Image provided by lululemon athletica

I have visited this topic before in Is Cardio Effective for Fat Loss and The ABSOLUTE Best Type of Cardio, but based on the comments I received and talking to others about the subject, I think that I need to bring it up one more time.

As I’ve said before, I think that cardio is overrated as a fat loss plan in general. For some people, it can be absolutely essential, but for the most part, most of your progress towards achieving your ideal body can be accomplished by other forms of activity and diet that involves minimal cardio. Not only is cardio not necessary for the most part, but toning it down a bit can be beneficial for your progress and get you closer to that body in less time, or at least allow you to keep more muscle mass while dieting.

First, let’s go over some reasons why you might want to keep cardio to a minimum when starting out your diet:

If you have a lot of fat to lose, and it is going to take a while to chisel down to the body you want, then cardio is actually pretty inefficient as far as lost calories are concerned. At a moderate pace, you could jog for an hour and burn off 400-500 calories, but instead of wasting all that time and energy you could have just eaten 200-250 calories less for a couple meals. Also, as long as you aren’t in that single digit bodyfat percentage yet, it wouldn’t really make much of a difference how you lost those calories; you would end up losing just about the same amount of fat from burning it from cardio vs. losing it though eating less.

If you think about muscle retention while dieting, then cardio becomes a problem here as well. Cardio will not only burn fat but also some muscle, even if you eat protein and carbs beforehand, though to a much lesser degree. While true that dieting in and of itself will burn off some muscle, the effect will be enhanced with a ton of cardio added on top of the diet. Also, in order to retain the maximum amount of muscle possible while dieting, your lifting sessions will need to be top notch. If you waste a lot of energy doing cardio, especially high intensity cardio, then the intensity of your lifting sessions might decrease, thus allowing even more muscle to be lost.

Lastly, cardio makes many people unhappy. For a large majority of people, performing cardio is much more of a chore than lifting is. If you are not one of these people, then this might not apply to you, but if you dislike cardio, then adding cardio into your routine might decrease your willpower further than it would have been without cardio.  This can actually be a big problem because for many people, just sticking to the diet would solve most of their problems. In any case, dieting is not fun to do already, I would try to make it as easy on yourself as possible if you can.

Looking at the other side, there are definitely some reasons why you would want to incorporate cardio into your week:

I hinted above that if you had a lot of weight to lose, then losing a calorie is losing a calorie. It won’t really matter if you lose the calories due to dieting or cardio; your results will end up being almost identical (if not better for the non-cardio results, due to the other reasons above). However, the rules change a little bit when you get really lean. If you get down to the lower limits of bodyfat and want to keep going, then cardio might be necessary. At a high bodyfat level, the body doesn’t really care all too much about losing some fat – it’s not that big of a deal. When you get down to the lower limits of bodyfat levels, though, your body isn’t so willing to let go of even more fat – it would much rather just hand over some of that metabolically active muscle. Therefore, you might need to incorporate activity that shifts the caloric partitioning towards fat loss, like cardio.

Another more biological way of looking at this deals with the type of adrenoceptors in the bodyfat itself:

Different areas of bodyfat have different distributions of adrenoceptors, specifically beta-receptors and alpha-receptors.  For simplicity, beta-receptors are good. They increase blood flow in the bodyfat and cause fat to be pulled out of the cells. Alpha-receptors are bad. They decrease blood flow and try to stop the cells from losing their fatty acids. When someone with a high bodyfat percentage starts out on their diet, they are going to have a lot of fat in many places that have a high percentage of beta-receptors, thus allowing fat to come off without too much of a problem. This person doesn’t need much cardio, if any at all, for the fat to come out of those cells with the high percentage of beta-receptors. However, when the person starts to get to a very low level of bodyfat, much of the fat that remains is stored in bodyfat that has a high percentage of alpha-receptors, specifically hips and thighs for girls and abs/lower back for guys in general.

Since a good majority of the fat that is left is high in alpha-receptors compared to beta-receptors, this person might have to change things up a bit.

Since he/she is at a very low bodyfat level, we wouldn’t want to lower the calories further. While lowering the calories might allow some more fat to come off, it will also push for muscle loss, something we are trying to avoid.  So, this person can keep the calories the same, or even raise them slightly (still keeping them under maintenence, though) and then utilize cardio to make up for some of the loss in calories. Depending on a multitude of factors, the cardio can either be slow, steady state cardio or something more in line with HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). Different people have different oppinions on both, and while there are definately some aspects of your diet and lifting that can almost dictate which type of cardio you should perform, one type is not inherently “better” than the other. It really just comes down to context.

Lastly, I want to mention that there are some times when you probably should start performing cardio right from the start of the diet and throught the diet. One of these times applies to people who have a bodyweigth that is pretty light to start with due to height, bone structure, etc. In general, some smaller girls who would need to hack off a fairly large chunck out of their normal daily amount of calories might not be able to afford to have all that reduction come from diet alone. This is because if the maintenance calorie level is 1800, for example, a 500 calorie decrease would leave the person with only 1300 cals/day. At this level, it might not be possible to get all the needed nutrients from food. This person should allow some of the drop in calories come from diet and some of the drop from cardio in order to get more vitamins and minerals from food everyday.

So now you should know that cardio is not a “magic pill” for weight or fat loss. In reality, losing calories from cardio tends to be harder than simply losing the calories due to diet. Furthermore, cardio has the ability to enhance muscle loss and lower the intensity or effectiveness of your lifting sessions. However, cardio can also play a role in calorie partitioning, especially at the lower levels of bodyfat, and can aid a person in getting some of the “stubborn” fat off. Also, cardio has many other health benefits, like increase your cardiovascular endurance, that might make it worth the trouble for you.

The main point here is that cardio should definately not be your first line of defense for losing fat. First, get your lifting and diet in order, then move to cardio if you so choose or if it will be benefical inside your context. (And yes, all of this applys to girls too. Even the lifting part.)

 

Image by jason.lengstorf

Let’s get back to the basics. Nowadays, there are so many new exercise programs you can join that it’s getting a little confusing. Which is better: P90X or Insanity? Low reps or high reps? 5 sets or 2?  There are so many variables to work with, no wonder so many people are confused. On top of that, the supplement companies don’t make it any easier. With a myrad of supplements promoting themselves as the best thing since sliced bread, sometimes we can lose some focus on the really important things.

For those unaware or need a refresher, the Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes (Wikipedia).

I believe that this is likely true for muscle building and fat loss. If not exactly 80/20, probably somewhere close.

This means that by focusing on the 20% of the things that matter a great deal, you will reap around 80% of the results. The other 80% of ideas, supplements, and variables only account for the remaining 20% of results.

This is important because many people lose sight of what the really important things are. They not only forget to put them at the forfront, but much of the time do not even know which things are the important ones.

This article is about one of the most important aspects of lifting weights. It is this single factor that accounts for much of the results that you will see in the gym:

Progressive Overload.

Not a new concept by any means, but because it is so ubiquitous, it loses much of the attention that it deserves.

Simply, progressive overload means that over time, you are increasing the total resistance you are experiencing in the gym. You can do this through: decreased rest time between sets, adding more sets, adding reps with the same weight, or adding weight with the same reps. However you want to slice it, you have to be adding weight to the bar over time.

This is often overlooked. I’ll go to the gym and see a guy do 10 pull-ups, break, 10 pull-ups again, stop. Then next week, I’ll see him again do 10 pull-ups, break, 10 pull-ups again, stop. No struggle, not too hard for him.  Maybe a year later, he’ll be doing 12 pull-ups.

Or, I’ll see someone take some light dumbbells and rotate them around for a bit with some weird shoulder movements (some of the circular ones actually being dangerous, but that’s a different point) and then put them down.

However, the last and most frequent way of lifting that violates the progressive overload principle is focusing on fatigue insetead of overload.

These are the people who go to the gym, sit down on the bench with a lot of weight, lift till failure, take some weight off, lift till failure, take some more weight off, lift till failure again, over and over with little to no rest in between. These type of drop sets will greatly fatigue you; they’ll make you so blown out that you leave the gym feeling like you had an excellent workout and gave it everything you had (and maybe you did).

A year later, you’ll be wondering why you just can’t grow anymore.

The point is, by focusing on fatigue, the muscles rarely experience overload, which is the real goal.

Think about it. After a few dropsets in the earlier example, that person will be doing significantly less weight  than he started out doing. Sure, it’ll seem very hard, but if he waited a couple minutes to recover, he would have been able to do a LOT more reps with that weight. Thus, he is actually cutting himself short. By focusing on fatigue rather than overload, he ends up doing significantly less total work (in the mechanical sense) than he would have if he did each set fully rested. Furthermore, since he already blew himself out in the beginning of the workout, the rest of the workout will be of lower quality than it would have otherwise, and again he will n0t be able to do as many reps as he would have been able to if he did not blow himself out so early.

How do you make sure that progressive overload stays at the forefront of your objectives?

1. You can keep a lifting log. A lifting log will allow you to write down the weight and reps that you did for each exercise. Next time you are at the gym doing that exercise, you can look at your previous record and push yourself to beat it, either by adding some weight, like 5 lbs, or doing 1+ more reps than you did before. This will force you to progressively increase the weight on the bar over time.
2. Once you fail, stop. Actually, many advise not to even go to failure for most of the workout, as doing so can decrease the quality of the subsequent sets. In my experience, it depends on the individual. Some can go till failure and push as hard on their next set no problem, while others will have a lower quality subsequent set. Regardless of what you choose to do, never go beyond failure by doing drop sets, partial reps, or having your spotter help you do a few cheater reps. If you do chose to incorporate these into your workout, make sure they are at the end of your workout so that you do not blow the rest of your workout as you would if you were to put them at the beginning.
3. Don’t do silly exercises. Don’t get caught up in some new hyped-up exercise that is claiming is is the best way to improve X. Almost all the time, the basic compoud movements are best. Avoid exercises that don’t allow you to count reps, move in a circular motion, or don’t allow you to move up in weight over time. Pull-ups are excellent, but if you can already master your own bodyweight, get a weight belt that allows you to add more weight to the exercise.

Whenever you start an exercise program, think to yourself how progressive overload is incorporated in this program. If it is not there, then it is probably not a very good program for muscle gain.

Remember, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Don’t fret all the little things, but worry greatly about progressive overload.

 

Since “The China Study” book came out and “Forks Over Knives”, the documentary, the idea that animal protein, and animal meat in general, is bad for you is as widespread as ever. Many people are claiming that animal protein is a leading cause of cancer, increases mortality, increases the chances of heart disease, and does not have any nutrients that you cannot obtain from plant protein, such as soy, legumes, and seeds, and other plant products. A leading figure in this argument is  Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Project Director of the China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project.

While Dr. Campbell outlines some great benefits of plant protein and some good reasons to avoid animal products, some say that the research he bases his findings on has a few major limitations, and others add that the conclusions he arrives at are questionable. Since “The China Study” gives one side of the argument, I will post here a review posted by Anthony Colpo, an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of the groundbreaking books The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. The main point I want to get across is not to believe everything that an “authority figure” says just because they say that research backs their beliefs up. A great deal of the time, deeper research is necessary. The original review can be read here.

_

By Anthony Colpo:

“Protein Prejudice

Campbell is sadly misinformed when it comes to the topic of protein, something especially regrettable for someone whose “entire professional career in biomedical research has centered on protein”. Within minutes of beginning his book, even the dullest reader will quickly realize that Campbell is on a zealous mission against animal protein, which he believes to be public healthy enemy number one.

Campbell’s anti-animal protein bent began while working in the Philippines, where he observed that children from the wealthiest families reportedly ate the most protein and had the highest rates of liver cancer. In itself, this observation is next to useless. Wealthy inhabitants of third world countries are often the first to adapt Western-style diets, which include not just more animal foods but a vast array of nutrient-depleted processed food items loaded with refined flours and sugars. Why blame animal protein–a perfectly natural food for the human species, one that we have been eating with great benefit for our entire 2.4 million year history–yet ignore the role of the nutrient-depleted garbage that we only began consuming during the last 150 years? It is the proliferation of the latter–not animal protein–that corresponds with the rise of degenerative diseases in the Western world.

According to Campbell, his protein suspicions were confirmed when Indian researchers found that feeding casein (a type of milk protein) to rats increased their susceptibility to aflatoxin-induced liver cancer. Campbell and his colleagues began replicating these experiments and repeatedly found that casein did indeed trigger cancer in susceptible rodents. According to Campbell, “The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy.”

Extrapolating from the deleterious effects demonstrated by casein in rodents, Campbell goes on to warn that all animal proteins are a deadly threat to humans.

Campbell’s position constitutes little more than a totally unscientific leap of faith. Casein is one of the major protein-containing fractions of milk; the other is whey. Campbell does not mention that while casein is often observed to promote cancer in rats, whey protein does the exact opposite. Numerous experiments have shown that rats lucky enough to be fed whey experience greatly reduced tumor incidence when compared to rats fed casein, beef, soy or standard rat chow[Badger TM][Hakkak R][Hakkak R][McIntosh GH][Papenburg R][Bounous G].

Preliminary research suggests a similar effect may even occur in humans. A pilot study by researchers at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada followed 7 cancer patients who were fed 30 grams of whey protein concentrate daily for six months. Five patients had metastatic carcinoma of the breast, one of the pancreas and one of the liver. Two patients exhibited signs of tumour regression, 2 showed stabilisation of the tumour, while the disease progressed in the remainder but with a trend toward higher lymphocyte glutathione levels. Glutathione is a potent antioxidant and whey consumption has been shown to raise glutathione levels in the body. The researchers concluded that “These results indicate that whey protein concentrate might deplete tumour cells of GSH and render them more vulnerable to chemotherapy.”[Kennedy RS]

Whey protein concentrates and isolates are now widely available in health food stores and supermarkets. But nowhere in The China Study does Campbell discuss the potent anti-cancer effects of whey in rats, and nowhere does he call for further research into the promising cancer-fighting benefits of whey in humans. I guess that would conflict with his rabid venting against animal protein…

Changing the facts

The whey-cancer issue is not the only one in which Campbell deletes inconvenient facts that would dramatically weaken his anti-animal protein hypothesis. After turning the discussion to heart disease, Campbell cites the work of Dr. Lester Morrison, the Los Angeles physician who conducted the earliest clinical trials into the effect of diet on heart disease recurrence.

Morrison took 100 heart attack patients and placed half of on what he himself described as a“high-protein, low-fat” diet and a regimen of nutritional supplements that included calcium, phosphorous, wheat germ, and brewer’s yeast. After eight years, thirty-eight of the fifty control patients had died, compared to only twenty-two of the treatment patients[Morrison LM].

To listen to Campbell though, you would think that Morrison’s dietary intervention group subsisted on anemic protein intakes. Campbell is quick to point out that Morrison allowed only two ounces of meat for lunch and two ounces at dinner. He further points out that whole eggs and whole dairy were prohibited on the diet. What he doesn’t mention–but would full well know seeing that he has obviously read Morrison’s papers–is that Morrison also prescribed the consumption of 13 ounces of skim milk daily. Morrison’s published “Foods Permitted” list also allowed for “egg whites as desired”[Morrison LM]. Clearly, Morrison’s diet was not the very low-protein diet regimen that Campbell would have us believe; in fact, the patients consumed protein levels in excess of the RDA and far greater than the miniscule amounts recommended by Campbell. So why doesn’t he just level with us? Is it because he has already spent a good portion of his book dumping on protein and dairy products, and can’t bring himself to acknowledge that a diet that prescribed daily milk consumption and relatively high protein levels was successful in reducing heart disease?

Campbell also neglects to mention Morrison’s intervention was multi-faceted; it also incorporated overall calorie restriction that resulted in weight loss and the use of nutritional supplements. Excess weight has long been linked to higher rates of CHD, while weight loss has been clinically demonstrated to improve various measures of cardiovascular health. Along with a number of vitamins and minerals, Morrison prescribed supplemental wheat germ and brewer’s yeast because of their high B-vitamin content, the latter also containing the important antioxidant mineral selenium. It is now well-recognized that certain B-vitamins lower blood levels of a potentially atherogenic substance known as homocysteine, while a small pilot trial found a marked reduction in mortality among CHD patients taking selenium-rich yeast on a daily basis[Schnyder G][Korpela H].

Maybe Campbell didn’t feel the supplements were worthy of mention. After all, despite their clinically-proven effectiveness, Campbell doesn’t like nutritional supplements.

Anti-supplement anti-logic

Campbell repeatedly pooh-poohs nutritional supplements, insisting they are of little to no value when it comes to improving health and fighting disease. I agree that healthy eating habits should form the foundation of one’s dietary arsenal against disease, but to denigrate nutritional supplements as largely useless is downright wrong.

Nowhere does Campbell mention the numerous large placebo-controlled clinical trials–involving real live humans, not lab rats–that showed substantial reductions in cancer incidence and mortality in the subjects randomized to take selenium supplements (ironically, two of these trials were conducted in China…)[Clark LC][Yu SY][Blot WJ].

Nowhere does Campbell mention SUVIMAX, the large randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving over 13,000 healthy French adults aged 35-60. The participants took a single daily capsule containing 120 milligrams of ascorbic acid, 30 milligrams of vitamin E, 6 milligrams of beta carotene, 100 µg of selenium, and 20 milligrams of zinc, or a placebo. After 7.5 years of supplementation, cancer and overall mortality rates in men were significantly reduced, by thirty-one and thirty-seven percent, respectively![Hercberg S]

Of course, denigrating nutritional supplements and recommending a vegan diet, as Campbell does, presents a huge problem–namely, how to get enough B12? After all, animal foods are the only meaningful source of vitamin B12.

Campbell infers that only plants grown on “lifeless” soil lack B12 (actually plants grown in any soil will lack B12, unless they are grown in manure and eaten without washing prior to consumption). Campbell also laments that modern-day vegetables are scoured of all soil before consumption, and thus grudgingly acknowledges that B12 supplements for vegans are a good idea. He also suggests that “..if you never get any sunshine exposure, especially during the winter months, you might want to take a vitamin D supplement”.

So this is Campbell’s solution to the lack of B12 presented by veganism, a pattern of eating that humans were never meant to follow on a long-term basis: Take B12 supplements…or eat dirt!

Thanks, but no thanks! I’ll obtain my B12 the way nature intended–from fresh, nutrient-dense meats.

More anti-animal food fanaticism

On page 230, Campbell states in bold type:

“There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants.”

Clearly, Campbell knows little about the nutritional content of animal foods. Animal flesh contains many nutrients that are either found in scarce amounts or entirely absent from plant foods. Here are some examples:

Creatine is used to form adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), our ultimate source of cellular energy. Creatine availability is critical during situations when neither fat nor glucose can be processed quickly enough to form ATP, such as during the first few seconds of high-intensity physical activities like sprinting and picking up heavy objects. Creatine supplements have been shown in numerous studies to aid performance in power-oriented sports, and to improve muscular strength in patients with congestive heart failure[Kreider RB].

Creatine only occurs naturally in animal foods, with meat by far the richest source. Not surprisingly, habitual vegetarians exhibit poorer creatine status than omnivores[Maughan RJ].

Meat, along with certain species of fish and seafood, is a rich source of taurine, an important amino acid whose concentration in eggs, milk, and plant foods ranges from negligible to none[Laidlow SA][Pasantes-Morales H]. Taurine is found in high concentrations in the heart, brain, and central nervous system, where it helps stabilize the cellular response to nervous stimulation. Taurine possesses antioxidant capabilities and has been shown in double-blind clinical trials to improve cardiac function in patients with congestive heart failure[Schaffer SW][Azuma J][Azuma J].

Taurine cannot be found in plant foods. Humans are able to manufacture their own taurine but with far less efficiency than herbivorous animals, as evidenced by significantly lower blood taurine levels in vegans and rural Mexican women reporting low meat intakes[Laidlaw][Pasantes-Morales H].

Carnitine is a remarkable amino acid that plays a pivotal role in energy production, and is absolutely essential for the fat-burning process to proceed. Because of its pivotal role in energy production, high levels of carnitine are found in the heart and skeletal muscle. Clinical trials have observed markedly improved survival outcomes resulting from carnitine supplementation in patients with heart failure and coronary heart disease[Davini P][Rizos I][Singh RB][Iliceto S]. A review of the scientific literature shows that this versatile amino acid has been shown to benefit anorexia, chronic fatigue syndrome, heart disease, male infertility, sexual dysfunction and depression in aging men, and pregnancy outcomes. Exercise, even at moderate levels, can cause a significant drop in muscle carnitine levels; in patients with angina and respiratory disorders, carnitine enhances exercise tolerance[Kelly GS][Cavallini G][Gentile V].

The richest food source of carnitine, by far and away, is meat. Compared to omnivores, vegetarians repeatedly exhibit lower blood levels of carnitine[Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M][Lombard KA]. Carnitine status appears to also be worsened by the high-carbohydrate diets recommended by folks like Campbell. In healthy men receiving the same amount of dietary carnitine, blood levels of this all-important amino acid rose significantly in individuals following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, while no change in carnitine levels were observed in individuals on a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet[Cederblad G].

Meat is the only food containing significant amounts of carnosine, an amino acid with some rather interesting and highly beneficial properties[Chan KM]. Carnosine is a potent antioxidant, being particularly effective in protecting cellular fats against free radical damage. Research shows carnosine may accelerate wound healing, boost the immune system, protect against cataracts, reduce gastric ulcer formation, rid the body of toxic metals, and even help fight against cancer[Hipkiss AR]. The most potent effect of carnosine however, appears to be its ability to prevent glycation, which, along with free-radical production, is a major contributor to degenerative illness and the aging process[Price DL, et al].

The potent anti-glycation effects of carnosine may explain why a comparison of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eating omnivores revealed the latter to have significantly lower levels of nasty glycation end-products known as advanced glycosylation end-products (AGEs) circulating in their bloodstreams. The difference could not be explained by total carbohydrate intake, blood sugar, age or kidney function, as all these variables were similar between the vegetarian and omnivorous groups[Sebekova K].

Meat, especially red meat, is the richest source of B-complex vitamins. The B vitamins perform a myriad of crucial functions in the body and requirements for these vital nutrients are dramatically increased during periods of stress, illness and physical activity. Unfortunately, the body cannot store a surplus of B-vitamins for times of increased need, so optimal amounts must be consumed on a daily basis.

Meat, especially red meat, is also a rich source of iron. Iron forms an essential component of hemoglobin, the red pigment in blood that transports oxygen from the lungs to the various body tissues. Insufficient iron intake can result in impaired immune function, decreased athletic performance and lack of energy. A double-blind Swiss study of women aged between 18-55 who had sought medical advice for fatigue, found that most of the women had low blood concentrations of iron. After four weeks, a significantly greater number of women receiving iron supplements reported a decrease in fatigue symptoms than those receiving placebo[Verdon F]. Australian women complaining of fatigue showed similar improvements when treated with either iron supplements or a high-iron diet[Patterson AJ].

Those who need to boost their iron stores should look to read meat rather than supplements or plant foods. When previously sedentary women were challenged with 12 weeks of aerobic exercise, a high meat diet protected iron stores more effectively than iron supplements[RM Lyle]. Heme iron (the form of iron found in meat) is far more easily absorbed by the body than non-heme iron from plant sources. Men and women on lacto-ovo vegetarian diets consistently exhibit lower blood levels of iron, even when consuming similar total amounts of dietary iron as omnivores[Alexander D][Hunt JR].

Animal foods are also by far and away the richest source of zinc. Apart from oysters, meat is the richest source of this mineral, with red meats again containing greater amounts of this mineral than white meats. Zinc is essential for optimal growth and repair, being involved in the actions of several vital hormones and hundreds of enzymatic reactions in the body. Zinc is essential for the formation of superoxide dismutase, one of the body’s most potent antioxidants. Zinc deficiencies can result in growth retardation in children, significantly weakened immune function, poor wound healing and muscle loss, lowered testosterone levels and sperm counts, and have also been linked to depression and gastric cancer[Prasad AS][Brown KH][Siklar Z][Dardenne M][Ibs KH][Maes M][Nakaji S][Prasad AS][Hunt CD].

Overt zinc deficiencies are common to Third World countries where animal protein consumption is low. Milder, ‘sub-clinical’ zinc deficiencies also appear to be a common phenomenon in modernized nations. Those who follow low fat diets are at even greater risk of zinc deficiency[Retzlaff BM][Baghurst KI, et al].

Animal foods, most notably brains and fatty fish, are the only dietary source of long chain omega-3 fats such as DHA and EPA (special algae supplements containing LCPUFA have only recently become available). Some plant foods do contain omega-3 fatty acids, but in a form known as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). To obtain the LCPUFA the body needs, ALA must be converted endogenously to longer-chain omega-3s such as DHA and EPA. The conversion rate, however, is very low, with clinical studies repeatedly showing that omega-3 fats from plant sources to be vastly inferior to those from animal foods when it comes to boosting long-chain omega-3 status[Fokkema MR][Francois CA][Tang AB, et al].

Numerous studies have shown that vegetarians consume far lower levels of long-chain omega-3 fats–not surprising considering their avoidance of meat and fish[Rosell MR, et al]. Studies of pregnant women show that, compared to omnivores, vegetarians have significantly lower levels of DHA in their breast milk, with vegans displaying the lowest levels of all. These negative fatty acid profiles are reflected in infants, with vegan newborns displaying significantly lower red blood cell levels of DHA. This is an ominous finding, given the critical role that omega-3 fats play in healthy immune function and cognitive development[Williams C][O'Connor DL][Helland IB][Moriguchi T][Dunstan JA].

Along with lowering one’s omega-3 levels, low meat intakes also increase the concentration of omega-6 fats inside the body. A high dietary and bodily ratio of omega-6:omega-3 fats increases the risk of numerous diseases, including cardiovascular disease. A sizable portion of heart attacks are triggered when blood clots lodge themselves in narrowed coronary arteries and prevent the flow of blood to the heart, a process also known as arterial thrombosis. One of the early and key events in the development of thrombosis is platelet aggregation, the ‘clumping together’ of blood platelets. Researchers from Melbourne, Australia, compared heavy-meat-eaters, moderate-meat-eaters, lactoovegetarians and vegans and found that as meat consumption increased, platelet aggregation decreased. Heavy-meat-eaters displayed the lowest levels of platelet aggregation, while vegans displayed the highest levels.

While meat eaters ate more of the omega-6 fat arachidonic acid, vegetarians consumed significantly higher concentrations of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid and significantly lower amounts of long chain omega-3?s. The resultant unfavorable omega-6:omega-3 is believed to be responsible for the higher levels of thromboxane A2 (TXA2) seen in the vegetarian group[Li D]. TXA2 is an eicosanoid that stimulates platelet aggregation. Chilean researchers have similarly observed significantly lower blood levels of EPA and DHA, and concomitant increases in blood platelet aggregation, among vegetarians[Mezzano D]

Plant foods contain all the nutrition that animal foods do? You’ve got to be joking!

So what about the China Study itself?

Despite it’s title, only a small portion of The China Study is actually devoted to discussing the giant epidemiological study of the same name; the rest of the book simply reads like an extended sales brochure for veganism.

Beginning in the early eighties, Campbell was part of a group of Chinese, British and US researchers that presided over the massive epidemiological study known as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times dubbed it “the Grand Prix of epidemiology”, and it gathered data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. After the study data was compiled, the researchers had calculated “more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables.”

According to Campbell, the China Study data showed that: “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease.”[p. 7]

In reality, the China Study showed nothing of the sort.

What Campbell won’t tell you about the China Study

The China Study does not contain the actual data gathered from its namesake study. So when Campbell claims that the China Study found a consistent relationship between animal foods and various diseases, readers have no way of verifying this information for themselves.

Unless of course, they get up off their butts and go retrieve the actual China Study data for themselves. To do this, they will need to check their local libraries (university libraries are the best bet) for a book titled Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties[Chen J]. Once readers have this book in their possession, they will quickly discover that there is a galaxy-sized gap between the actual findings of the China Study and the claims made by Campbell in his popular book version.

Overall mortality

Let’s start with overall mortality, unarguably the most important mortality statistic of all. Animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, saturated fat, and fat calories were all negatively associated with all-cause mortality in infants, children, teenagers and adults, although none of the associations reached statistical significance (for those unfamiliar with research-speak, a negative correlation means that as intake of these foods increased, mortality risk decreased; failure to reach statistical significance means that researchers can’t be sure these findings were not due to chance).

Among those aged 0-64, total protein returned a 29% negative association with overall mortality. This finding was statistically significant (p=0.05).

In all age groups, egg consumption was negatively associated with all-cause mortality, with a statistically significant 43% decrease (p=0.01) in overall mortality among those aged 0-64.

No statistically significant relationships, protective or otherwise, were found for milk intake, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, and vegetables among those aged 0-64.

The only other dietary factor that was significantly associated with overall mortality among those aged 0-64 was soy sauce (not soy products), which showed a 43% decrease in mortality risk (p=0.001)

Cancer

Neither total protein (+12%), animal protein (+3%), fish protein (+7%), plant protein (+12%), meat intake (-20%), saturated fat (+2%), fat calories (-17%), eggs (+19%), nor milk (+6%) demonstrated any statistically significant association with mortality from all cancers. Rice (-26%, p=0.05) and green vegetables (-28%, p=0.05) were statistically associated with reduced cancer mortality, as were the use of alcohol (-27%, p=0.05), home-made cigarettes (-32%, p=0.01), and total tobacco use (-25%, p=0.05).

(Readers can now see why I have such a generally low opinion of epidemiological research–if we were to treat the findings of the China Study seriously, then we would all go out and start drinking and smoking cigarettes in order to improve our odds against cancer! Despite his obvious enthrallment with the results of the China Study, Campbell for some reason doesn’t recommend this…)

With regards to specific types of cancer, no statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, vegetables and mortality from colorectal or breast cancers.

Heart Disease

No statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, legumes, and mortality from coronary heart disease.

Rice was associated with a statistically significant decrease (-58%, p=0.001) in CHD risk, while wheat flour was associated with a statistically significant increase in CHD risk (+67%, p=0.001). A similar phenomenon was noted for stroke mortality, with a statistically significant risk decrease noted for rice (-44%, p=0.01), and a statistically significant increase in risk observed for wheat flour (+55%, p=0.001) (again, despite his apparent rapture with the China Study results, nowhere does Campbell recommend the avoidance of wheat or wheat flour; in fact, he encourages the consumption of whole grain cereals).

So there you have it…the “Grand Prix” study that supposedly showed “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease” actually showed that animal-based foods imparted no increased risk of all-cause mortality, cancer deaths, or cardiovascular mortality.

Conclusion

Is Campbell deliberately lying to us? Or is he merely suffering from an inability to cast aside his own personal prejudices and present a full and objective presentation of the facts, because the facts conflict with what he wants to believe? I can’t get inside Campbell’s head to give you the answer, but it is not at all uncommon for even highly decorated researchers to “ignore” or flippantly dismiss evidence that fails to support their deeply-held beliefs, and instead focus intently on that which does. The China Study is a classic example of this phenomenon in action.

Campbell’s lopsided presentation of the facts is most regrettable. If you visit the The China Studypage at Amazon.com you will see that the book is selling well and has received glowing reviews from unwitting readers who clearly have not taken the time to validate Campbell’s claims for themselves. Like so many people in today’s society, these folks are too lazy to think and research for themselves, and are therefore ready prey for misguided “gurus” peddling scientifically unsound nonsense.

—

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of the groundbreaking books The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. For more information, visit TheFatLossBible.net or TheGreatCholesterolCon.com

References

Badger TM, et al. Developmental effects and health aspects of soy protein isolate, casein, and whey in male and female rats. Int J Toxicol. 2001 May-Jun;20(3):165-74.

Hakkak R, et al. Dietary whey protein protects against azoxymethane-induced colon tumors in male rats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001 May;10(5):555-8.

Hakkak R, et al. Diets containing whey proteins or soy protein isolate protect against 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced mammary tumors in female rats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Jan;9(1):113-7.

McIntosh GH, et al. Dairy proteins protect against dimethylhydrazine-induced intestinal cancers in rats. J Nutr. 1995 Apr;125(4):809-16.

Papenburg R, et al. Dietary milk proteins inhibit the development of dimethylhydrazine-induced malignancy. Tumour Biol. 1990;11(3):129-36.

Bounous G, et al. Dietary whey protein inhibits the development of dimethylhydrazine induced malignancy. Clin Invest Med. 1988 Jun;11(3):213-7.

Kennedy RS, et al. The use of a whey protein concentrate in the treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoma: a phase I-II clinical study. Anticancer Research, Nov-Dec, 1995; 15 (6B): 2643-2649.

Morrison LM. A nutritional program for prolongation of life in coronary atherosclerosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec 10, 1955; 159 (15): 1425-1428.

Morrison LM. Diet in coronary atherosclerosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, Jun 25, 1960; 173: 884-888.

Schnyder G, et al. Effect of homocysteine-lowering therapy with folic acid, vitamin B12, and vitamin B6 on clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: the Swiss Heart study: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug 28, 2002; 288 (8): 973-979.

Korpela H, et al. Effect of selenium supplementation after acute myocardial infarction. Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Aug, 1989; 65 (2): 249-252.

Clark LC, et al. Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin. A randomized controlled trial. Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group. Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec 25, 1996; 276 (24): 1957-1963.

Yu SY, et al. Protective role of selenium against hepatitis B virus and primary liver cancer in Qidong. Biological Trace Element Research, 1997; 56 (1): 117-124.

Blot WJ, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: supplementation with specific vitamin/mineral combinations, cancer incidence, and disease-specific mortality in the general population. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sep 15, 1993; 85 (18): 1483-1492.

Hercberg S, et al. The SU.VI.MAX Study: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Health Effects of Antioxidant Vitamins and Minerals. Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov 2004; 164: 2335-2342.

Kreider RB. Effects of creatine supplementation on performance and training adaptations. Molecular And Cellular Biochemistry, Feb, 2003; 244 (1-2): 89-94.

Maughan RJ. Creatine supplementation and exercise performance. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, Jun, 1995; 5 (2): 94-101.

Laidlow SA, et al. The taurine content of common foodstuffs. Journal of Parenteral Enteral Nutrition, Mar-Apr, 1990; 14 (2): 183-188.

Pasantes-Morales H, et al. Taurine content in foods. Nutr Rep Int, 1989; 40: 793-801.

Schaffer SW, et al. Interaction between the actions of taurine and angiotensin II.
Amino Acids, 2000; 18 (4): 305-318.

Azuma J, et al. Therapeutic effect of taurine in congestive heart failure: a double-blind crossover trial. Clin Cardiol. 1985 May; 8 (5): 276-282.

Azuma J, et al. Double-blind randomized crossover trial of taurine in congestive heart failure. Curr Ther Res 1983; 34 (4): 543-57.

Laidlaw SA, et al. Plasma and urine taurine levels in vegans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988; 47: 660-663.

Pasantes-Morales H, et al. Taurine content in breast milk of Mexican women from urban and rural areas. Arch Med Res. 1995 Spring; 26 (1): 47-52.

Davini P, et al. Controlled study on L-carnitine therapeutic efficacy in post-infarction. Drugs Under Experimental And Clinical Research, 1992; 18: 355-365.

Rizos I. Three-year survival of patients with heart failure caused by dilated cardiomyopathy and L-carnitine administration. American Heart Journal, Feb, 2000; 139 (2, Pt 3): S120-123.

Singh RB, et al. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of L-carnitine in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, Jan. 199; 72 (843): 45-50.

Iliceto S, et al. Effects of L-carnitine administration on left ventricular remodeling after acute anterior myocardial infarction: the L-Carnitine Ecocardiografia Digitalizzata Infarto Miocardico (CEDIM) Trial. Journal Of The American College Of Cardiology, Aug. 1995; 26 (2): 380-387.

Kelly GS. L-Carnitine: Therapeutic Applications of a Conditionally-Essential Amino Acid. Alternative Medicine Review, 1998; 3 (5): 345-360.

Davini P, et al. Controlled study on L-carnitine therapeutic efficacy in post-infarction. Drugs Under Experimental And Clinical Research, 1992; 18: 355-365.

Cavallini G, et al. Carnitine versus androgen administration in the treatment of sexual dysfunction, depressed mood, and fatigue associated with male aging. Urology, Apr 2004; 63 (4): 641-646.

Gentile V, et al. Preliminary Observations on the Use of Propionyl-L-Carnitine in Combination With Sildenafil in Patients With Erectile Dysfunction and Diabetes. Current Medical Research and Opinion, September 2004; 20 (9): 1377-1384.

Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M, et al. Correlation of carnitine levels to methionine and lysine intake. Physiological Research, 2000; 49 (3): 399-402.

Lombard KA, et al. Carnitine status of lactoovovegetarians and strict vegetarian adults and children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Aug, 1989; 50 (2): 301-306.

Cederblad G. Effect of diet on plasma carnitine levels and urinary carnitine excretion in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1987; 45: 725-729.

Chan KM, Decker EA. Endogenous skeletal muscle antioxidants. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 1994; 34 (4): 403-26.

Hipkiss AR. Carnosine. a protective, anti-ageing peptide? International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 1998; 30: S63-868.

Price DL, et al. Chelating Activity of Advanced Glycation End-product Inhibitors. Journal of Biological Chemistry, Dec. 28, 2001; 276 (52): 48967-48972.

Sebekova K, et al. Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet. European Journal of Nutrition, Dec, 2001; 40 (6): 275-281.

Verdon F, et al. Iron supplementation for unexplained fatigue in non-anaemic women: double-blind randomised placebo controlled trial. British Medical Journal, May 24, 2003; 326: 1124-1128.

Patterson AJ, et al. Dietary and Supplement Treatment of Iron Deficiency Results in Improvements in General Health and Fatigue in Australian Women of Childbearing Age. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2001; 20 (4): 337-342.

RM Lyle, et al. Iron status in exercising women: the effect of oral iron therapy vs increased consumption of muscle foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Dec 1992; 56: 1049 – 1055.

Alexander D, et al. Nutrient intake and haematological status of vegetarians and age-sex matched omnivores. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994 Aug; 48 (8): 538-46.

Hunt JR, Roughead ZK. Adaptation of iron absorption in men consuming diets with high or low iron bioavailability. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jan 2000; 71: 94 – 102.

Prasad AS. Zinc deficiency. British Medical Journal, Feb. 22, 2003; 326 (7386): 409-410.

Brown KH, et al. Effect of supplemental zinc on the growth and serum zinc concentrations of prepubertal children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, June 2002; 75 (6): 1062-1071.

Siklar Z, et al. Zinc Deficiency: a Contributing Factor of Short Stature in Growth Hormone Deficient Children. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, June 2003; 49 (3): 187-188.

Dardenne M. Zinc and immune function. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Aug, 2002; 56 (Suppl. 3): S20-23.

Ibs KH, Rink L. Zinc-altered immune function. Journal of Nutrition, May, 2003; 133 (5, Suppl. 1): 1452S-1456S.

Maes M, et al. Hypozincemia in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, June, 1994; 31 (2): 135-140.

Nakaji S, et al. Relationship between mineral and trace element concentrations in drinking water and gastric cancer mortality in Japan. Nutrition and Cancer, 2001; 40 (2): 99-102.

Prasad AS, et al. Zinc status and serum testosterone levels of healthy adults. Nutrition, May 1996; 12 (5): 344-348.

Hunt CD, et al. Effects of dietary zinc depletion on seminal volume and zinc loss, serum testosterone concentrations, and sperm morphology in young men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July, 1992; 56 (1): 148-57.

Hambidge M. Human zinc deficiency. Journal of Nutrition, May, 2000; 130 (Suppl. 5): 1344S-1349S.

Retzlaff BM, et al. Changes in vitamin and mineral intakes and serum concentrations among free-living men on cholesterol-lowering diets: the Dietary Alternatives Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1991; 53 (4): 890-898.

Baghurst KI, et al. Demographic and dietary profiles of high and low fat consumers in Australia. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1994; 48 (1): 26-32.

Fokkema MR, et al. Short-term supplementation of low-dose gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), or GLA plus ALA does not augment LCP omega 3 status of Dutch vegans to an appreciable extent. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 2000; 63 (5): 287-92.

Francois CA, et al. Supplementing lactating women with flaxseed oil does not increase docosahexaenoic acid in their milk. American Journal Clinical Nutrition, 2003 Jan;77(1):226-33.

Tang AB, et al. Preferential reduction in adipose alpha-linolenic acid (19:3n-3) during very low caloric dieting despite supplementation with 18:3n-3. Lipids, 1993; 28: 987-93.

Rosell MR, et al. Long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in plasma in British meat-eating, vegetarian, and vegan men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005; 82: 327-334.

Williams C, et al. Stereoacuity at age 3.5 y in children born full-term is associated with prenatal and postnatal dietary factors: a report from a population-based cohort study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 73, No. 2, 316-322, February 2001.

O’Connor DL, et al. Growth and Development in Preterm Infants Fed Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. Pediatrics, August 1, 2001; 108(2): 359 – 371.

Helland IB, et al. Maternal Supplementation With Very-Long-Chain n-3 Fatty Acids During Pregnancy and Lactation Augments Children’s IQ at 4 Years of Age. Pediatrics, January 2003; 111 (1): e39-e44.

Moriguchi T, et al. Behavioral deficits associated with dietary induction of decreased brain docosahexaenoic acid concentration. Journal of Neurochemistry, 2000; 75: 2563-2573.

Dunstan JA, et al. Fish oil supplementation in pregnancy modifies neonatal allergen-specific immune responses and clinical outcomes in infants at high risk of atopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Dec, 2003; 112 (6): 1178-1184.

Li D, et al. The association of diet and thrombotic risk factors in healthy male vegetarians and meat-eaters. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1999; 53: 612-619.

Mezzano D, et al. Vegetarians and cardiovascular risk factors: hemostasis, inflammatory markers and plasma homocysteine. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1999; 81 (6): 913-917.

Chen J, et al. Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties. Oxford, UK; Ithaca, N.Y. Oxford University Press; Cornell University Press, 1990.”

 

Image Provided by Darwin Bell

 If you’re like basically everyone else, you miss all the yummy tasting food when you go on a fat loss diet. It turns out that most high protein food just does not taste nearly as good as all the high carb and fat foods that you were so accustom to. While part of this is inevitable (sorry, dieting sucks..), some of it can be transformed into delicious meals or even desserts! Martin Berkhan from LeanGains.com has just posted a blog entry with a ton of great tasting high protein, low carb, and low fat meals and desserts. All of the recipes can be found here and a direct link to the pdf of the recipes can be found here.

In addition to the protein pancakes that Martin has in his arsenal, I prefer a simpler, higher protein type of pancakes (and in my opinion, just as great-tasting!).

Protein Pancakes:
cho:69g
pro:119g
fat:8g
cals: 824cals

• 1/2 cup low-fat or skim milk
• 1 cup oatmeal
• 1 cup low-fat cottage cheese
• 8 egg whites
• 2 scoops vanilla protein, ~50g (casein makes it thicker)
• some vanilla extract (optional)
• some sweetener like Splenda (optional)

 

I’ve gone over this topic before in How Much Protein Can Your Body Digest at One Time?, but sometimes you just can’t say it better than someone else can. In this case, I cannot say it better than Alan Aragon, one of the leading experts in nutrition as it relates to fitness and exercise.

Below is Alan’s take on protein absorption, taken directly from www.wannabebig.com :

Introduction

A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.

This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.

Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.

Looking at simple logic first

Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.

Research examining speed of absorption

A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.

It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.

Short-term research supporting the magic limit

I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,

“…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”

So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].

In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.

Longer-term research challenging the magic limit

If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].

Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.

When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12].  This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.

IF research nailing the coffin shut?

 

Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13].  Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.

 

In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.

Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.

Conclusion & application

Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].

In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.

In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake, and if you want to get the best bang for your buck, go for a quality protein blend such as Nitrean! 

Written By Alan Aragon

About Alan Aragon

Alan Aragon has over 15 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. Alan is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan recently lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association.

He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alan is a contributing editor and Weight Loss Coach of Men’s Health magazine.

His book Girth Control is considered one of the most in-depth manuals for physique improvement and understanding nutrition for fitness & sports. Last but not least, Alan writes a monthly research reviewproviding of the latest science on nutrition, training, and supplementation. Visit Alan’s blog to keep up with his latest shenanigans.

References

1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.

2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.

3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.

4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.

5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.

6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.

7. Moore DR, et al. 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.

8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.

9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.

11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.

12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.

13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.

14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.

 

Image provided by Pink Sherbet Photography

For some people, going to the gym is a constant struggle. It’s a test of willpower: Either you force yourself to go to the gym, or you give into the temptation to sit on the couch and watch t.v. Normally, it’s pretty hard for these people to go work out. Some of them succeed in forcing themselves day after day until it becomes a habit. Others succeed for some length of time, then end up giving into the the temptations and quitting. Yet, others never make it more than a week or so.

However, then there is a whole different category of people. These people never see working out as a struggle at all and always enjoy going to the gym. They decided that they were going to change that aspect of their life, and resolved to do just that – and enjoyed it! What’s the difference here? Why can some people view working out as easy and enjoyable while others have to force themselves? What’s more, how can the people who hate working out or find it to be a struggle change their mindset so that going to the gym just flows easily without any struggle being necessary?

It really all comes down to this thing we call will power.

Will power is defined by Wikipedia as “the ability of a person to exert his/her will over the inhibitions of their body or self.” What I am going to define will power as, is the amount of energy that is needed or used up by either acting against our immediate desires (stay on the couch) by self-regulating our behavior (getting that last repetition in even though all we want to do is drop the weight).

Many people view will power as a good thing. If you have a lot of will power, then you can act in ways that will benefit yourself in the long-term rather than the short-term. However, the problem with will power is that researchers are finding that it can get used up.

Psychology Today summarizes a few studies that have been done to directly measure will power.

In on of the test, subjects who had not eaten for at least 3 hours were split into 2 groups and sent into 2 different rooms. In each room there was a bowl of hot, fresh cookies and radishes. The experimental group got to eat whatever they wanted (you can guess which they chose) while the control group was only allowed to eat the radishes, requiring self-regulation or will power. Furthermore, the researchers left the room, further enhancing the amount of self-regulation was needed to not sneak a cookie.

After this test, a different set of researchers (who the subjects thought were unrelated to the first set) came into both rooms and gave each group a complex finger tracing puzzle (that was actually impossible to solve), but the subjects could try for as many attempts as they wanted. What they found was that the experimental group attempted the puzzle 8 times on average while the control group attempted the puzzle 19 times on average!

The conclusion was will power is actually like a muscle, and it can fatigue over time.

What does this have to do with working out?

The book Switch: How to Change Things when Change is Hard put forth an interesting metaphor for how to view will power:

You can imagine that we have sort of 2 different minds. A rational mind and an emotional mind. The rational mind is the part of us that is saying “I need to get out of bed now” when our alarm goes off in the morning, while our rational mind is the one saying “Just 5 more minutes!”.

Our emotional mind can be viewed as an elephant and our rational mind can be viewed as the rider on top of the elephant. Normally, when the elephant and rider disagrees, the elephant usually wins (because he is a lot bigger and stronger) over the rider, and then the rider complains about it later.

Will power can be viewed as the rider taking the elephant by the leash and pulling the elephant to go a certain direction. This is when you are sitting on the couch watching t.v. and force yourself to go to the gym. Your rider pulled the elephant to go that way even though it didn’t want to.

However, the rider can get tired. He cannot pull and force the elephant to go forever. What’s more, if the rider suddenly loses any sort of motivation to keep pulling or pull as hard, then the elephant will win for sure.

How to Get Motivated to Work Out

Now we can get into the real application of all this.

Remember up above when we were talking about the two types of people? There was one group who forced themselves to go to the gym; they used willpower to get up from the couch. Some of these people succeeded, some failed, but regardless, it wasn’t that much fun for them. They knew it was benefiting themselves, but they still didn’t want to do it. They were using the rider to tug the elephant to go in the direction he wanted it to go. Some people had enough will power to continually force themselves to go, and they succeeded. However, I would think that these would be the minority. I think the majority of people would run out of will power, and that’s one of the reasons we see so many diets that fail or exercise programs that fail.

On the other hand, what if you could get your elephant to WANT to go in the direction the rider wants it to go, without having to pull on it. That would save a lot of energy and will power, wouldn’t it?

We can do this by CONVINCING our elephant that the way the rider to go is the best way. The elephant starts off thinking that it is not the best way to go. The elephant always wants instant gratification, so the best way to the elephant is the way that will give him good feelings NOW. How do we give the elephant good feelings NOW that will be in alignment with the way we want it to go?

Visualizing

Visualizing is a great way to get this done. By visualizing how you are going to look in the future (and the fantastic body you will have), the elephant starts to feel good emotions. Now you have to tie in there that the fantastic body can only be caused from this next workout. This next workout is the ONLY thing you can do RIGHT NOW to start to develop that body. This is when the elephants starts turning in the direction of the gym.

The tricky part is not to think in terms of the future. I know its your future body that you are visualizing, but it needs to be interpreted as being developed RIGHT NOW. The elephant does not want to hear that it will take many more workouts than the next one to achieve that body (I bet you are already feeling a loss in motivation). You want the elephant to focus only on this next workout and how it is the ONLY think you can do AT THIS MOMENT to achieve that body. FOCUS on how good it feels to have that body. You have to make all the emotions positive. Do not let the elephant try to come back with “but I don’t have that body now, and I don’t like how I look now, and now I’m sad”. Negative emotions will not get you motivated – refer to A Cure For a Loss of Motivation for more detailed information on this. The point is, you have to ACTIVELY DIRECT your thoughts to convince the elephant that your way is better, and you must do this through emotions, because that is all it responds to.

Movement

Alongside visualizing, you can change your physiology to amplify the effects. A lot of the time, it is hard to change the emotions we are feeling if we are staying in the same position. If you change are position, especially in an unusual or exciting way, then it is generally easier to change our emotions. This is important, because we need to switch over from negative emotions to positive, perfect future body emotions that can start to be achieved if we want to convince our elephant.

So jump up and down a few times, punch the air, shout and scream, twirl! Do anything that you are not doing now, and try to do something that will excite you. This will allow to shift in emotions to flow easier. It will allow the elephant to start listening to your reasoning a bit more (even though it’s not reasoning – it’s actually emotional convincing).
It is important to note that this whole process should not be a short term thing lasting only a few minutes. This will benefit you a ton more if you actually keep this mindset throughout the whole time you are exercising, or dieting, etc. The secret with the people who actually do love exercising (besides the few crazy ones who love it just ’cause it’s fun) is that they are keeping this mindset on them every time they exercise. They see themselves in the future, and have enormously positive emotions about developing the body they want. There is no struggle between the rider and the elephant; they are both pointing the same direction, and so no will power is used up. These are also the same people who tend to put 100% of their effort into the gym. Since they didn’t have to use any will power to get to the gym in the first place, they can save it all for when they are on that last rep and want to put the weight down. They can use their will power energy when they really need it. These are the people who improve over time. Only people who push themselves to the max on a consistent basis will see improvement in the long run, and it gets very hard to do that if you already had to use will power to get to the gym in the first place.

So, I challenge you to try this new method of Will Power Conservation™. Break the habit of using your will power to get yourself to do what the rational mind wants, and instead try to figure out how to make your emotional mind WANT to do it. You have to speak and think using emotions, as this is the only thing the emotional mind responds to or cares about. Also, you have to think in terms of NOW, because the emotional mind does not care about the future. It wants instant gratification, so we have to trick it by using the techniques above.

If you follow through with this, though, will will notice an increase in motivation that you have never witnessed before.

 

image provided by mhaller1979

I have a problem when people tell me that they are going to reach their fitness/physique goals by “eating clean”. It’s not a problem because clean eating is inherently bad or wrong; in fact, I’m all for it. The problem arises when clean eating becomes an end in and of itself, instead of just one sub-unit of overall calorie control. However, the reason that the idea of clean eating for physique change persists is most likely due to the overwhelming empirical evidence witness daily throughout our lives:  We tend to see that the people who “eat clean” are the ones with the best bodies.

Is this true? Is this a cause-and-effect relationship or just correlation?

Since it seems easy to me how people can interpret this as a cause-and-effect relationship, I won’t go into it here. But what if this is actually just a correlation? What if it’s actually a reverse cause-and-effect relationship?

Before we get into that, we need to establish just what I mean by “clean eating”. For this article, I’ll declare clean eating as eating only whole, naturally occurring, unprocessed foods; whole wheat and fruits for carbs; only healthy, monounsaturated fats like olive and canola oil and omega-3s; and protein (I won’t specify how to get the protein, since views are very mixed as what counts as “clean eating” in terms of protein).

Now, straight onto the point:

Is there any evidence that clean eating (using the above definition) has any effect on body composition:

Eh, not really.

Here and there, you will find evidence that a particular type of food (like MCT oil from coconut oil) will promote some type of fat loss, but an overwhelming amount of research throughout the decades points to a single overarching principle: Macronutrient amount and type play a significant role in changing body composition while macronutrient quality and micronutrients play a much, much lesser role.

(Remember, I am only talking in terms of body composition – muscle gain and fat loss – not in terms of health.)

Therefore, how many total calories you take in everyday and the type of calories those were in terms of macronutrient make-up (fat, carbs, protein) will determine how you look (along with exercise), not what kind of fat, carbs, and protein you had (for the most part).

[I say "for the most part" because there are extremes. For example, if someone's carbs consisted entirely of fructose, that would not be so good. However, that would be extremely hard to do and not realistic at all, so "for the most part" really does apply to almost everything.]

Why then do we keep seeing that the people who are eating the cleanest tend to have the best bodies?

First off, that’s not always true, and now you know why. But yes, there does seem to be some sort of correlation here; however, it is easily explained:

• The people who care most about their exercise tend to also care about their diet. Since exercise changes body composition (especially resistance exercise), these people tend to have better than average bodies.
• The people who are most successful at “clean eating” tend to have good discipline when it comes to making choices about food and what to eat. Thus, these people tend not to over-eat and have better bodies.
• The guys who are into lifting weights tend to hear that clean eating will help them reach their goals. Since lifting weights significantly changes body composition, these people tend to have better bodies.

and on and on…

So, it’s not that the “clean eating” is directly causing these people to have better bodies. It’s actually that the people that develop the best bodies normally eat cleaner.

At this point, I must point out again that I am not against eating healthy foods. In the long run, I am 100% clean eating! You will probably feel better, be healthier, have more energy, live longer, etc.

The point is that eating clean will NOT affect how you look regarding muscle gain and fat loss. Total calories and macronutrient make-up will (along with resistance training, of course).

Is this an oversimplification? Yes, it is. Does that really matter? No, not really.

While you should always ensure that you are eating enough fruits and veggies to reach your micronutrient goals, worrying about eating only clean foods would give you such little extra results that you wouldn’t even be able to notice them.

Instead, focus on what is going to give you 95% of the results. Focus on how many calories you’re eating. Focus on how much protein you’re consuming. Focus on resistance training and your meals around training. Don’t let your carbs and fat get too low, and don’t let them get too high. These are the things that matter, and many of them will take some individual experimentation. However, do not worry about eating 100% clean.

Why am I focusing on this so much? Because people use clean eating to rationalize eating poorly!

Many people start off trying to eat clean in order to lose weight, but they end up never seeing results. This is because they are using clean eating to justify their poor food/portion choices. For example, having some Skittles is not going to break your diet. You can have 300 cals of Skittles, and as long as it fits in with your carb goals for the day, you’ll be completely OK. However, instead of choosing 300 cals of Skittles, a person may choose whole grain pasta, because it’s clean. However, since the only thing this person is taking into consideration is whether the food is clean or not, he ends up eating 800 calories worth of pasta. If he is trying to lose weight, then he would have been better off with the Skittles.

What I’m trying to say is that most things don’t matter as much as people think they do.

Knowing the un-importance of clean eating also allows people to enjoy (or at least, not hate as much) dieting. They will be able to eat more of the foods that they enjoy without feeling guilty about it, as long as they are keeping track of their fat, carb, and protein intake (and, ergo, calories).

This is substantial because many people feel that if they have any food that is not healthy, then they have completely blown their diet, and enjoy an all-they-can-eat buffet in response, which then actually does shatter their diet.

To find out more on how to actually have beneficial food choices, wait for part 2 of this series.

 

Image by AndYaDontStop

There is a kind of well known principle called the Pareto principle that puts forward that in many cases, roughly 80% of the results come from 20% of the causes. This was first hypothesized when an Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. He later developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.

What does this have to do with fitness and nutrition?

There are way to many people believing that whatever current diet or lifting program they are on is the “magic pill” to get the body they want. Actually, if they are getting consistent results, then is there really anything wrong with having a few false beliefs? Yes and no.

In one sense, if you happen to stumble upon some particular strategy that seems to be working for you, and you are getting consistent results in the right direction, then it seems that there really isn’t any need to change. Sure, you might be able to find something a little more efficient, but at least you are progressing.

The problem arises when you stop progressing. The is especially apparent with the “newbie gains”.  If someone has never lifted before, then when they start lifting, virtually in any way, shape or form, they are going to see some sort of results. Their strategy will be “working”. However, after a certain amount of time, they develop enough muscle mass that the gains start to slow, or in some cases stop completely. When this happens, it’s important to know which parts of your strategy are/were producing most of the results, while knowing which parts aren’t/weren’t very important in the grand scheme of things.

If you’re “magic pill” stops working, are you going to know what to change in order to get it to start working again? The only way to know this is to know which parts of your program/strategy was giving you most of the results in the first place, or, even arguably more important, you need to know which parts of your program/strategy was NOT greatly contributing to your progression so you can check those off the list.

Here’s an example:

Many people are under the impression that they need to eat 5-6 times per day in order to keep “stoking the metabolic fire” a.k.a. keep the metabolism up if they don’t want to gain fat. They are told to eat less each meal but spread them out throughout the day.  While this sounds all fine and dandy, it doesn’t really play out under controlled conditions.

Eating 5-6 meals a day can allow someone to get leaner, though not by the mechanism that everyone associates it with: It makes the person become more conscious of their eating and, at the end of the day, eat less food than they otherwise would have. So, it’s actually the less amount of calories that is allowing that person to lose fat, not some magical metabolic mechanism.

The point is, if you were to focus on the eating less part, you would know that you cannot gorge yourself each of those 5-6 meals and rationalize it with an increased metabolism excuse.

By know which things are giving you the results, you open yourself up to allow change if something stops working. You can better diagnose the situation, rather than just give up on your current strategy and adopt a new magic pill solution.

This applies equally, if not more, to lifting.

With the recent explosion of programs like p90x, cross training, and insanity, people start focusing on the program itself too much, rather than the principles that are causing that program to work. If a program, like insanity, for example, makes you burn off a ton of calories while also giving you some pointers on how to eat less, you are most likely going to lose weight. You lost some calories due to the workout, and now you don’t want to ruin all your effort by stuffing your fase, so you’ll take it easy on the food.

No magic. Just basic thermodynamics.

With more lifting-oriented programs like cross training, power rep range shock (PRRS), MaxOT, etc, etc…. There are always certain principles that lay the foundation for each type of training. Sure, a lot of the details of the programs differ, but in order to be effective they must contain some basic principles of hypertrophy.  For example, any decent lifting program has to have in it, somewhere, the principle of progressive overload – slowly increasing the weight you put on the bar over time.

The problem arises when people start putting more focus on the details of the program rather than the principles. People start thinking “Well, this program says that I have to do 8 reps of 150 lbs.” So when they are at their 8th rep and not close to failure yet, they put the bar down anyway, thinking that they are adhering to the program. If their focus was to do MORE weight or MORE reps with the same weight than previously, they would have a much easier time growing and progressing.

This is the same thing that happens when people start doing pressing exercises on a yoga ball. They are increasing the importance of a minor detail (stability) and decreasing the importance of a principle (lifting heavy, relative to themselves). The reward just doesn’t add up to the cost.

There are many principles to lifting and hypertrophy. Some are generally accepted, like progressive overload and using a heavy enough weight to induce growth (mechanical load), while others are debated, like frequency of workouts. I do not want to go through and list all the principles here party because Hypertrophy Specific Training does a good job of that, partly because I don’t feel like it, and partly because too many “principles” are still debated regularly.

However, what I do want to come out of this is for you to examine your current program yourself. Look at the program you are doing and try to outline and differentiate between the principles and the details. The principles will give you 80+% of the results, while the details will probably give you 20-% of the results.

The purpose of this suggestion is twofold:

1. It will allow to know what to focus on while you’re at the gym and know what to change (or NOT to change) if the results stop coming.
2. If you don’t know what the principles are, you will probably need to do some digging online in order to find out. This will increase your knowledge of hypertrophy (muscle growth) and fat loss, which will also help with point (1).

 

This is the second part of a two-part series comparing creatine monohydrate and creatine kre-alkalyn. If you missed the first part, please read it first by clicking here.

In part 1 of Creatine Monohydrate vs. Creatine Kre-Alkalyn, we discovered the two important things:

• Creatine monohydrate does not produce much waste product (creatinine).
• Since stomach acid does not degrade creatine monohydrate, there is no need to PH buffer it like Kre-Alkalyn does.

Now we move into…

So what about Kre-Alkalyn needing a smaller dosage?

Well, as of right now, there are no studies that directly tested the dosage needed for Kre-Alkalyn to reach full muscular saturation levels (which says something right there). However, we do have the next best thing!

A study done by Preen et al. tested “a comparison of loading and maintenance protocols on creatine uptake by human skeletal muscle”. They had 3 groups perform a typical loading dosage of creatine monohydrate (20g per day, for 5 days). Later, they put each group on 3 different maintenance dosages: 0g, 2g, and 5g of creatine per day, for 6 weeks.

After the 6 weeks, they found that “muscle TCr [total creatine] stores were still similar to post-loading values for both the 2 g x day(-1) and 5 g x day(-1) conditions”.¹

So they concluded:

…after 5 days of Cr loading, elevated muscle TCr concentrations can be maintained by the ingestion of small daily Cr doses (2-5 g) for a period of 6 weeks…

So, even though this study is done with monohydrate, it still can say something about buying Kre-Alkalyn. If, after an initial loading phase (which isn’t really necessary, but it will saturate your muscles faster), you take 2-5g of creatine monohydrate everyday, your muscles will stay saturated.

So, even if Kre-Alkalyn does absorb better and needs a smaller dosage than monohydrate (which there are no studies that indicate such), after a short period of time, your muscles are already completely saturated by using normal creatine monohydrate, so why spend all the extra dollars to buy something thatmight need a smaller dosage? It just doesn’t make much sense, especially considering all the research that creatine monohydrate has backing it up and all the research that Kre-Alkalyn does not have.

Thus, we now know that:

• Creatine monohydrate will most likely fully saturate the muscle cells over a short period of time (5 days if you take the loading dosage [20g/day]).
• There is no evidence to support kre-alkalyn’s claim that it needs a smaller dosage to achieve the same effect, but it’s more expensive anyway.
• Creatine monohydrate does not need a loading phase either. It will just take a bit longer for the muscle cells to become saturated.

Now the last point we have to examine is the bloating effect of creatine.

LESS CHANCE OF HOLDING WATER OR BLOATING

Well.. This is when people start to misinterpret definitions.

Creatine monohydrate doesn’t “bloat” in the sense that a lot of people think it does. Creatine holds water intramuscularly only, meaning that all of the water being held is inside your muscle. This means that the water is not held under the skin, like many people think. Therefore, it will only make your muscles look a tad bigger, but it won’t make you look fat.

Some people claim that it does make them look fat, though. Normally, this is because people hear that they need to consume a massive amount of carbs and water with creatine (water is a good idea, but there is no need to worry about the carbs). Since each gram of carb stored 4 grams of water with it, this carb-loading will definitely make you hold a lot of water, but most people mistakenly attribute this to the creatine.

As of now, there isn’t a study showing that Kre-Alkalyn does not hold water in the way monohydrate does. However, if you monitor/lower your carb and/or salt intake, the bad looking water weight will drop off. If it doesn’t, the you probably just have fat there, sorry.

Now, looking back at the claims that bodybuilding.com wrote, you can make up your own mind for yourself regarding kre-alkalyn:

1. Ph buffered – Kre-Alkalyn is formulated with a higher Ph than other forms of creatine
2. Kre-Alkalyn produces less waste product when digested*
3. Take a smaller amount of Kre-Alkalyn per serving with the same results as other forms of creatine*
4. No loading phase*
5. Better absorption by muscle tissue*
6. Less chance of holding water or bloating

* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

References:

1. Preen, David, Brian Dawson, Carmel Goodman, John Beilby, and Simon Ching. “Creatine supplementation: a comparison of loading and maintenance protocols on creatine uptake by human skeletal muscle..”International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism 13 (March 2003): 97-111.

 

Last post I compared creatine monohydrate to creatine ethyl ester, and concluded that monohydrate definitely has the upper hand for multiple reasons. Just because something is new, doesn’t make it better (and much of the time “new” supplements don’t have the kind of research backing it up that “old” supplements do).

Fortunately, though, the amount of people buying creatine ethyl ester has been declining in recent years since many people are starting to realize that it is not better than monohydrate.

What has not been declining, however, is creatine kre-alkalyn. This is supposedly the “new and improved” creatine, and the supplement companies essentially make two assertions (From bodybuilding.com):

1. Ph buffered – Kre-Alkalyn is formulated with a higher Ph than other forms of creatine
2. Kre-Alkalyn produces less waste product when digested*
3. Take a smaller amount of Kre-Alkalyn per serving with the same results as other forms of creatine*
4. No loading phase*
5. Better absorption by muscle tissue*
6. Less chance of holding water or bloating

* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Since this article became longer than I had originally planned, I have split it up into two parts. This is part 1. You can read part 2 here.

Alright, so let’s do some digging!

PH BUFFERED, LESS WASTE PRODUCT & TAKES A SMALLER DOSAGE

Let’s kill 3 birds with one stone.

What the supplement companies are referring to here is that creatine is thought to breakdown somewhat in the stomach, due to the stomach acid, and turn into creatinine – a useless waste product.

We have already seen in my previous article that ethyl ester does breakdown in the stomach, which is one of the reasons that it is not very effective.

But what about monohydrate?

A study done by Adam M. Persky et al.: Pharmacokinetics of the Dietary Supplement Creatine showed that the breakdown of creatine monohydrate into creatinine is essentially a non-issue¹:

…the rate of formation of the degradation product, creatinine, is increased in the presence of acid[66,68] and therefore accelerated degradation is possible in the lower pH of the stomach. However, creatine degradation to creatinine occurs at its maximal rate at pH 3–4.[67] The degradation half-lives for the conversion of creatine to creatinine at pH values 1.4, 3.7 and 6.8 are 55, 7.5 and 40.5 days, respectively.

Thus, at a normal stomach PH level (about 1-3 when digesting food, as high as 4-5 when empty, as in the morning upon awakening) it would take anywhere from 7.5 to 55 days for HALF of the creatine to get broken down into creatinine. The authors conclude:

At these rates, less than 0.1g of a 5g dose would be lost in 1 hour. Therefore, the conversion to creatinine in the gastrointestinal tract is probably minimal regardless of transit time.

Well there goes the idea that creatine monohydrate produces a lot of waste product…

But just to add a little more evidence, there is also this study by Schedel et al. which concludes that “the degree of conversion of exogenous Cr [creatine] to Crn [creatinine] in the stomach and the gut can be considered as negligible following the first 6 h of ingestion.”²

Thus, since normal creatine monohydrate doesn’t produce a lot of waste product by itself, there is no need to PH buffer it like Kre-Alkalyn does.

 So what about Kre-Alkalyn needing a smaller dosage?

Click Here to Continue to Part 2!

References:

1. Persky, A. M. and G. A. Brazeau. “Clinical pharmacology of the dietary supplement creatine monohydrate..” Pharmacological reviews 53 (June 2001): 161-176.
2. Schedel, Jean-Marc, Hiroaki Tanaka, Akira Kiyonaga, Munehiro Shindo, and Yves Schutz. “Acute creatine ingestion in human: Consequences on serum creatine and creatinine concentrations.” Life Sciences 65 (October 1999): 2463-2470.