HK'ers, What Is Your Supplement Stack?

This time of the year is when most people are and/or have decided to get on a 'health' kick. It is understandable, the daylight hours are now getting longer, the weather is getting warmer and that leads to more socializing, days at the beach and generally being outdoors more often.

The population who go on these once yearly 'health' kicks are what I like to call 'Health Kickers'. A quick definition of  a 'Health Kicker' (HK'er) - those who have been lazy/hibernated during winter yet at the first sign of a warmer day panics about their current ways/body and wants to turn it around by summer.

HK'ers have got some general ideas on what getting 'healthy' means. Firstly they go on a diet that is though of as 'clean' with it actually meaning inflexible, bland and depriving. Oh not to mention eating a number of times a day and being 'always hungry'. Sounds like a good start LOL. Next is the exercise. It tends to be excessive volumes of cardio, minor amounts of weight training that normally comprises of a mixture of body weight exercises, circuit style weights with high reps for 'toning' because they don't want to get to 'bulky'. They are training to turn the fat into muscle. Good luck doing that.

The HK'ers usually feel that what contributes to the end results are: Diet 40% and Exercise is 30%. Wait a minute that is only 70%, what is the other 30%? Did I just hear someone say 'Protein Powder' or 'Fat burner' or 'pre-workout booster'? Well I guess that pretty much sums it up! Supplements are usually what HK'ers feel make up 30% of their results and in some cases that number increases. 


Disclaimer - that has been studied from my personal experience over the years of being within the Health and Fitness Industry. It has been quite an in depth assignment and the research pointed towards the numbers/percentages detail. Peer reviewed studies also come to similar conclusions. This disclaimer is me being sarcastic.


Supplements what are they? Well by definition -  Dietary Supplements, also known as a food supplement or nutritional supplement, is a preparation intended to supplement the diet and provide nutrients that maybe missing or may not be consumed in sufficient quantities. 


 They do have their place, but they are not the make or break that most people think. They are not any more magic or special than consuming a steak and vegetables. Actually they are less special than a steak and vegetables! 


Now I'm not bashing supplements at all. Well OK maybe a little. Yes I do use supplements and I do suggest to my clients to use certain supplements! While I will do a blog entry on my own personal take on supplements, review research/studies and give an opinion on what are worth using, today's entry about why HK'ers think/feel (see Placebo) that supplements contribute to 30% of their results. 


For the most part, HK'ers want easy and/or quick fixes. The way most basic literature on supplements ingredients/types reads on top of the extreme marketing claims it is easy to see why there is such an obsession with supplements. I'll admit I used to have an obsession with supplements but got a rude awaking once I got properly educated. I love it when I hear people say they have done 'research' or 'learnt' about supplements and then tell me that they have been reading the 'information' in the magazines and on the 'bodybuilding' websites. Little do they know they have been reading a whole lot of advertising rubbish and bias opinions of supplement company online undercover sales people.


To expand on that further, Alan Aragon http://www.alanaragon.com/ has done an article on Lyle McDonald's site about 'Supplement Marketing on Steroids'. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/supplement-marketing-on-steroids-by-alan-aragon.html

Supplement Marketing on Steroids

by Alan Aragon

Bold claims vs. realistic expectations

A T-nation article was recently brought to my attention by a flood of emails. Folks expressed everything from awe to outrage, but the biggest sentiment was disbelief. “I, Bodybuilder” is in the form of a conversation between staff writer Nate Green and the owner of Biotest, Tim Patterson. It’s a prelude to the formal release of an upcoming supplement called Anaconda.

Is the article unintentionally humorous to discerning minds? Yes. Is any of it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? Probably not. Does it read like one big, hairy advertisement? Yes. However, to the majority of the T-nation forum members, it probably reads like the Second Coming of the Lord.

To quote the video on the article’s opening page, the product/protocol was “developed out of a black-ops bodybuilding project” where the user can experience “muscle mass being built as fast as humanly possible.”

This hyped-up marketing script is business as usual. But, make no mistake about it; a lot of kids are going to be staking their entire sense of self-worth on the effectiveness of the magic bullet. Here are the claims made in the video on the article’s opening page as well as in print on the 3rd page:

• Christian Thibaudeau gained 27 lbs of muscle in 6 weeks and increased seated overhead press to 375 pounds for 5 cluster reps.
• Sebastien Cossette gained 20 lbs of muscle in 8 weeks and added 100 lbs to his front squat.

In contrast to the above, here’s a review of what I’ve observed as realistic rates of muscle gain according to training status. Keep in mind that these figures are based on what I’ve seen in the last 15 years in the field working with mostly drug-free athletes:

Realistic Rates of Lean Body Mass Gain Based on Training Status

Training Status	Definition	Monthly Gain (% of Total Body Weight)
Novice	Less than 2 years consistent training	1.0-1.5% (1-5-2.0 lb. per month)
Intermediate	2-4 years consistent training	0.5-1.0% (0.8-1.5 lb. per month)
Advanced	More than 4 years consistent training	0.25-0.5% (0.5-0.8 lb. per month)

*Women can expect to achieve the lower end of these ranges at best.

My note: The issue of realistic muscle gains was discussed in more detail in the article What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential.

The Cream of the Physique Crop

As you can see, the T-nation claims are infinitely more exciting than the expectations I’ve set for my clients and students. Some quick math reveals that they’re promising muscle gains averaging at roughly 3.5 lbs per week, or about 14 lbs per month. That’s over 4 times the typical rate I’ve observed in novices, and at least 15 times the rate I’ve observed in advanced trainees.

Let’s step back for a second and look at the big picture. It’s rare for a fully-grown, skeletally mature adult in his early twenties or older to put on more than 50 lbs of muscle during an entire training career.  Just imagine a college graduate weighing a relatively lean 185 transforming into a muscular 235-pounder by the time he’s in his mid to late 20’s. This is a very formidable feat.

Just how respectable is it? I’ll list the competition stats of all 12 Mr. Olympias (for those living in a cave, the Mr. Olympia is the most prestigious title in bodybuilding):

The Mr. Olympia Winners

Name	Years Won	Height	Competition Weight
Dexter Jackson	2008 (Current)	5’6.5″	230 lb.
Jay Cutler	2006,2007	5’9″	255 lb.
Ronnie Coleman	1998-2005	5’10″	270 lb.
Dorian Yates	1992-1997	5’10″	255 lb.
Lee Haney	1984-1991	5’11″	235 lb.
Samir Bannout	1983	5’8″	210 lb.
Chris Dickerson	1982	5’6″	190 lb.
Franco Colombu	1976, 1981	5’4″	185 lb.
Arnold	1970-1975, 1980	6’1″	230 lb.
Frank Zane	1977-1979	5’9″	185 lb.
Sergio Oliva	1967-1969	5’8″	225 lb.
Larry Scott	1965-1966	5’7″	205 lb

*These heights and weights are averages from various sources online.

For anyone who disagrees that our lean 235 lb example is impressive, consider the fact that only 3 of the 12 Mr. Olympias had a competition weight that significantly exceeded 235 lbs. Keep in mind that there’s a very good chance that NONE of the Olympia winners were drug-free. When you consider that these guys won the genetic lottery to begin with, then enhanced their supernormal potential with multiple drugs, the sobering limits of the drug-free, genetically mediocre majority become apparent.

So, looking back at the T-nation claims, it’s downright comical that they’re claiming about 2-3 year’s worth of gains in 2 months or less. If they didn’t flat-out fabricate, they definitely exaggerated while omitting a few important details. It’s possible for a scant handful of genetically blessed individuals to gain lean mass at the rates they listed, but the majority of these cases are rebound weight gains after prolonged dieting phases involving substantial weight loss.

The said rebound weight gain is typically accompanied by the honeymoon phase of creatine and/or drugs. However, one of the claims is that Kevin Norbert lost 14 lbs of fat while 24 net lbs was gained. So, we’re talking 38 lbs of new muscle in 8 weeks? Give me a frickin’ break, guys. Later on in the article, the exorbitant claims relent a little bit. I’ll quote Patterson directly:

Specifically, from using these methods, we expect the average lifter to gain about 20 pounds of muscle from his first 15-week program — hopefully more — and keep all of it.

I’m defining our average guy as an in-shape 175-pound lifter who’s accustomed to hard training, who’s totally committed to working hard, and who wants to build a lot of muscle mass as fast as humanly possible.

Research Shakes its Head

Now their attention-grabbing 14 lbs per month claim at the start of the article (illustrated by the results of the 3 ‘gifted’ bodybuilder dudes) is reduced to about 5.3 lbs per month on the last page. Still, this figure is about double the average I’ve observed in rank novices, and they’re setting this expectation for trainees “accustomed to hard lifting”. Fine, but how does this hold up against the research? Let’s compare these expectations with the results of athletes on anabolic/androgenic drugs. Let me quote a comprehensive review by Hartgens and Kuiper [1]:

Although many strength athletes frequently report increments of about 10–15kg of bodyweight due to AAS administration, such alterations have not been documented in well designed prospective studies. Most studies show that bodyweight may increase by 2–5kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use. The most pronounced average gain of bodyweight was reported by Casner and coworkers after 6 weeks of stanozolol administration [7 kg in 6 weeks]. However, in a case report, an increase of 12.7kg over a 2-year AAS administration period was registered.

The above quote is worth re-reading enough times until it sinks in. The key point is bolded. The greatest drug-enhanced gains seen in the scientific literature are 7 kg (15.4 lbs) in 6 weeks, or about 2.5 lbs per week. This is roughly a pound less per week than the claims made at the start of the article, and a pound more than the expectations set for the ‘regular guys’ at the end.

However, it’s not at all fair to use the highest recorded drug-enhanced rates of gain as a benchmark. Reiterating the above review, the norms for drug-enhanced gains in the short term (within 10 weeks) are 2-5 kg (4.4-11 lbs), and roughly 12.7 kg (27.9 lbs) over 2 years. The latter two figures collectively average out to a monthly gain of 0.9-1.1 lbs. Let me repeat, all of these figures were achieved with drugs.

To single out the population we’re discussing, I combed through Hartgens and Kuiper’s review for studies strictly on drug-enhanced bodybuilders, and the average rate of gain was 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs) in 8-10 weeks This amounts to 0.83 lb per week, or 3.3 lbs per month.

Assuming T-nation’s expectation of the ‘regular’ population’s gain of 5.3 lbs per month (1.3 lb per week), this rate is still about 38% faster than what’s been observed in drug-enhanced bodybuilders. Keep in mind, creatine supplementation for roughly 12 weeks has been demonstrated to cause an average gain of about 2 kg over non-supplemented conditions [2].

So even if we assumed an additive effect of creatine plus anabolics/androgenics, we’d be looking at a gain of roughly 3.7 lb per month. The gains T-nation promises are still roughly 30% faster than this.

Another research example of drug-assisted gains is a year-long case study by Alén and Häkkinen, who examined the stats and details of an elite bodybuilder [3]. During the course of a year, his fat-free mass increased from 83 to 90 kg (182.6 to 198 lb), which is a gain of 15.4 lb. He used anabolic/androgenic drugs throughout the study, with the exception of 4 weeks off in the middle of the 12 month period.

So, if 15.4 lbs of lean mass in a year is all this genetically gifted, drug-enhanced, international-level bodybuilder can muster, what makes the genetically average, drug-free, non-newbie, non-rebounding trainee think he can exceed that in less than 4 months? Only the Biotest staff knows the secret.

Back Down to Earth

Let’s bring things back to reality. If we’re figuring on a 5-year span with minimal lapses in program compliance with the goal of going from a mortal 185 to a Olympian 235, then the simple math is about 10 lbs of muscle gained per year on average. Can a novice gain double that rate in his first year? Yes.

However, heading toward the advanced stages, gains happen at half of this rate, and progressively less as your genetic potential draws closer. Speaking of which, perhaps the most exhaustive work on the topic of genetic potential for muscular gain in drug-free trainees has been done by Casey Butt.  You can read more at his website The WeighTrainer – Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements.

A similar topic was recently discussed by Lyle McDonald in an article titled What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential?

Last but not least, here’s one of my favorite sections from the article that may or may not be a jab at my Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery:

Nate Green: Nick ended up gaining 20 pounds of new muscle and increasing his bench press by 55 pounds, and that’s addictive.
Tim Patterson: After experiencing these kinds of results, from week to week, it’s impossible to be satisfied with anything else. These guys are hooked — we’re all totally hooked — and simply refuse to train any other way.
Nate Green: I can’t give you any failures, because there are none at this point.
Tim Patterson: Oh, I’m sure there will be a couple of dozen pus-filled Internet moron-trolls who can’t wait to prove how they ‘got nothing from loaded insulin surges and HTH, and all you really need is ‘chocolate milk and a banana.’

See, scientifically unsupported talk is cheap. On the other hand, buying into bold marketing claims can be expensive; it’s $80 bucks for a bottle of Anaconda. The name’s appropriate, since it sounds like a good way to put your wallet in a chokehold.

References Cited

1.Hartgens F, Kuipers H. Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes. Sports Med. 2004;34(8):513-54.
2.Persky AM, Brazeau GA. Clinical pharmacology of the dietary supplement creatine monohydrate. Pharmacol Rev. 2001 Jun;53(2):161-76.
3.Alén M, Häkkinen K. Physical health and fitness of an elite bodybuilder during 1 year of self-administration of testosterone and anabolic steroids: a case study. Int J Sports Med. 1985 Feb;6(1):24-9.

Why Nutritional Dogma Dies Hard

Today's entry is from Alan Aragon's own blog - www.alanaragonblog.com Alan is, like myself a forum lurker (I'm sure he won't mind me saying that) and a good one at that! He can be found on a number of boards giving out great information or answering questions for the members with his usual intelligent articulations of scientific data. If you have 'seen' Alan on the forums or read his posts you will also know that he has a number of quirky/humorous one liners (he has an inner ZYZZ screaming to get out) or sayings that are always good for a laugh even if he is 'schooling a bro' . You mirin' bro?

This blog entry from Alan gives a great insight on to the forums that contain such huge amounts of misinformation that many visitors are using to 'educate' themselves. I can echo Alan's thoughts as I come across it everyday and see the unjustified information thrown around like a Frisbee!

With out further a do, here it is and enjoy.

Why Nutritional Dogma Dies Hard - Alan Aragon http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/06/15/why-nutritional-dogma-dies-hard/

  

I’m fairly certain that most of you reading this are familiar with the veteran strength coach/author Mark Rippetoe, best known for Starting Strength and his collab with Lon Kilgore, Practical Programming for Strength Training. To say that these books are influential cult classics that get consistently glowing reviews would be an understatement. Given this, I had my expectations set pretty high regarding Mark’s general approach to the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge. But, it turns out I was wrong in my assumptions – at least about the nutritional aspect of his message board.

Pubmed, Schmubmed

Having recently registered at the Starting Strength Forums, I randomly engaged in discussion with a member who was worried about combining carbs and fat in the same meal. One of the members stepped in and attempted to justify the carb-fat separation tactic. In Socratic fashion, I helped him discover that there wasn’t anything about his claim that he could substantiate from a scientific standpoint. But that’s not the kicker. After some browsing, I ran into a rather unique forum rule. Here are some key sections from a stickied thread in the subforum of the resident nutrition coach John Sheaffer (who posts as “Johnny Pain” on Mark’s forums):

“…there are many other places (where many of you may already be members) for you guys to post studies and talk about medline, and Pubmed, and argue the validity of someone’s research…”

“I am largely not interested in that sort of thing. It takes too much time away from the important stuff, and the people who are doing the real science in the gym and at the table. I am not into arguing with people on the internet.”

“I will continue to answer questions that are relevant to the board. I have been legitimately enjoying this so far, and have met some great people. Do not however, bother posting threads or individual posts that include discussion of or links to studies. They will be deleted.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I can appreciate simplistic/no-brainer/default-based approaches to helping out forum members. But in this particular realm, isn’t it kind of odd to literally forbidscientific research-related discussion? If John is not interested in getting into scientific debates, then that’s fine. But to prohibit this from occurring in his subforum even if he’s not involved is, well, an interesting way to run a community.

Prohibiting discussion that includes citing scientific research shifts the bias too far in the direction of anecdote/personal testimony. Heck, there are dozens of methods out there with a ton of testimony behind them and very little actual merit. Published research is not, cannot, and will never be the end-all judge. However, it’s an indispensable tool that helps separate the empty claims from the ones backed by objective evidence (however limited that evidence might be).

Nutritional mythology 101

And of course, you always have to laugh when scientific research is cited when it’s convenient, and dismissed when it doesn’t match up with someone’s personally held beliefs/anecdotes. Funny how that works. Now, let me give you a perfect example of why research should be discussed on training/nutrition forums. Have a look at this quote from John:

“Separate your carbs and fats. In each meal, you will have a portion of protein in addition to either carbs or fats, but not both. In the earlier half of the day, your meals should be Protein + Carb (P/C) in order to fill your muscle glycogen stores for your athletic activities. Later in the day (afternoon to evening, depending on your individual metabolism), when you are more sedentary, your meals should be Protein + Fat (P/F). Since carbs produce an insulin response, removing the carbs at this time will decrease the likelihood that you will store your excess calories as fat. Your final meal of the day should be *only* protein. Also, your PWO meal, regardless of what time of the day it is, must be a P/C meal.”

The above quote is so packed with broscience, it’s enough to provide a strong case for more research-based discussion on John’s subforum. Regarding the “don’t mix carbs with fat” myth, I wrote an article debunking it here. As for warning against carbs at night, there’s nothing inherently fattening about night-time carbs unless they contribute to a chronic surplus of calories that isn’t used for building lean tissue. The ONLY reason cutting carbs out of the evening works for controlling fat gain in some folks is because it restricts total caloric intake for the day.

“No carbs at night” is nothing more than a calorie-cutting-for-dummies tactic. Can it work? Yes, it can. In the case of people who tend to overeat carbo-liscious foods at night, this can serve as a default solution, but it’s not a guideline that should be universally recommended. What works just as well is cutting back on an equivalent amount of calories earlier in the day. There are nonight-time insulin fairies ready & waiting to store carbs in the fat tissue — at least not at any greater rate than they would do so during the day.

Is there research to back up the claim that shifting the majority of your carbs to the later part of the day won’t magically chub you up or make it tougher to lose fat? Yes there is – and this occurred despite exercise being in the earlier part of the day for both groups compared [1]. For those who put a lot of stock in case studies, the lack of fattening effect of pre-bed carbs has plenty of examples - particularly in Martin Berkhan’s clientele [2].

Come at me, bro

If I had a chance to discuss these issues with John or Mark on the Starting Strength Forums, I would have gladly done so. However, it’s clear that Mark is not interested in discussing it with me, as seen in this thread. John hasn’t said a word about it yet, and I sincerely encourage him to do so. I’m easy to reach, and willing to field any challenges to any of the claims I’ve made. I won’t hold my breath, though. To relay John’s own words stuck at the top of his subforum:

“I am not into arguing with people on the internet. I think it’s gay to do so. I think it makes you a pussy. If people have a problem with the way I handle my board, please go to another forum and talk trash on me. It’s ok. People do it all the time. Better yet, catch up with me at an event that I am attending and voice your concern to me in person. That’s how it should be anyway, right?”

To the above quote, I would counter that there’s no way it can’t be productive to calmly & intelligently discuss any topic by presenting scientific evidence to support your case, while being open to research that perhaps you were not aware of. But hey, learning and staying informed about the scientific side of things takes considerable effort. And apparently, some people have no interest in delving into anything beyond their pre-existent beliefs. I personally think that there’s ALWAYS room for learning from scientific research, especially if you include science to justify your methods of practice. Disagree? Then come at me, bro.

References

1.     Keim NL, et al. Weight loss is greater with consumption of large morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with large evening meals in women on a controlled weight reduction regimen. J Nutr. 1997 Jan;127(1):75-82. [Medline]

2.     Berkhan M. Client Updates. (note that in many cases there’s even some fat with the carbs in those large evening meals – shocking, I know) [Leangains]

POST WORKOUT ANABOLIC WINDOW – REAL OR NOT, A WINDOW OR NOT, WHEY PROTEIN OR NOT?

Now if you have read any of the past blogs, you will notice a common theme. Most of the 'information' that is currently promoted by the bodybuilders, athletes and gurus has been scientifically proven to be false or at the very least simply misleading. 


Today is no different. In the broscience opinion, the Post Workout (PWO) Anabolic Window is critical to your overall body composition results. I'm sure we have all followed (or still may follow) the PWO protocol of the typical Whey Protein and Dextrose. I will clarify right now, it is YOUR personal preference to do so, but it is not necessary and will not make or break your body composition goals. But if you read over some of the previous blog entries, you will see how even on a purely digestive and hormonal response point of view that the PWO shake/protocol is unnecessary for body composition gains. 


This will have 2 separate pieces of information, both from Alan Aragon - http://www.alanaragon.com/. The first is a few little forum posts that Alan has used to educate some of the 'bros'. The second being a Research Review done as a guest article on Lyle McDonald's Body Composition site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ . It is a comparison between a commercial PWO product and Chocolate Milk ( http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-recovery.html ). Milk mustache anyone?

POST-WORKOUT ANABOLIC WINDOW – REAL OR NOT

The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer. 

So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results. 

To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

More from earlier in the thread: 

Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline. 

You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.

Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preworkout nutrition"

There's no need for quickly absorbed carbs postworkout unless you fulfill all of the following 3 criteria: 1) you have NOT ingested any pre or mid-training carbs, 2) you train to complete glycogen depletion, 3) you're forced to exhustively train those same glycogen-depleted muscles again within the same day.

Pre, During, & Postworkout Nutrition - Hierarchy of Importance

When speaking of nutrition for improving body composition or training performance, it's crucial to realize there's an underlying hierarchy of importance. At the top of the hierarchy is total amount of the macronutrients by the end of the day. Distantly below that is the precise timing of those nutrients. With very few exceptions, athletes and active individuals eat multiple times per day. Thus, the majority of their day is spent in the postprandial (fed) rather than a post-absorptive (fasted) state. The vast majority of nutrient timing studies have been done on overnight-fasted subjects put through glycogen depletion protocols, which obviously limits the applicability of the outcomes. Pre-exercise (and/or during-exercise) nutrient intake often has a lingering carry-over effect into the post-exercise period. Throughout the day, there's a constant overlap of meal digestion & nutrient absorption. For this reason, the effectiveness of nutrient timing does not require a high degree of precision.

The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing

·         The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.

·         The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.

An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery.

By Alan Aragon

INTRODUCTION TO CENSORSHIP

Recently, a member of the t-nation.com forums posted a question about whether or not it’s safe for her 12 year-old son to have a postexercise product called Surge instead of chocolate milk. Bill Roberts, a product formulator for Biotest (the supplement company behind t-nation.com), said essentially that the carb source in chocolate milk (sucrose) was inferior to the carb source in Surge (dextrose). I then challenged him to justify his position. My position was that using sucrose isn’t any more of a nutritional compromise than using dextrose. His answer was that “everyone knows” dextrose is superior to sucrose for postworkout glycogen resynthesis, and that sucrose is inherently unhealthier than dextrose. I countered his position by presenting scientific research refuting his claims. He then got all bent out of shape and started hurling ad hominems at me, obviously frustrated that he was losing a public battle.

“Everyone knows”

In one of Bill’s posts, he literally said “everyone knows” more than a dozen times – while failing to provide a single trace of scientific research supporting his claims. If indeed everyone knew, and was in agreement with him, he would have had at least a handful of cronies sticking up for him, if for nothing else but to pad his fall to the mat. But alas, he received support from no one except one moderator, who I’ll quote as saying, “I refuse to back up my claims, so sue me”.

To Bill’s credit, the soccer mom who asked the original question wouldn’t listen to anyone but him, so kudos to Bill on his politician-like rhetorical skills. In the mean time, several members expressed their disappointment in Bill’s neglect for citing research evidence to back his stance. I also know for a fact that a good handful of posts from innocent observers (supporting my side of the debate) were censored from posting in the thread. This was presumably because their posts made Bill look even more uninformed.

It’s not surprising that people’s posts were blocked from appearing in the thread because eventually, my own posts never made it into the thread. At that point, I knew that continuing the debate was just not going to happen. Nevertheless, all of the key posts made it through; all of the posts that clearly showed Bill’s inability (and unwillingness) to engage in scientific debate were right there, plain as day. Ultimately, Bill ended up looking as prideful as he was ignorant. In order to save face, either Bill or administrators of t-nation.com had the thread deleted.

Ironically, I recently wrote an article for t-nation.com (A Musclehead’s Guide to Alcohol). If I may say so myself, it was a hit, judging by the reader feedback and frequent links back to the article. Given that, it was downright humorous to be censored by the forum administrators shortly after contributing to their library of wisdom. In the following sections, I’ll compare the components of Surge with chocolate milk for postexercise recovery. For the sake of simplicity and context-specificity, I’ll judge the application of the two products to the target market of Surge, which consists of general fitness and bodybuilding fans.

MEET THE COMPETITORS

In the brown corner, we have chocolate milk. The ingredients of chocolate milk vary slightly across brands, but in general, the ingredients are: milk, sugar (or high fructose corn syrup), cocoa processed with alkali, natural and artificial flavors, salt, carrageenan, vitamin A palmitate, vitamin D3. Like regular milk, chocolate milk is available in varying levels of milk fat. For the purposes of this comparison, I’ll use the one most consumers are most likely to choose, the low-fat variety.

In the red corner, we have Surge Recovery (which I’ll continue to abbreviate as Surge). The ingredient list is as follows: d-glucose (dextrose), whey-protein hydrolysate, maltodextrin, natural and artificial flavors, sucralose. Other ingredients include L-leucine and DL-phenylalanine.

Research behind the products

What’s exciting about this comparison is that both of these products have been highly heralded and hyped in their respective arenas. Surge in its exact formulation doesn’t have any peer-reviewed research behind it. However, Berardi et al reported that a solution of similar construction to Surge (33% whey hydrolysate, 33% glucose and 33% maltodextrin) was slightly superior for glycogen resynthesis at 6 hrs postexercise compared to a 100% maltodextrin solution[1]. Effects on muscle protein flux were not measured.

Chocolate milk has thus far had an impressive run in the research examining its applications to various sporting goals [2,3]. It has performed equally well for rehydration and glycogen resynthesis compared to carb-based sports drinks, and it has outperformed them (and soy-based drinks) for protecting and synthesizing muscle protein. A standout study in this area was a comparison of chocolate milk, Gatorade, and Endurox R4 (a sports drink with a 4:1 carb to protein ratio) [4]. Chocolate milk was equally effective as Gatorade for total work output and prolonging time to exhaustion. Interestingly, both of the latter products outperformed Endurox R4 in both tests. The researchers speculated that the use of maltodextrin rather than sucrose (yes, you read that correctly) as the dominant carbohydrate source was the Achilles heel of Endurox R4. More on the virtues of sucrose instead of straight glucose for exercise applications will be covered.

QUANTITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON

Product	Serving	Kcal	Protein	Carbohydrate	Fat
Surge	3 scoops	340	25 grams	46 grams	2.5 grams
Chocolate Milk	17.3 oz	340	17.3 grams	56.3 grams	6.5 grams

When isocalorically matched, Surge and lowfat chocolate milk have the expected similarities and differences. The suggested serving of Surge has 7.7 g more protein than chocolate milk, while chocolate milk has 10.3 g more carbohydrate. While the lesser protein content of chocolate milk might on the surface seem like a point scored for Surge, this is actually a non-issue.

Recent research by Tang et al found that as little as 10g whey plus 21 g fructose taken after resistance exercise was able to stimulate a rise in muscle protein synthesis [5]. Considering that an isocaloric serving of lowfat chocolate milk has 17.3 g protein plus 56.3 g carbohydrate, a hike in muscle protein synthesis (as well as inhibition of protein breakdown) would be easily achieved. Chocolate milk has 4g more fat than Surge. Again, this might be viewed as a detriment for those conserving fat calories, but it’s still a low absolute amount of fat. This also may have a potential benefit which I’ll discuss in a minute. Bottom line: there’s no clear winner in this department; there’s too many contingencies to make a blanket judgement.

QUALITATIVE MACRONUTRIENT COMPARISON

Protein

Surge uses whey protein hydrolysate (WPH). In theory, WPH is favorable because it’s already broken down into peptide fragments. This spurred the assumption that it would have faster absorption and uptake by muscle, which in turn would result in greater net anabolism. However, a recent study by Farnfield et al observed the exact opposite when WPH was compared with whey protein isolate (WPI), which consists of intact whole protein [6]. WPH not only was absorbed more slowly, but its levels in the blood also declined more rapidly, resulting in a much weaker response curve. Leucine and the rest of the BCAAs were significantly better absorbed from WPI than WPH. The researchers concluded that total amino acid availability of WPI was superior to WPH.

Of note, Surge is fortified with leucine, a branched chain amino acid (BCAA) that plays a critical role in muscle protein synthesis. An isocaloric serving of chocolate milk has 1.7g leucine. This may or may not have any impact, especially within the context of a high protein intake typical of the athletic population. It’s important to keep in mind that most high-quality animal-based protein is 18-26% BCAA [7]. Adding a few grams of supplemental BCAA to a pre-existent high intake within the diet is not likely to yield any magic. Surge is also fortified with phenylalanine, presumably for the purpose of enhancing the insulin response. Again, this is an unnecessary tactic since insulin’s primary action is the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown. This antiproteolytic effect of nutrient-mediated insulin response is maximal at elevations just slightly above fasting levels [8].

Chocolate milk’s protein is no different than that of regular milk. Milk protein is roughly 20% whey and 80% casein. Thus far in the scientific literature, comparisons of casein-dominant proteins with whey for sports applications are evenly split. Some studies show casein as superior (in spite of a higher leucine content in the whey treatments) [9,10], while others point to whey as the victor [11,12]. The only certainty is that it can’t be assumed that faster is better when it comes to promoting net anabolism. An acute study on post-ingestion amino acid kinetics by LaCroix suggests that milk protein is best left as-is rather than isolating its protein fractions [13]. Compared to total milk protein, whey’s amino acid delivery was too transient, and underwent rapid deamination during the postprandial period. The authors concluded that milk proteins had the best nutritional quality, which suggested a synergistic effect between its casein and whey. Bottom line: chocolate milk gets the edge; WPH has thus far bit the dust compared to WPI in a head-to-head comparison, and whey has not been consistently superior to total milk protein.

Carbohydrate

Surge has dextrose (synonymous with glucose) as its sole carbohydrate source, while chocolate milk has an even mix of sucrose (in the form of either sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup) and lactose. While it’s common to assume that dextrose is superior to sucrose for postexercise glycogen resynthesis, research doesn’t necessarily agree. A trial by Bowtell et al showed a glucose polymer to synthesize more glycogen by the 2-hr mark postworkout [14]. However, two other trials whose postexercise observation periods were 4 and 6 hours respectively saw no significant difference in glycogen storage between sucrose and glucose [15,16].

Perhaps the most overlooked advantage of a fructose-containing carbohydrate source (sucrose is 50% fructose) is that it supports liver glycogen better than a glucose-only source, as in the case of Surge. A little-known fact is that hepatic glycogenolysis (liver glycogen use) occurs to a significant degree during exercise, and the magnitude of glycogenolysis is intensity-dependent [17]. Illustrating the potential superiority of sucrose over glucose, Casey et al saw no difference in muscle glycogen resynthesis 4 hrs postexercise [15]. However, there was more liver glycogen resynthesis in the sucrose group, and this correlated with a slightly greater exercise capacity.

One of the potential concerns of consuming a large amount of sucrose instead of glucose is how the 50% fructose content in sucrose might be metabolized from a lipogenic standpoint. Answering this question directly, McDevitt saw no difference in de novo lipogenesis (conversion to fat) between the massive overfeeding of either glucose or sucrose at 135g above maintenance needs [18]. Another potential concern is the use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in chocolate milk. The common fear of HFCS being some sort of special agent that undermines health is simply not grounded in science. HFCS is virtually identical to sucrose both in chemical structure and metabolic effect [19]. Independent researcher John White eloquently clarified HFCS misconceptions in a recent review, which I’ll quote [20].

“Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide.”

It bears mentioning that lactose intolerance can prohibit regular milk use for certain susceptible individuals. However, this can be remedied by using Lactaid brand milk, or by using lactase pills or drops. Bottom line: For those who can digest lactose or are willing to take the extra step to make it digestible, chocolate milk wins. But since there are those who can’t or won’t do what’s required to tolerate lactose, I’m calling this a tie.

Fat

Coincidentally, Surge and chocolate milk have identical proportions of saturated fat. Lowfat chocolate milk has more fat than Surge, which would cause some folks to call a foul for postworkout purposes. However, a trial by Elliot et al found that postexercise ingestion of whole milk was superior for increasing net protein balance than fat-free milk [21]. The most striking aspect about this trial was that the calorie-matched dose of fat free milk contained 14.5g protein, versus 8.0 g in the whole milk. Apparently, postworkout fat intake (particularly milk fat) is nothing to fear, and may even be beneficial from the standpoint of synthesizing muscle protein. Bottom line: it’s a tie, since there is very little evidence favoring one fat profile/amount versus the other. On one hand, you can be saving fat calories by going with Surge. On the other hand, postworkout milk fat might potentially enhance protein synthesis. Things come out even.

MICRONUTRIENT COMPARISON (per 340 kcal serving)*

	Surge Recovery	Chocolate Milk
Calcium	180 mg	624 mg
Cholesterol	75 mg	16 mg
Leucine	4000 mg	1714 mg
Magnesium	20 mg	70 mg
Phenylalanine	2000 mg	844 mg
Phosphorous	120 mg	558 mg
Potassium	400 mg	920 mg
Sodium	200 mg	329 mg

*This comparison is limited to the micronutrients on the Surge label. And yes, I realize that not all of the above are technically micronutrients.

A quick glance at the above chart shows that chocolate milk is markedly more nutrient-dense, with the exception of a higher content of leucine and phenylalanine in Surge, whose significance (or lack of) I discussed earlier. As an interesting triviality, both have a low cholesterol content, but Surge has 4.6 times more. Chocolate milk has more sodium, but it also has a significantly higher potassium-to-sodium ratio. Bottom line: chocolate milk wins this one decisively.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Price

Chocolate milk by the half gallon (64oz, or about 2000 ml) is approximately $3.00 USD. Sticking with our 340 kcal figure, this yields 3.7 servings, which boils down to $0.81 per serving. A tub of Surge costs $36.00 and yields 16 servings (3 scoops, 340 kcals per serving). This boils down to $2.25 per serving. That’s 277% more expensive than chocolate milk. Even on a protein-matched basis, Surge is still roughly double the price. Bottom line: chocolate milk is many times easier on your wallet.

Convenience & taste

Convenience is the single area where Surge wins. Being a powder, it’s non-perishable, requiring no refrigeration. This makes it more easily portable. Taste will always be, well, a matter of taste. I highly doubt that in a blinded test that Surge would win over chocolate milk. Bottom line: Surge is more convenient, but I’ll go out on a limb and guess that chocolate milk would taste better to most people.

CONCLUSION

I have no vested interest in glorifying chocolate milk, nor do I stand to benefit by vilifying Surge. My goal was to objectively examine the facts. Using research as the judge, chocolate milk was superior or equal to Surge in all categories. The single exception was a win for Surge in the convenience department. So, if the consumer were forced to choose between the two products, the decision would boil down to quality at the expense of convenience, or vice versa. I personally would go for the higher quality, lower price, and strength of the scientific evidence. Chocolate milk it is.

REFERENCES CITED:

1. Berardi JM, et al. Postexercise muscle glycogen recovery enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jun;38(6):1106-13.
2. Roy BD. Milk: the new sports drink? a review. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Oct 2;5:15.
3. McDonald L. (Review of) Milk the new sports drink? a review. Bodyrecomposition.com, 2008.
4. Karp JR. Chocolate milk as a post-exercise recovery aid. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Feb;16(1):78-91. [
5. Tang JE, et al. Minimal whey protein with carbohydrate stimulates muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise in trained young men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007 Dec;32(6):1132-8.
6. Farnfield MM, et al. Plasma amino acid response after ingestion of different whey protein fractions. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2008 May 8:1-11.
7. Millward DJ, et al. Protein quality assessment: impact of expanding understanding of protein and amino acid needs for optimal health. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1576S-1581S.
8. Rennie MJ, et al. Branched-chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr. 2006 Jan;136(1 Suppl):264S-8S.
9. Demling RH, Desanti L. Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-9.
10. Kerksick CM, et al. The effects of protein and amino acid supplementation on performance and training adaptations during ten weeks of resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):643-53.
11. Lands LC, et al. Effect of supplementation with a cystein donor on muscular performance. J Appl Physiol 1999;87:1381-5.
12. Cribb PJ, et al. The effect of whey isolate and resistance training on strength, body composition, and plasma glutamine. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Oct;16(5):494-509.
13. LaCroix M, et al. Compared with casein or total milk protein, digestion of milk soluble proteins is too rapid to sustain the anabolic postprandial amino acid requirement. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):1070-9.
14. Bowtell JL, et al. Effect of different carbohydrate drinks on whole body carbohydrate storage after exhaustive exercise. J Appl Physiol 2000; 88 (5): 1529-36.
15. Casey A, et al. Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on glycogen resynthesis in human liver and skeletal muscle, measured by (13)C MRS. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jan;278(1):E65-75.
16. Blom PC, et al. Effect of different post-exercise sugar diets on the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987 Oct;19(5):491-6.
17. Suh SH, et al. Regulation of blood glucose homeostasis during prolonged exercise. Mol Cells. 2007 Jun 30;23(3):272-9.
18. McDevitt et al. De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Dec;74(6):737-46.
19. Melanson KJ, et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1738S-1744S.
20. White JS. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain’t. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1716S-1721S.
21. Elliot TA, et al. Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Apr;38(4):667-74.

PERSONAL PREFERENCE - WHAT SUITS YOU AND WHAT WORKS

This week’s blog is basically a follow on from last week’s entries on meal frequency and patterning etc.

There has been a bit of talk online over the types of eating protocols which have been the focus of the majority of articles and blog entries that I have posted.  Some of the forum members (a big shout out to all on AUSBB.COM) have assumed that I am only for the 3 meals a day following an Intermitting Fasting (“IF”) style feeding and that is it.  With that said, I DO NOT promote any one style of eating protocol regardless of the style that I may personally follow.  I personally have gotten results following BOTH sides of the meal timing/frequency coin but it was not/is not the deciding factor in body composition results.  Let me clarify this a little more.

My whole blog is about questioning and dismissing all the typical myths and broscience protocols that the health and fitness industry is based on.  Meal frequency and timing is one of the biggest broscience protocols and it hits some sort of nerve with me!  I guess that is because I lived by the eating style of every 3 hours/6-8 meals a day for the most part of my training career and found that it was such a hassle and a lifestyle killer, not to mention ALWAYS being hungry.  

In my professional career I’ve found that most athletes, weekend warriors and general enthusiasts have the misconception that higher meal frequency is THE ONLY way to eat and the amount of meals and/or timing is critical to results.  That myth was/is based on total nonsense assumptions and unfounded claims on metabolic/hormonal benefits, generally promoted by either the supplement companies or misinterpreted studies by uneducated ‘coaches’ or bodybuilding ‘gurus’.

My blog (TBER) studies, articles and reviews have basically been showing the differences (or the non differences in actual fact) between 3-odd meals verses 6-odd meals or the like.  I simply want to shed light on the fact that LESS meals (on the one end of the spectrum) equates to identical or better body composition and/or hormonal responses etc to MORE meals (the extreme end of the spectrum).  The literature that has been published in the blog clearly shows that it does not have to be one way that is generally perceived or the highway!  It is personal preference and what suits you and your daily schedule.  (FYI, that is where I got the idea for the ‘stress free results’ part of the title!)

I’m hoping that all the literature published in my blogs has given you all an understanding that your body composition is determined by (other than training style) long term appropriate calorie intake, sufficient essential macronutrient (protein and fats) and micronutrient intake.  Timing of meals, amounts of meals, type of foods used etc are not what works in achieving your desired body composition.  It is your calorie intake etc that has determined your body composition.  Food types that help you achieve your minimum macronutrient requirements and overall intake etc is what suits you.  Put simply, it is your personal preference.

Seeing we are on the topic of personal preference and the fact that I receive a number of questions on my own personal ‘style’, I personally follow a form of IF, more specifically the IF protocol that Martin Berkhan has developed.  I’m not going to get into it within this blog, but you can check out all the details and additional information at http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html.  I follow it because it suits my current schedule and the lifestyle I want to live.  I enjoy the fact that it keeps my appetite in check and that I can have a whole lot of food in very little time!  I love feeling like I’m eating at a buffet.  I don’t need to stop doing leisure activities due to being hungry and needing to eat.  So that makes for a lot less stress etc.  I currently have body composition stats of 90kgs at 8% body fat.  I’ve never been this lean at this bodyweight before.

When I did follow the more frequent meal pattern, I did it because it suited my situation at the time.  I had an inactive, but more importantly, un-interesting job where the only thing that was worth looking forward to in my day was eating.  So to fill in my day and make time pass I would eat.  Sounds like fun hey LOL.  I was doing a ‘cut’ in preparation for my wedding and my body composition results by the end of it was 82.5kgs at ~4% body fat.  I was in the best condition of my life and only fitting for me to match my beautiful wife.

Now there are a few things to make note of.  I did NO CARDIO to get to less than 5% body fat and am still not doing any cardio to maintain my current composition.  I ate Max Brenner 1-3 times per week in the ‘cut’ phase and am still eating similar amounts of chocolate and/or ice cream in this phase.  I was eating and am still eating carbs at night.  My overall food types/choices have been the same during both phases and all I’ve changed is to simply add a greater intake of all the food types to help with the increased calorie intake for the current phase. Overall calorie intake with the appropriate macronutrient adjustments has been the only difference during both phases.

In summing up, it is all about personal preference and what suits you.  It is working because you have all your daily nutritional requirements met due to you doing whichever style of meal frequency that suits you and what your own preferred food choices are.  It all should be for the right personal reasons, not broscience reasons.