The Art of Dieting

Diet. What do you think when you hear that word? Not a lot of good things I bet.

Now most people tend to go to extremes when they start a diet. Common sense and moderation are thrown out the window. It is like the word ‘diet’ makes our brain’s function, well not function!

I used to be one of these OCD people who would ‘eat clean’ when on a diet and trying to drop fat or pig out and just eat anything in sight when trying to put on weight.

What is the end result, well we either find it too hard, boring and restrictive so we can’t stick to it for long enough to drop the fat we want or we get lazy, unstructured and loose so we put on too much fat.

The key to any ‘diet’ success is understanding the basics behind it, calories and energy balance. To put it simply, a calorie deficit = weight loss, a calorie surplus = weight gain.

Body composition is determined by (apart from training) consuming the appropriate calorie intake and meeting minimum macronutirent requirements. Meal type, food type, meal frequency and meal timing play NO PART in body composition.

So depending on what your goal is you need to know what the appropriate calorie intake is. That will determine how much you can eat. Once the calorie requirements have been calculated, the next important part is ensuring you are consuming adequate macronutirents (protein, fat and carbohydrate) and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) to support your goals, training requirements, hormonal and metabolic functions.

Ok so all the technical stuff has been worked out, now this is where the fun starts. I don’t like the terms ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ but that is what is generally taken to the extreme. The clean-freaks only eat chicken and broccoli, boring and the dirty pigs eat like, well a pig!

 There is another term – If It Fits Your Macro’s (IIFYM) that only requires common sense to help make ‘dieting’ easy and what I try to educate my clients about. IIFYM is just a more fancy name and interpretation of the moderation concept. Keep this in mind, it is not the food name that makes you lean or big, it is your calorie intake which determines that.

IIFYM basically means any food type can be consumed as long as your calories and macronutrients allows for it. Sounds perfect right, well it is almost. A little common sense is all that is required and then it is perfect. 

I’ll explain a little further. Ensuring that you are functioning at your optimum levels (hormonally and metabolically), you need to be consuming adequate amounts of the essential nutrients – protein, fat, water, vitamins and minerals. A carbohydrate is not an essential nutrient nor is fibre, but I do look at fibre as being beneficial. A certain level of fibre should be consumed each day. So if you have ‘X’ amount of calories to consume and by consuming your essential macronuritents will make up a portion of those ‘X’ calories. This is where the common sense comes into play.

Choosing foods that allow for you to meet your nutrient needs are of personal choice. With that said, common sense should come into play with choosing the foods as your first goal is to ensure you are consuming your required essential nutrients (protein, fat, vitamins and minerals). For the most part all the typical ‘nutritious’ foods (meat, dairy, eggs, vegetables, fruit and nuts) would be the best option as they make meeting your nutritional requirements very easy.  But again, the food name doesn’t mean much just simply eat whatever helps you meet your requirements. Nothing should off limits, but common sense should be used.

Ok so we have consumed foods that have helped us meet our minimum requirements of our essential nutrients (and fibre) but we still have some calories left over to consume. What do we do? Well that is easy, eat whatever you want to help you fill in the calorie requirements! Yes you read right, eat whatever you like. Anyone for chocolate?

As a reminder and as previously mentioned, your body composition is determined by consuming the appropriate calorie intake and adequate macronutirents. Hormonal function and metabolic function is controlled by calorie intake, adequate micro and macronutrient intake. The food name does not determine body composition.

Knowing what we do now after reading all the previous information, what benefit would having an equal calorie meal of say, some steak and vegetables instead of ice-cream if all the requirements etc have been accounted for? None. The Ice-cream is not going to make you anymore fat or lean than the steak and vegetables will.  You just might have a little more sanity after having the Ice-Cream!

In a nutshell, dieting should and can be flexible. The amount of flexibility the diet has is determined by the amount of common sense you use. If you use common sense and understand what determines your body composition results, dietary wise you will never feel restricted, bored or not have some form of basic structure. Nothing will be extreme and everything will be in moderation, so the ‘diet’ will not feel like a ‘diet’ and success will be had.

What You Need To Know About Supplements - Protein Powder

This week’s blog is on MY personal preference and what I suggest to my clients in the way of supplements. I will go as in depth as I can in regards to why to use what and when and the different applications etc. Quite simply, not all the supplements I will talk about will apply to everyone or their individual needs and schedule etc.  In the coming weeks will talk about what I class as a dietary supplements (protein powder, essential fatty acids/EFA's, multi-vitamin/mineral)  and then what I class as a performance supplements (creatine, caffenine, beta alanine, l-tyrosine, branch chain amino acids/bcaa and essential amino acids/eaa) . In reality they are ALL dietary supplements but for the contents of this it will broken into the two categories.

Now before I get started, whole food is greater than supplements! Supplements are OPTIONAL and by no means are they essential. They are simply there to cover any dietary deficiencies and therefore ensure daily nutritional requirements are met. They are nothing special.  What gets results is having a COMPLETE diet - meaning your overall nutrition (and to a lesser extent your training) is what determines your body composition.

 

Without further ado, here is my personal take on protein powders!

Protein Powder (Dietary Supplement) – I use a protein powder for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is to make my food prep a little easier, secondly, to cut down on food costs and thirdly because I enjoy the taste. Now who doesn’t like the taste of a milk shake?

What I mean by making food prep a little easier and cut down on cost is I don’t have to buy and cook another 300 odd gram piece of meat! I consume a large amount of meat per day (around 1.3kgs per day) and the shake simply makes it easier to get the next 60 odd grams of protein in plus it is more cost effective. I could quite easily eat that piece of meat but the convenience of the shake just makes it that little bit easier.

Look at it from a cost point of view: red meat (in bulk) costs approximately $9.00/kg and contains approximately 220 grams of protein/kg. That equals 4.09 cents/gram of protein. Protein Powder (WPI in 5kg bulk buy) costs $28.00/kg and contains 858 grams of protein/kg. That equals 3.26 cents/gram of protein. That would be even cheaper if compared to a WPC. A 5kg buy at $20.00/kg contains 780 grams of protein/kg. That equals 2.56 cents/gram protein.

Not only does the cost add up and is a big factor in why protein powder are beneficial but there are other benefits which I will get into during the article.  

Before I go on, I must make mention of the fact that it will be pretty much exclusively be talking about dairy based protein powders. I do understand that there is a population who do not consume dairy based products for a number of reasons. The most common non dairy based protein powders found are Rice Protein, Egg Albumen and Pea Protein. Their benefits and uses will not be explained within this article.

Now for the fun (technical) stuff!

Always a hot topic is types of protein Whey Protein Isolate (“WPI”) and/or Whey Protein Concentrate (“WPC”), Casein, Hydrolyzed proteins or protein blends (Whey Proteins mixed with Casein) which one is the best and when to take it etc. Well each has an argument for consumption.

In 1997 a study done (1) on ‘Fast and ‘Slow’ protein (whey and casein) changed the whole view on protein and got supplement companies excited. It tracked Amino Acids (“AAs”), and more specifically Leucine, levels in the bloodstream, whole body protein synthesis and breakdown for seven hours following the ingestion of the different protein types.

The study found that BOTH protein types showed AAs peak in the bloodstream at the 60-80 minute mark with a greater peak for whey. While after the 4 hour mark, whey was back at the baseline levelsand the casein was still elevated above baseline at the 7 hour mark.

The findings that most people jumped on, especially the supplement companies, was that it showed whey protein stimulated protein synthesis with no effect on protein breakdown. Casein had a lesser (37% lower) effect than whey but still stimulated Muscle Protein Synthesis (“MPS”) nonetheless. Casein had a significant effect on inhibiting Muscle Protein Breakdown (“MPB”) (1).

So now you know where the ‘anabolic’ part came from in regards to whey and ‘anti-catabolic’ tag for casein. So as per normal, this is where supplement companies take things to the extreme and promote whey for around training and casein before bed.

The thing that tends to be overlooked in the study results is how much protein is retained in the body. Protein retention was HIGHER in the casein group and that whey was found to have a HIGHER amino acid oxidation rate.

To support the whey vs casein results, more recent studies (4,19) found that ingesting either whey protein or casein results in muscle anabolism! Yes peak AA levels were higher in the whey protein group, as also found in the Boirie study (1), but the end results in this study showed a positive result for overall nitrogen retention in the casein group.

Digressing for a second and to expand a little, to achieve a positive net protein balance there must be a greater Muscle Protein Synthesis that Muscle Protein Breakdown (2,6). MPS is still stimulated at least 24 hours later (7) and MPS was stimulated at a protein intake of 1.5g/kg but not a lower intake (8).

In ‘Dietary Protein to Support Anabolism with Resistance Exercise in Young Men’ (6) it explains the following:-

“Resistance exercise is fundamentally anabolic and as such stimulates the process of skeletal muscle protein synthesis (MPS) in an absolute sense and relative to skeletal muscle protein breakdown (MPB). However, the net effect of resistance exercise is to shift net protein balance (NPB = MPS − MPB) to a more positive value; however, in the absence of feeding NPB remains negative. Feeding stimulates MPS to an extent where NPB becomes positive, for a transient time. When combined, resistance exercise and feeding synergistically interact to result in NPB being greater than with feeding alone. This feeding- and exercise-induced stimulation of NPB is what, albeit slowly, results in muscle hypertrophy”. 

A side note is that insulin concentrations have an effect on inhibiting MPB. With that in mind, it could be assumed that casein keeps insulin concentration above baseline or at least at a level that inhibits MPS. In addition to that, casein may inhibit MPB due to the higher rate of nitrogen retenion (6). 

Whey also has an effect on on insulinemia after ingestion. MPB is still not inhibited greatly, if at all (1), regardless of the higher peak levels of AAs in the bloodstream (1) or the fact that  insulin concentrations are not significantly different between whey and casein (1).  Other findings have shown whey  may stimulate a higher level of insulinemia (3). That leads to the belief that the greater rate of AA oxidation/lower overall nitrogen retention with whey could be the limiting factor for inhibiting MPB.

I just want to touch on ‘protein timing’ for a moment. Protein synthesis is stimulated via exercise for at least 24 hours (31). With feeding also stimulating MPS (6) it should come to no surprise that the timing of protein-supplementation ingestion, both before and after exercise or morning and evening, does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes (32). Of course timing might/will be more important for athletes (for example a tri-athletes) who are doing multiple sessions of exercise in the one day. Those athletes may have limited time between sessions to consume their required nutrients so timing becomes more important but that is not the in scope of this article.

Since the Boirie study (1) there has been a number of other studies done which take a more in depth look into protein powder types and functionability in both post-prandial (fed) state and pre-prandial (fasted) state. The differing states do have an effect to a certain degree on protein synthesis and protein breakdown (6).

When whey is ingested mimicking casein digestion the results mirror those of casein (3). A single 30 gram dose of casein was compared with 13 individual doses totaling 30 grams (also compared was a single 30 gram dose of whey protein and a single 30 gram dose of free from AAs) and over the 7 hour period. Plasma insulin and amino acid concentrations, protein utilization and MPB were similar between both the casein and the numerous dosages of whey over the time period. In short, whey acted like a ‘slow’ digesting protein (casein).Another situation is when whey or casein are consumed in a mixed meal, the difference in amino acid release and metabolic function become more closely aligned yet still showing their ‘usual’ digestion and protein balance propertiesas previously explained (8).

More recently there has been studies done on mixed/blended protein sources (whey combined with casein) and whether they will offer the benefits of both the individual protein types and offer a superior outcome when compared to either whey or casein (13).

A mix of whey protein (40 grams) and casein (8 grams) showed greater gains in body mass and fat free mass over a 10 week period than compared with whey (40 grams), BCAA’s (3 grams) and L-Glutamine (5 grams) or placebo (12).

Another interesting finding is that milk (low fat) showed greater hypertrophy gains than that of a fast digesting protein source of soy protein (14). To build on those findings, whole milk showed greater utilization of available amino acids over fat free milk and afat-free milk isocaloric solution equal to the whole milk (15).

In ‘An Objective Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ review (16) it compared a typical commercially available chocolate milk and a formulated ‘post workout’ product containing the core ingredients of hydrolyzed whey protein isolate, dextrose, maltodextrin and sucralose. In all the categories scrutinized the chocolate milk was superior or at least equal in all instances. 

Interesting Facts:  human breast milk (in late lactation) is 60% whey and 40% casein while cow’s milk is 20% whey and 80% casein and mare’s milk is 50-50.

Whey’s lactoferrin protein AA profile is closely aligned to that of human’s lactoferrin AA profile (17). Casein and whey have differing amino acid profiles (24).

Whey and casein contain a number of (differing) peptide fractions. Whey’s peptide fractions includeß-Lactoglobulin, α-Lactalbumin, GMP (Glycomacropeptide), BSA (Bovine Serum Albumin), Immunoglobulins and Lactoferrin among some other minor components (22).  Casein contains α-, ß-, and κ- caseins (23).  They can affect a number of hormonal functions (20) and have shown a wide range of immune enhancing abilities (17) among other complex health boosting properties (23). 

Next the satiety and appetite effects of whey and casein should be looked at. Afterinitial ingestion whey protein has the greatest effect on satiety and appetite reduction regardless of it being a pre-loaded liquid meal containing carbohydrates and fats before a buffet meal(10) or alone before a pizza meal (9).

Of all the dietary and molecular characteristicsin whey proteins (high peaking AAs, insulin response, peptide fractions and AA profile) possibly the biggest factor in whey having an increase on short term satiety is the Glycomacropeptide (GMP) content (20). Sixty minutes after a 45 grams serve of whey protein containing 15% GMP, the whey had a more profound effect on appetite when compared to soy protein or egg albumin at a pizza meal (9).  To counter that was a whey protein with <5% GMP did not affect appetite more than casein but at the 150 minute mark casein had suppressed food intake more than whey (9).

Casein seems to activate similar albeit less pronounced, hormonal responses with regards to insulin, ghrelin, GLP-1 (1,4,9,21) to that of whey. One primary factor in that is the fact that casein forms a clot or gel like substance in the stomach caused by the ability to absorb substantial amounts of water (11). For those two reasons combined,it aids in dietary satiety over longer periods of time (21).

The differing filtration process I.E.  Hydrolyzed, Anion Exchange, Ion Exchange and Micro/Ultra Filtration (Table 1) can have an effect on the makeup of the protein fractions, overall protein and other macronutrient content (18).  This can alter some of the nutritional immune boosting properties found in whey (9,17). Hydrolyzed protein (either whey or casein) has an increased peak in AA levels, insulin response over their intact counterparts and therefore shows a greater effect on INITIAL protein synthesis (25,26,27,28).  The downfall is that the protein synthesis was favoring the splanchnic dietary nitrogen uptake over its peripheral anabolic use (30).  Put simply there is a greater protein synthesis with the digestive system, therefore less MPS and lower overall whole body nitrogen retention. 

Surprisingly there is no significant difference between hydrolyzed protein and intact protein in gastric empting or AA appearance in the bloodstream (29).

Table 1.  http://www.horleys.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=1

Typical Microfraction Composition of Different Whey Protein Isolates

	Cation Exchange WPI	Anion Exchange WPI	Micro-filtered WPI
a-Lactalbumin	18%	5-10%	19%
ß-Lactoglobulin	69%	40-50%	46%
Glycomacropeptide	0%	15-25%	17%
Immunoglobulin G	5%	0.2-2.0%	4%
Bovine Serum Albumen	2%	0.5-1.0	8%
Lactoferrin	1-3%	0.2%	1-3%

After all that, one final word! 

Both whey and casein have put forward a strong case for consumption. There are numerous positives (and negatives) for both and going on all the evidence, it is hard to look past having a protein powder that is a combination of whey and casein (50-50/60-40 blend would be optimal IMO).

Little Miss Muffet was onto something all those years ago eating her curds (casein) and whey!

References –

(1)      http://www.pnas.org/content/94/26/14930.full

(2)      http://jap.physiology.org/content/106/6/2026.full

(3)      http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/280/2/E340.full#sec-10

(4)     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570142

(5)     http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN89_02%2FS000711450300028Xa.pdf&code=a21338d5e234dd9fff41ae708a1ef5e1

(6)     - http://www.jacn.org/content/24/2/134S.full

(7)     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/12388164?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

(8)     http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/10/3228S.full

(9)     http://www.jacn.org/content/26/6/704S.full#sec-10

(10)   http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBJN%2FBJN89_02%2FS000711450300028Xa.pdf&code=c18d73872f4cf6af50aadfcbedad50cd

(11)   http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/dairy/3E.pdf

(12)   http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2003/05001/Effects_of_Whey_Protein_Supplementation_With.2205.aspx

(13)   http://www.ajcn.org/content/84/5/1070.full

(14)   http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/373.full

(15)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679981

(16)   http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-recovery.html

(17)   http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/9/2/136.pdf

(18)   http://www.sportswhey.com/science_ion_exchange.htm

(19)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172

(20)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19101599

(21)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18634717

(22)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901380/?tool=pubmed

(23)   http://www.ajcn.org/content/77/6/1537S.full

(24)   http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/aminoacids1.html

(25)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589961

(26)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19474134

(27)   http://www.springerlink.com/content/q4574261014p86u5/

(28)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18768358

(29)   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18679613

(30)   http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/4/1011.long

(31)  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

(32)  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342

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]