass [in the 2nd part of the study, the PM training groups gained twice the amount of muscle the AM group did], while the E+S training order might be more beneficial for endurance performance development" (Küüsmaa. 2016). What is interesting, however, is that "training order and time seem to influence the magnitude of adaptations only when the training period exceeded 12 weeks (Küüsmaa. 2016; my emphasis) - that's an important observation from which I would like to segue right into the previously announced bottom line discussion of the few potential shortcomings of the study at hand.

Maybe, you don't have to choose between endurance and muscle gains! I am not sure if you looked close enough at Figure 2 to realize that, but the data from the study at hand shows that the PM cardio before weights group (eE+S) made both, the greatest CSA (muscle size) and Texh (exercise till you drop) gains of all groups... yes, I know the difference to the other PM group for CSA was as nonsignificant as the difference between the endurance gains in the AM vs. PM group, but overall that doesn't change the fact that the study at hand suggests that cardio before weights is the better way to go.

Does the study prove that everyone should do cardio first? Wtf!? Obviously not. Why do I even tell you about individuality and the influence of habits and training experience in the bottom line if you still think one study could prove everything you've been successfully for years wrong? Ah, and no, you don't have to start doing cardio and weights on the same day, if doing it on separate days works for you ;-)

Bottom line: I've already hinted at it at the top and in the the last line(s) of the main part of this article: compared to your average "Cardio or weights first?" and / or "AM or PM what's the best time to train?" experiments, the Küüsmaa study provides practically relevant outcome measures, unfortunately, it also provides evidence that its results may be subject specific and may not translate one-to-one from untrained beginners, as they were used in the study at hand to trained (semi-)professionals.

What does that mean? Well, if the influence of the time of the day (AM vs. PM) became significant only in the latter 12 weeks. That would suggest that (a) one's training experience and/or (b) the marginally increased training load determine the importance of AM vs. PM training - whether this relationship is linear, as in "the more training experience you have and / or  the higher your training volume, the more you will benefit from doing your workouts in the PM", however, requires future studies in better-trained individuals and with differences in training volume that go beyond the planned addition of one workout every other week that was used in the study at hand.

With that being said, the take-home messages of the study are still: (1) Do cardio first, if you want to increase your endurance performance, too; (2) Train in the PM (if you can choose freely and are not an extreme morning type) and benefit from a likely increase in size and a non-significant increase in 1RM gains; but (3) don't forget that our response to training may depend on (a) training experience (see previous elaborations), (b) habits and (c) individuality. If you find that doing (1)-(2) sucks for you, just return to what you've previously done | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Burley, Simon D., et al. "The Differential Hormonal Milieu of Morning versus Evening May Have an Impact on Muscle Hypertrophic Potential." PLOS ONE 11.9 (2016): e0161500.
• Küüsmaa, Maria, et al. "Effects of morning vs. evening combined strength and endurance training on physical performance, muscle hypertrophy and serum hormone concentrations." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism ja (2016).

True Alternate Day Fast Beats Classic Dieting: Max. Fat, Min. Muscle Loss, No 'Metabolic Damage' in 32 Wk Human Study

This is exactly the way your plate will look during true alternate day fasting.

This study is not just about alternate day fasting aka ADF. It is about "true alternate day fasting" - What is that? Well, it's not an official medical term, yet, but if you hadn't read about "alternate day fasting" regimens at the SuppVersity before, you'd probably think that an "alternate day fast" would be a full fast as in "not eating anything" every 48h - like in "Monday, don't eat; Tuesday, eat regularly, Wednesday, don't eat; Thursday, eat regularly..." As of now, only a handful of rodent studies tested (quite successfully, though) these "true alternate fasting" regimen, while human studies often used reduced, but never no energy intakes on the fasting days.

That's until now, though! Scientists from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus randomized decently healthy, but obese adults BMI 30 kg/m², age 18-55) to either (a) a zero-calorie ADF (n = 14) or chronically energy reduced (CR | -400 kcal/day, n = 12) diet for 8 weeks. Outcomes were measured at the end of the 8-week intervention and after 24 weeks of unsupervised follow-up.

Don't forget to build muscle & strength. Fat loss alone is not enough to look good naked

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Become Ripped and Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

What is important to understand is that the study diets were not designed to produce comparable energy deficits. Now, at first sight, this may sound stupid, but eventually, this and the 24-week unsupervised follow-up make the study more practically relevant with respect to the actually relevant research question: Is ADF better than a standard-of-care weight loss diet (moderate daily CR)? The existing difference between the two diets which had identical macronutrient profiles (55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat) is described as follows:

• CR participants were provided a diet that produced a -28% (that was more than intended) deficit from estimated energy requirements (considered a standard-of-care weight loss diet at the time the study was designed). 
• ADF participants were provided a diet but instructed to fast on alternate days. On fed days, they were provided a diet estimated to meet estimated energy requirements, which was supplemented with ad libitum (as much as they wanted) access to five to seven optional food modules (200 kcal each). ADF participants were permitted to eat as much as they wished on fed days, but were not encouraged to eat all food provided. On fast days, ADF participants were instructed to begin their fast after the evening meal the preceding day, and to consume only water, calorie-free beverages, and bouillon/stock cube soup. 

The subjects' individual daily energy and macronutrient intakes were calculated based on food return
using PROnutra software (Viocare Technologies Inc., Princeton NJ). Estimated energy deficits were calculated by subtracting estimated daily EI from estimated daily energy requirements.

Table 1: Mean daily energy and macronutrient intake on fast and fed days over 8 weeks in ADF (Catenacci. 2016); corresponding data for weeks 9-32 not available.

What about adherence? At least for the first 8 weeks, the subjects' adherence was - within the limits of accuracy values from a non-metabolic-ward study have - excellent. 44.4 kcal/day, that's almost nothing and not really that surprising. After all, studies have shown that, eventually, many people feel it's easier to simply eat nothing than to eat in moderation or less than would be necessary to be satiated. Which leads me to my personal experience (N=1 + friends) that confirms: one of the biggest strengths of any intermittent fasting regimen (ADF or classic IF) is that they are easier to adhere to than regular diets with identical calorie refeeds; and thus eventually back to the study which found the previously hinted at benefits in form of maximal fat, minimal muscle loss and no changes in resting metabolic rate (RMR) only after the not as tightly controlled 24-week weeks of unsupervised follow-up - the real-world part of the study, as I would like to call it.

When the scientists say that the subjects in the fasting (ADF) group "achieved a 376 kcal/day greater energy deficit" (Catenacci. 2016) we thus have every reason to be skeptical of the accuracy of this value. Providing a range of 200-500 kcal would probably be more "accurate" - and if we further assume that the real value is on the lower side, it's also not surprising that "there were no significant between-group differences in change in weight (mean +/- SE; ADF 28.2 +/-  0.9 kg, CR 27.1 +/-  1.0 kg)" (ibid.)

Figure 1: Changes in body composition (%) during the initial tightly controlled 8 weeks and at the end of the subsequent "real-world" uncontrolled 24 weeks, i.e. at the end of the 32 weeks (Catenacci. 2016).

With that being said, who cares if the relevant real world results, i.e. the reduction in fat mass and the ill effects on lean mass after the 24 weeks of unsupervised follow-up speak a clear language: ADF kicks CR's ass, or, in non-acronym English, if you simply don't eat every other day, this is a highly effective real-world compatible weight loss tool, one that will have sign. better effects on your body composition (fat to lean mass ratio) than regular dieting where you reduce your energy intake by the same X% every day!

Figure 1: Absolute (see below for explanation) advantage in changes of body composition in the ADF group (left) and changes in resting metabolic rate (in kcal/d) in the controlled early and uncontrolled follow-up (Catenaccio. 2016).

And the best is yet to come: Not only did the subjects in the ADF group lose more fat and less muscle (the values in Figure 2, left are absolutes, i.e. the fat mass values are extra percent body fat loss, while the lean mass value is an extra percent gained in the latter 24 weeks, the "real-world" phase), the subjects in the ADF group also experienced sign. increases in BDNF, the brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which decreased in the CR group who thus could not longer benefit of its beneficial effects on brain health and its ability to regulation the subjects' energy balance (Xu. 2003; Bariohay. 2005; An. 2015); and these effects on the energy balance, respectively the resting metabolic rate (RMR), show: Unlike the subjects in the CR group, the ADF subjects didn't suffer the statistically significant RMR decrease of -111.6 +/- 36.9 kcal/day reduction we see in the CR group (ADF: -16.2 6 +/- 36.6 kcal/d).

Against that background, it is also not surprising that the study at hand suggests that ADF dieting is also less likely to cause / promote the dreaded yo-yo effect: With the total fat mass (%) declining and the lean mass (%) inclining only in the ADF, yet not in the CR group where the body composition kept deteriorating in the 24 weeks of unsupervised follow-up, I previously called "the real-world phase".

Chronic Energy Deficits Make Athletes Fat - The Longer You Starve, the Fatter You Get. No Matter What the Calories-in-VS-Calories-Out Equ. Says - With true alternative day fasting (this is what the study at hand suggests but only future studies will prove), the dreaded decline in RMR and increase in body fat (in the study at hand that's +1.2 kg total and +0.8kg trunk fat in the CR group) hopefully won't happen.

The subjects lost only 2.4% body fat, why's that so exciting if they started at >40%? Well, what is exciting is that even though the ADF diet was clearly not optimally designed (e.g. way too little protein on both fasting and feasting days), there was a fundamental difference in the diets' effects on the subjects' body composition during the "real-world test", i.e. the 24 weeks of unsupervised. A difference that tells you a lot about which regimen is going to yield the better results for the majority of you and your clients: the alternative day fast.

Follow-up studies will now have to (a) identify the underlying mechanism that explains the ADF advantage (of which I personally believe that it is mostly an increased adherence to ADF | remember: the best diet won't help you lose weight if you can't adhere to it), and (b) modify the fasting regimen (e.g. protein modified fast with say 150g protein on the fasting day + the little fat and carbs that come from the protein source and optional veggies) and/or the macro-nutrient profiles on the feasting days and in the CR group from being simply stupid (namely 55% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 30% fat) to a ratio that would promote fat loss and lean mass retention | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• An, Juan Ji, et al. "Discrete BDNF neurons in the paraventricular hypothalamus control feeding and energy expenditure." Cell metabolism 22.1 (2015): 175-188.
• Bariohay, Bruno, et al. "Brain-derived neurotrophic factor plays a role as an anorexigenic factor in the dorsal vagal complex." Endocrinology 146.12 (2005): 5612-5620.
• Catenacci, Victoria A., et al. "A randomized pilot study comparing zero‐calorie alternate‐day fasting to daily caloric restriction in adults with obesity." Obesity 24.9 (2016): 1874-1883.
• Xu, Baoji, et al. "Brain-derived neurotrophic factor regulates energy balance downstream of melanocortin-4 receptor." Nature neuroscience 6.7 (2003): 736-742.

Significant Weight Gain W/ Whey vs. Casein?! Anabolism / Muscle-Protection or Fat Gain Despite Hitting the Weights?

While being misinterpreted as an "anti-whey" study by one of you, the latest whey as your main protein source study from Brazil only adds to the evidence that there's something special about whey.

One thing I like about writing this blog is that I have a lot of contact to you, the readers. One of you recently sent me the link to a study from the University of Ouro Preto in which the authors report what he called a "disconcerting" weight gain when exercise and weight training were combined. A closer look at the study reveals, however, that this "disconcerting" weight gain (even though that is not totally obvious) is probably good news.

But before we get to the implications and interpretations, let's first take a look at what the scientists did and what they observed. You'll see that this is of paramount importance wrt to not misinterpreting the weight gain in Figure 1.

Note that the study at hand is not about High-protein diets - with 14% some may call it deficient

Practical Protein Oxidation 101

5x More Than the FDA Allows!

More Protein ≠ More Satiety

Protein Oxidation = Health Threat

Protein Timing DOES Matter!

More Protein = More Liver Fat?

Being aware that whey protein (WP) is known for its nutritional value and antioxidant properties, the authors speculated that the latter, or rather the protective effect they would have on the muscle tissue, would be another important contributor to Wheys beneficial effects on skeletal muscle development.

To test their hypothesis that a reduced muscle damage and thus reduced effort to rebuild the broken tissue before accumulating new muscle would contribute to the muscle building effects of whey protein in resistance training individuals, the authors used a model study: in thirty-two male Fischer rats who were randomly assigned to control sedentary, control exercised, whey protein sedentary, and WP exercised groups (n=8/group), half of the rodents (those in the exercise group) were subjected to an interesting resistance training regimen:

"RE consisted of inducing the animals to perform sets of jumps in a circular plastic container with a depth corresponding to 150 % of their body length. Weights were attached to the animal’s chest to promote submersion and the resistance to the exercise. When the rats touched the bottom of the container, they had to jump to emerge from the water to breathe. The RE program consisted of inducing the animals to perform four sets of 10 jumps per day, five times per week for 8 weeks. A one-minute rest interval was included between each set of jumps. Exercise intensity was increased weekly by changing the maximum weight supported by each animal to perform the set of jumps correctly (~25 % of body weight in week 1, ~30 % in week 2, ~ 35 % in week 3, ~40 % in week 4, ~45 % in week 5, ~50 % in week 6, and ~ 55 % in weeks 7 and 8); 55 % of body weight was the greatest weight supported by the rats to perform all jumping sets correctly" (Teixeira. 2016)

Now, what is particularly interesting about the study is that the researchers did not add the whey protein to the diet, but simply replaced the regular 14% protein in form of caseinate in the rats' AIN-93M chow with whey protein (still only 14% of the energy).

Why is it important that the scientists replaced the protein source? If Teixeira et al. had simply added extra-whey on top, you could always have argued that the effects they observed would have been the mere result of extra protein, not some special quality (in this case most likely the antioxidant effects) of whey.

Against that background, it is quite interesting to see how significant the effect of whey turned out to be... at least in the exercised group, where you can easily see in Figure 1 that the initially identical weights differed significantly at the end of the 8-week study. Since differences occurred only in comparison to the control + exercise group and we don't have total lean and fat mass data, it is, unfortunately, impossible to tell for sure how much if any of the gained weight was, as the previously mentioned SuppVersity reader feared body fat and how much was muscle weight.

Figure 1: Yes, for sure - at first sight, this logs bad for whey and good for the low-protein AIN-93M standard diet (Teixeira. 2016); I mean, the rats gained the least weight? Well, that's one of the common misunderstandings I had in mind when I started the SuppVersity. Science is not always as straight-forward as you think. So read the rest of the article before you freak out or argue that "this is just because it's rodents" - that's pathetic, anyway).

What we can say for sure, is that the exercise regimen triggered significant muscle-specific mass reductions (in gains), unless its negative effects on the rodents muscle was buffered by the pro-anabolic and anti-oxidant effects of whey protein (see Figure 2, where the %-ages over the bars in the "muscle weight (g)" columns indicate the difference between sedentary control and the rodents who did the jumps for 8 weeks).

Figure 2: Changes in body weight (%-ages indicate relative weight change from baseline), muscle weight and food intake (%-ages indicate difference between exercise and control group | Teixeira. 2016)

Accordingly, it would be wrong to use the study at hand to make a case against whey protein and to call it an obesogen, i.e. another of the many foods that contributing not just to weight, but also and maybe even specifically to fat gain - in spite of full commitment (the rodents obviously had no choice, which is a clear strength of the often criticized rodent studies) to a rather intense exercise regimen (see previous quote).

So, if it's not the "disconcerting news" that whey could make you fat and/or blunt weight loss what is it, then, that the study at hand tells us. Well, I guess there are two answers: Answer (a) is a confirmation of the authors' hypothesis that whey protein has significant antioxidant and anticatabolic effects. Answer (b), on the other hand, is not as favorable for whey protein is (a) as it emphasizes that, without exercise, simply adding whey protein to the diet won't build any extra muscle... speaking of muscle, I've communicated with the authors who confirmed that they "did not evaluate body composition in these rats" (so it's not that they just didn't report it, because it may not be that relevant for their specific study interest), but found "that WP exercised rats showed a better body composition and exercise performance" (private communication); and, what's more, to quantify the last-mentioned effects, will be the goal of follow-up studies.

But what about body com-position? As explained in this bottom line, an assessment of the body composition was beyond the scope of the study at hand. Luckily, you can find evidence of whey's ability to and superiority in (a) augment/ing training-induced improvements in body comp (Hayes. 2008) and (b) po-sitively alter the body comp of free-living, untrained adults (Baer. 2011). This goes for both individuals healthy, but also and especially people who have issues with inflammation, like the overweight and obese subjects in Baer et al. (2011) who consumed 2x56 g/d of soy or whey protein for 23 weeks and saw gains in lean (+0.5 kg) and reductions in fat mass (-2.3kg) only with the latter, i.e. whey protein - not with the former, i.e. soy protein. Whether that's a result of superior or different antioxidant effects of whey vs. soy protein would need further studies, but in view of the results of the Teixeira study, it is at least not unlikely that the antioxidant prowess of whey protein (at least) partly explains its unique (vs. soy) beneficial effects in the Bear study, as well.

So, what can we really learn from this study? It's not just the "mouse or man problem" that limits the significance of the study at hand. In addition, you must not forget that weight gain (including body fat) is a mere necessity in a group of healthy growing young animals; and at the age of 60 of usually ~660 days (Chesky. 1976), the Fischer rats in Teixeira's experiment were just that: still growing.

Against that background, there's no reason to start being afraid of whey protein supplementation, because it promotes weight gain (it does ;-), but that's as the study at hand shows because "WP ingestion inhibited the oxidative effects induced by RE, including the downregulation of gene expression of glutathione system enzymes and phagocyte infiltration in gastrocnemius muscle cells" (Teixeira. 2016) and increased both body and muscle weight gain compared to exercise, alone.

The reasons you may rightly be not 100% happy with the Teixeira's latest study are thus not related to its outcome. Rather than that, it's a logical result of methodological issues that originate in the specific research focus of the paper at hand. With the goal being "to evaluate whether the antioxidant properties of WP could contribute to muscle weight gain in response to resistance exercise (RE)," (Teixeira. 2016) the potential role of fat gain is not even mentioned in the thesis statement. Accordingly, the scientists harvested 'only' the slow and fast twitch muscle fibers to measure potentially different muscle weight developments exemplarily in both, primarily aerobic and anaerobic muscle fibers. And the results confirmed what we tend to forget way too often: Whey is not 'just' a muscle builder, it's also a potent anti-inflammatory agent... but wait, you know that already if you've read my you have read my 2014 article "Whey Beyond Brawn: 10+ Things You Probably Didn't Know Whey Can Do for You" | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Baer, David J., et al. "Whey protein but not soy protein supplementation alters body weight and composition in free-living overweight and obese adults." The Journal of nutrition 141.8 (2011): 1489-1494.
• Chesky, Jeffrey A., and Morris Rockstein. "Life span characteristics in the male Fischer rat." Experimental aging research 2.5 (1976): 399-407.
• Hayes, Alan, and Paul J. Cribb. "Effect of whey protein isolate on strength, body composition and muscle hypertrophy during resistance training." Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 11.1 (2008): 40-44.
• Teixeira, Kely R., et al. "Whey protein increases muscle weight gain through inhibition of oxidative effects induced by resistance exercise in rats." Nutrition Research (2016).

Eating Your Largest Meal for Lunch, Instead of Dinner May Have Real World Weight Loss & Health Benefits | Guest Post

You better super-size that lunch box if you plan to enjoy the scientifically suggested health and body weight benefits of getting the lion's share of your energy intake at lunch, instead of dinner [15%, 50%, 15% + 15% (ideally) healthy snacks].

This is one of the rare occasions when SuppVersity articles need an introduction before the introduction. Why's that? Well, in contrast to 99.9% of the other 2280 SuppVersity articles the following text wasn't written by myself, but by my good friend Alex Leaf. How's that?

Well, as Alex is going to point out in the next paragraph. He was the one who spotted the latest "meal timing" study and I thought that Alex's at least as qualified as I am. He's, after all, an important contributor to the Examine Research Digest (always the articles that need the least editing ;-) and a registered general and sports nutritionist with his own business, while I am just... well, a physicist. "So why don't you let him do the work and get the credit," I thought... and he delivered. The only thing I had to do was to add this intro and reformat the article so that it would fit into the SuppVersity blueprint. Enjoy!

Meal timing and meal frequency are different things, but related:

Grazin' Bad For the Obese!

Breakfast Keeps You Lean?!

Regularity is Key to Leanness

Optimal Meal Freq. 4 Kids?

8 Meals = Stable, But High Insulin

Are 6 Meals Better Than 2?

So, a couple days ago I shared a study on my Facebook wall suggesting that eating the majority of calories at lunch, rather than dinner, leads to greater weight loss and improvements in insulin sensitivity (Madjd et al, 2016). For whatever reason, Adel asks that I write a guest post on it for SuppVersity. And how could I deny that request ;-)

I felt that this study was amusing and worth the coverage (and apparently Adel agrees) because there is a lot of controversy surrounding meal timing and macronutrient distribution throughout the day. Perhaps it started with Kiefer’s book, The Carb Nite Solution, about a decade ago, but there is this persistent belief that stuffing your face at dinner is ideal for weight loss. I know that Adel has written about at least three studies on this topic (here, here, and here).

Personally, I’m of the opinion that there are many successful ways to eat, and the most important aspect is the sustainability of the program for you. After all, if you don’t adhere to whatever weight loss diet you are following, you won’t make progress. But who cares what I think, let’s get on to the study at hand.

The study design was relatively simple: randomize 80 women with obesity (average age of 34 years) to a comprehensive weight loss plan where one group eats most of their calories at lunch (LM group) and another group eats them mostly at dinner (DM group).

“Groups were separated into subjects who had their main meal at dinner (DM) and subjects who had their main meal at lunch (LM). Subjects were assigned to consume 15% of their energy intakes at breakfast and 15% of their energy intakes with their snacks, with either 50% of daily energy intake at lunch and 20% of daily energy intake at dinner (LM group) or vice versa (DM group).”

After 12-weeks, both groups showed significant reductions in body weight and improvements in blood lipids and glycemic control. However, the LM group showed significantly greater reductions in body weight (additional 1.42 kg of weight loss, or 0.12 kg per week), fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR (a measurement of insulin resistance) than the DM group.

Figure 1: Relative change in selected anthropometric, blood glucose and lipid management markers (Subar et al, 2015);
the asterisks * indicate statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

If you study Figure 1, the message it sends appears to be clear: Gorging at lunch is better than gorging at dinner, right? Well, that is certainly one possibility. Ultimately, however, we have to ask why the LM group lost more weight before trying to make general statements like that. The food logs showed no differences between the groups, i.e. neither in terms of their total energy nor their individual macronutrient intake - at least if you believe what the participants reported eating, anyway (Subar et al, 2015).

Who the f*** wrote this article, it sounds less "SuppVersity" than usual!? Even if you skipped the introduction you may have noticed that the way the article is written differs from your average SuppVersity post.

That's (as people who read the introduction would know ;-), because it is guest post #2 by my friend Alex Leaf, who has recently turned his passion for nutrition, training and supplementation into a profession and opened his own business, Leaf Nutrition - obviously not before amassing a range of titles from certified personal trainer to the Master of Nutrition and certifications as nutritionist from the state of Washington and the International Society of Sports Nutrition. Future coaching requests should thus better go to Alex than me, after all, he has the time, the education and the patience to work with clients I have never had (those of you who asked me if I do coaching will know that).

And when we are already talking about reporting, let's segue into adherence right away: It is, after all, possible that eating a larger meal at lunch led to greater satiety and thus greater dietary adherence, possibly by reducing snacking and caloric intake throughout the day. Maybe the DM group simply didn’t report those early morning and/or afternoon snacks they secretly ate to keep their hunger under control. Albeit purely speculative, this assumption is not without support from previous research showing that when people eat more food at night, they eat significantly more food that day overall (de Castro, 2004).

Alternatively, both groups were instructed to gradually increase physical activity as part of the comprehensive weight loss program, so perhaps a larger lunch gave more energy to be active during the day and therefore expend more energy. Eventually, however, we will probably never know to which extent this "messed" with the results and as Adel agreed on the respective Facebook thread it may eventually be a strength of the study.

Alex's bottom line: Whatever the actual reason for the advantages the scientists observed may have been, the study at hand has one huge strength going for it – it was conducted in free-living women (Madid et al, 2016). Someone on Facebook commented that this study should be disregarded for that exact reason – too uncontrolled and too much confounding they said. I disagree. As a nutritionist myself, these types of studies provide invaluable practical relevance to me because they mimic what could happen if I were to give similar advice to my clients.

SuppVersity Suggested Classic: Less Frequent Large(r) Meals Increase Your Energy Expenditure 24/7 x 365 and  Conserve Your Resting Metabolic Rate While Dieting for Fat Loss | more

Importantly, instructions to eat larger meals at lunch or dinner were part of a comprehensive weight loss program (I’ve said this three times now, so it must be important). The participants received personalized dietary advice from a dietitian whom they met with twice per week and talked with on the phone daily. There was a lot of involvement and motivation coming from the outside.

As such, we can’t conclude that eating more at lunch has benefits over eating more at dinner without the guidance of a nutrition professional, although previous research by de Castro (2004) would suggest that large dinners have a particularly negative effect on daily total energy intake, too.

Also keep in mind that the differences between groups were modest, at best - shifting the focus from dinner to lunch is thus not going to be the game-changer that turns an obese couch potato into a jacked Olympian. Speaking of which: For people who train in the PM, the results may obviously have looked completely different. So the last word on meal timing and dinner vs. lunch being the optimal time to eat your largest meal has certainly not been spoken, yet | Comment!

References:

• Madjd A, Taylor MA, Delavari A, Malekzadeh R, Macdonald IA, Farshchi HR. Beneficial effect of high energy intake at lunch rather than dinner on weight loss in healthy obese women in a weight-loss program: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016; pii: ajcn134163. [Epub ahead of print]
• Subar AF, Freedman LS, Tooze JA, Kirkpatrick SI, Boushey C, Neuhouser ML, Thompson FE, Potischman N, Fuenther PM, Tarasuk V, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. J Nutr. 2015; 145(12): 2639-45.
• de Castro JM. The time of day of food intake influences overall intake in humans. J Nutr. 2004; 134(1): 104-11.

HIIT Sheds 25% Intra-Bellyfat in 32 Workouts - Despite T2DM & W/Out Dieting! Plus: Always 'Add Weights' When Dieting

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) sheds significantly more belly fat over (-10% vs. 0%) and under (-25% vs. +10%) female abs than isocaloric medium intensity steady state exercise aka MICT.

Losing 25% of visceral fat without dieting and with only two workouts per week (16 weeks x 2 workouts = 32 workouts total)? That sounds like straight from a 'spam ad' on Facebook, right? Well, it is based on scientific evidence, though... evidence from a study in Diabetes & Metabolism that tested the effects of a very manageable high-intensity interval training regimen (2 x 20 min per week) on abdominal fat mass in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (Maillard. 2016).c

Ok, I have to admit that's different from both, (a) the athletes in the second study that made it into today's SuppVersity short news (the one about maximal fat oxidation) and (b) the average SuppVersity readers, but knowing the exact protocol, which is different from much (if not everything) you may have seen so far, alone, should be reason enough to read the rest of today's SuppVersity Short News (all short news | make sure to scroll down and click on "older news" at the bottom).

Read more about exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

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

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

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Body Pump, Cardio & Exercise Expenditure

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The former is particularly true since the scientists tested another, albeit non-HIIT training regimen, too, one that resembles what the seventeen women (69 ± 1 years; BMI: 31 ± 1 kg/m²) who participated in the study would probably have done if they had not been randomly assigned to the classic, but useless ...

• medium intensity cycling training (MICT) - 40 min at 55–60% of their individual HRR as calculated by (estimated HRmax − HRrest) × 0.55 (or 60%, respectively) + HRrest - instead of the previously hinted at
• high-intensity interval training (likewise cycling) HIIT program - 60 × 8 s at 77–85% HRmax, 12 s of active recovery (at 20–30 rpm) - that yielded impressive results

for only for 16 weeks with two isocaloric (= EEs per session did not differ between the two modalities (262 ± 58 kcal with HIIT and 240 ± 58 kcal with MICT; this is a difference to many previous studies, where, oftentimes, the steady state group burned more energy during their workouts) workouts per week. As promised in the headline, it did thus take as little as 32 workouts for the results to become measurable (via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and visible - and that in spite of the lack of reductions in energy intake in both groups:

"Women were asked to maintain their normal eating habits during the 16-week study period. At baseline and at week 16 of training, each participant provided a 7-day food-intake diary, which was evaluated by a dietitian using nutrition analysis software (Nutrilog®, Marans, France)" (Maillard. 2016).

In addition, the subjects were "asked to maintain their normal levels of physical activity during the study period" (Maillard. 2016).

Whatever you do: If you want to lose weight - exercise! It's not just the study at hand that underlines how powerful (especially) HIIT exercise is when it comes to fat, not weight loss. Another recently published study by Edward P. Weiss et al. adds to the already convincing evidence that exercise protects you from the decreases in lean mass and reductions of VO2max that occur with deficits as low as only 20% (Weiss. 2016). In their study, Weiss et al. had observed that the ~2% (p=0.003) whole body and ~4% (p<0.0001) lower body lean mass loss that occurred during 15-18 weeks of dieting at 80% of the maintenance intake was reduced to non-significant 1% (p=0.44) and only just significant <2% (p=0.05) lower body lean mass loss while the ~6% decrease in aerobic exercise capacity was totally blunted with only 4.4+/-0.5 hr/wk of walking, jogging, cycling or more intense functional physical activities, such as yard work - needless to say that replacing that by a fast-paced strength training regimen (explicitly precluded in Weiss et al.) or concomitant strength + cardio training may have reduced the lean mass losses to zero, as well. 

Now, I have to admit I haven't told about the importance of a small word in the headline yet. The word is "intra-" and points away from belly fat in general and towards the "intra-belly" visceral fat with it's unhealthy effect on blood lipids and glucose levels.

Figure 1: Body composition changes [based on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) imaging] between baseline and end of the 16-week exercise program with MICT (n = 8) and HIIT (n = 8). Data are means ± SEM. MICT: moderate-
intensity continuous training; HIIT: high-intensity interval training; FFM: fat-free mass; FM: fat mass; delta
change (%) = [(16 weeks − baseline/baseline) × 100]. *P ≤ 0.05 (MICT vs. HIIT groups | Maillard. 2016).

With ~10%, though, even the total belly fat loss (visceral and subcutaneous) is remarkable. After all, there was (a) no dieting involved and (b) not even the slightest fat loss in the classic cardio group!

In January 2015 I wrote an article with the title "5 Reasons Why 50%+ of Your 'Cardio' Should Be HIIT". Now in 2016 the science is still valid | more

Beware of condemning MICT training! While you have read about the benefits (listed here) of doing HIIT before, there are also good sides of LISS and MICT. This is why I would like to remind you / prepare you for / a fact I highlight / will highlight in the bottom line, too: the study at hand shows nothing but the fact that in this subject group and (solely) for the purpose of losing visceral fat in the absence of dieting and, more importantly, in the absence of lifting weight, HIIT appears to be (albeit vastly) superior to an isocaloric bout (=you spend the same amount of energy training intensely and with intervals) ofsp steady state cardio (MICT).

If you lifted weight, for example, doing two types of exercise that tax the sympathetic nervous system may tax the CNS and produce results that are worse or not better than steady state cardio. Alternatively, if you lifted the calorie limit on the MICT, on the other hand, you may see (just as many previous studies did) that the extra calories burnt during MICT will help you lose more weight and often also more body fat. It's all about specificity and finding out what works for you!

A group of which the data in Figure 1 tells you that the subjects who have been randomly assigned to do "their cardio" (MICT) even got 10.5±9.7 % fatter (viscerally, as measured by CT scans) over the course the 16-week study.

Figure 2: Lipid, fasting glucose and HbA1c changes from baseline to week 16 with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT; n = 8) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT; n = 8 | Maillard. 2016).

Against that background, the scientists' observation that the 'bad' plasma triglyceride levels were higher with HIIT (group effect, P ≤ 0.05), while "overall, HbA1c and TC-to-HDL ratio both decreased after the intervention (time effect, P ≤ 0.05)" without significant inter-group differences. That sounds odd. As odd as the increase in fasting glucose. So what? Well, what is important, is that

"[...] the total cholesterol (TC) reduction was positively correlated with total visceral FM loss (r = 0.39; P ≤ 0.05) and HbA1c change was positively associated with the decrease in abdominal FM (r = 0.29; P ≤ 0.05)" (Maillard. 2016).

which points to an overall long-term benefit of HIIT on both, lipid and glucose metabolism. All that after 16 weeks, over which the scientists' nutrition and activity data confirm that the subjects did not - as they were advised - change their levels of physical activity (IPAQ score) or total energy (kcal) intake and macronutrient consumption (distribution and total amount).

'Inspiratory Muscle Training, HIIT or RT for Your Kids? Cold Water Immersion & Altitude Training - Who Benefits, When?' Learn about the latest exercise science on HIIT and more

Shouldn't the extreme visceral fat loss... trigger more significant improvements in 'bad' blood lipids (LDL) and glucose metabolism and by no means elevate triglycerides?

The latter is a valid question, but one you wouldn't ask if you were familiar with the effects of intense glycolytic training (HIIT, sprints, weights, etc.) on triglyceride levels, which are increased, because (a) HIIT & co will increase the amount of fat that is released from the fat cells (esp. after the workouts), while they (b) burn less fat than "classic cardio" during the workouts. To consider that "health-damaging" would thus be unwarranted.

And while I cannot explain, though, is why we don't see more significant improvements in the blood lipid composition of the HIIT group, I do know that (a) this is likewise a result, scientists have previously observed in scientific studies and that (b), and more importantly, none of the inter-group differences (including the nasty increase in LDL) was statistically significant (in fact, the p - values were all p > 0.5 [no typo], when p < 0.05 would signify statistical significance).

Overall, the studies main and only message is thus exactly what you've read in the headline: You can lose highly significant and significantly more belly fat (not total body fat, where both groups lost the same 1-2% of their total fat mass | another potential explanation for the lack of sign. differences as far as health benefits are concerned) if you invest 2x20 minutes into HIIT training per week compared to "classic steady state cardio" aka MICT. That's the message of the study - a message I would like to complement with (a) the advice from the light blue box, i.e. "Whenever you're tryin' to lose weight, do resistance training, too. Your muscles will thank you!", and (b) the reminder that this is a single study with an important limiter that is not always valid in the real world, i.e. identical energy expenditure in both arms of the study, if that's not guaranteed (and usually people burn more during "cardio" than during HIIT (including its aftermath)) the HIIT advantage you see in this study may easily melt away | Comment!

References:

• Maillard, F., et al. "High-intensity interval training reduces abdominal fat mass in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes." Diabetes & Metabolism (2016).
• Weiss, P et al. "Effects of Weight Loss on Lean Mass, Strength, Bone, and Aerobic Capacity." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Post Acceptance: August 30, 2016 [ahead of print]. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001074.