ean

Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 1

Copyright February 1st, 2011 by Alan Aragon
Home: www.alanaragon.com/researchreview
Correspondence: aarrsupport@gmail.com





2 Estimating total caloric needs (macros too).
By Alan Aragon


5 The impact of protein co-ingestion on muscle
protein synthesis during continuous endurance
type exercise.
Beelen M, et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Mar
1. [Epub ahead of print] [Medline]

6 The effects of intermittent or continuous energy
restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease
risk markers: a randomized trial in young
overweight women.
Harvie MN, et al. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct 5. [Epub
head of print] [ a Medline]



7 Beneficial effect of creatine supplementation in
knee osteoarthritis.
Neves M Jr, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb 8. [Epub
head of print] [ a Medline]

8 Influence of ingesting versus mouth rinsing a
carbohydrate solution during a 1-h run.
Rollo I, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Mar;43(3):468-
75. [Medline]



9 Anabolic and catabolic hormones and energy
balance of the male bodybuilders during the
preparation for the competition.
Mestu J, et al. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1074-
81. [Medline]



11 Tripartite Model of the Mind.
By Jamie Hale



12 Why broscience works, part 1.
B

y Alan Aragon


13 A correction has been made in the January 2011
issue.







































Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 2

E

stimating total caloric needs (macros too).
By Alan Aragon
__________________________________________________

I

ntro & background
Estimating total energy needs is important because its
considered the primary step in constructing a diet at least on
paper. Once total kcals are determined, setting protein, fat, and
carbohydrate becomes a rather simple matter of filling in the
gaps. I spoke quite a bit about macronutrient manipulation in the
Editors Cut of the Jan 2009 AARR. In retrospect, its missing
sufficient discussion of the importance of setting (or at least
having a keen awareness of) total kcals. The article was mainly
directed towards populations with a relatively narrow range of
total energy intake requirements. Furthermore, that articles
focus was to delve into non-linear approaches to macronutrient
intake. Thus, its focus was more on manipulating the
macronutrients and less on total kcals. My goal for the present
article is to provide a more comprehensive means of determining
total kcal targets for those who have a preference to use this
parameter as a foundation for diet design.

T

he main components of total energy expenditure
Most of you who have formally (or informally) studied the
fundamentals are already familiar with the 3 main components
f total energy expenditure (TEE): o

1. Resting energy expenditure (REE) is a term used
interchangeably with basal metabolic rate (BMR), and
resting metabolic rate (RMR). Although each of these are
technically not the same thing, its impractical to factor in
their differences when calculating needs. Those interested
in reading about these differences can go to page 112 here.
1

REE is about 60-75% of the TEE.
2,3
As a matter of trivia,
the FAO/WHO/UNU has published a figure as low as 45%
of total expenditure.
4


2. Thermic effect of activity (TEA) includes voluntary as well
as involuntary physical activity. A sub-component of TEA
includes non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT).
TEA is approximately 15-30% of TEE.
2


3. Thermic effect of food (TEF) accounts for roughly 10-15%
of the TEE. This range stems from a rough average of the
variable thermic effects of each macronutrient. The TEFs
of each macronutrient are approximated as follows:
5

Protein (25-30%), carbohydrate (6-8%), and fat (2-3%).

T

extbook approaches to predicting resting/basal expenditure
Traditional academic approaches to determining TEE involve
calculating the sum of the 3 major components (REE/BMR,
TEA, TEF). Perhaps the most commonly used formula for
predicting REE/BMR is the Harris-Benedict equation. Keep in
mind that there are other texbook formulas, and Harris-
Benedict is far from the definitive end-all. A systematic review
by Frankenfield et al compared four of the most commonly used
prediction equations and found the Mifflin-St Jeor equation to be
the most accurate and reliable.
6
Another notable method is the
Katch-McArdle equation,
7
which is perhaps more
methodologically sound, since its based on lean body mass
(LBM)..
On a cautionary note, estimating LBM in itself can be
problematic. This is in large part because people tend to have
inaccurate perceptions of body composition. In my observations,
its not uncommon for people to assume they have almost half
the bodyfat that they actually do. Most recreationally fit guys
assume their bodyfat percent is in the high single-digits, when
they actually are closer to the low-to-mid double-digits. Women
of the same profile often think theyre in the high teens, when in
reality theyre closer to the low-to-mid-20s. A review by Fleck
discussing the body composition of elite Olympic athletes puts
things into perspective, especially since its a safe bet to assume
that most recreationally fit individuals as a group are not as lean
as world-class competitive athletes. Heres a summary of Flecks
findings:
8


All groups of athletes were below the average values for %
fat of college age men and women of 15% and 25%,
espectively. r
Athletes involved in a sport where their body weight is
supported have higher % fat values. For example, canoers,
kayakers, and swimmers had bodyfat levels at
appr ximately 13% (men) and 22% (women). o
Athletes involved in sports where a weight class has to be
met to compete (ie, boxing and wrestling) had lower % fat
valu s. Mens bodyfat ranged 6.9-7.9%. e
Sprinters in the 100, 200, and 400 meter events had even
lower % fat values, approximately 6.5% (men) and 13.7
(women). Male marathoners averaged 6.4%.

Recent research by Vucetic et al found similar bodyfat levels in
national-level male track & field athletes, ranging 5.5-6.3%.
9


Although the Mifflin-St Jeor and Katch-McArdle equations are
the most worthwhile of the bunch for predicting REE/BMR, Ill
go ahead and outline the Big Four for general reference
purposes. Ill also take the liberty to provide my own formula for
estimating REE/BMR. The other formulas have a tendency to
shoot too high when it comes to real-world applications.
Important note: height is in centimeters, weight is in
ilograms, and age is in years. k

H

arris-Benedict:
Men: 66 + (13.75 x weight) + (5 x height) - (6.76 x age)
Women: 655 + (9.56 x weight) + (1.85 x height) - (4.68 x age)

O

wen:
Men: 879 + (10.2 x weight)
Women: 795 + (7.2 x weight)

M

ifflin-St Jeor:
Men: (10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) + 5
Women: (10 x weight) + (6.25 x height) - (5 x age) - 161

K

atch-McArdle:
Both men & women: 370 + (21.6 x LBM)

Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 3

A

ragon:
Both men & women: 25.3 x LBM
For pounds, its 11.5 x LBM.

F

actoring in physical activity energy expenditure
The next step toward figuring total energy expenditure is
multiplying the previously estimated resting expenditure with an
activity factor, ranging from sedentary to extremely active. Bear
in mind that these activity factors account for lifestyle physical
activity in general, not just formal exercise sessions. Note that
these activity factors typically shoot high enough to negate the
need to add the 10-15% to account for the thermic effect of food.
This means that once youve multiplied your estimated resting
metabolic needs with your active metabolic needs, youre done
ith the calculation. w

Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job)
TEE = BMR x 1.2
Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week)
TE = BMR x 1.3-1.4 E
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5
days/week)
TE = BMR x 1.5-1.6 E
Very Active = (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/week)


TEE = BMR x 1.7-1.8
Extremely Active (very hard daily exercise/sports &
physical job or twice-a-day training)
TEE = BMR x 1.9-2.0

T

oward building a better mousetrap
I find plenty of gratification in striving to improve current
models. Some might consider this an attempt to build a better
mousetrap, while others may see this as a more futile attempt to
reinvent the wheel. Those of you who have my book Girth
Control know that I like to play with formulas and try to strike
the best compromise between simplicity and accuracy. I tend to
avor simpler models instead of the multi-step textbook models. f

Most existing formulas are designed to estimate current
maintenance needs. So, in order to adjust for weight loss or
weight gain, an arbitrary surplus or deficit must be assigned, and
its usually about 500 kcals up or down. I recently developed a
formula that accounts for training volume, intensity, and target
bodyweight (TBW), which is a surrogate measure for LBM plus
a small buffer. This circumvents the problem of having to
attempt to measure or estimate your body composition. Rather,
you simply have to have an idea of the total bodyweight you
realistically are aiming at. Since this formula is geared toward
figuring maintenance need of a targeted/goal set of
circumstances, it eliminates the need to add or subtract calories
arbitrarily for goals other than maintenance. Without further ado,
my formula follows (important note: target bodyweight for this
formula is in pounds):

TargetBWx(810or911+avg.totalweeklytraininghours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The
lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a
higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower
proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on
women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each
range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity.
Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by
using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on
where your training sessions average during the week. Both
formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included
when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous
recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices)
hould also be tallied in. s

Note that applying this formula to folks with zero hours of
training per week can lead to underestimations if the lower end
of each range is used as a multiplier. In the rare case of anyone
with zero hours of training or vigorous physical activity per
week, Id suggest simply using the top end of each range (10 for
women, 11 for men) as a multiplier.

F

illing it in with the macronutrients
Once youve figured total calories, then filling them in with the
macronutrients is pretty simple. Protein requirements were
discussed at length in the opening article of the January 2011
AARR. The research-friendly range of protein intake for the
active/athletic population is 1.2-2.2g/kg.
10-14
This translates to
0.54-1.0g/lb. However, my personal preference for use in the
field is 2-3g/kg (0.9-1.36g/lb) of TBW. Fat is a bit more of a
grey area than protein. Currently, theres no authoritative source
to cite when indicating an evidence-based dosing range. The
following quote from the Food & Nutrition Boards most recent
RI report captures the situation nicely:
1
D

The amount of total energy as fat in the diet can vary from 10
to 50 percent without differing effects on short-term health
(Jquier, 1999). When men and women were fed isocaloric diets
containing 20, 40, or 60 percent fat, there was no difference in
total daily energy expenditure (Hill et al., 1991). [] There are
insufficient data, however, to identify a defined intake level for
fat based on maintaining fat balance or on the prevention of
chronic diseases. Therefore, neither an AI (adequate intake) nor
n EAR (estimated average requirement) and RDA are set. a

Traditionally, Ive recommended a fat intake of 0.4-0.5g per
pound of target bodyweight, which metrically equals 0.88-
1.1g/kg TBW (which, again, is a proxy for lean mass with a
small margin of safety). However, Ive recently been observing
client success with a wider range of intakes, to the order of 0.3-
0.6g/lb TBW. This translates to 0.66-1.32g/kg TBW. Once
youve figured total kcals, protein, and fat, carbohydrates simply
comprise the remainder. Lets run through a sample calculation
n a hypothetical subject with the following characteristics: o

ale whose goal bodyweight is 180 lbs. M
He must lose weight in order to achieve the 180 lb goal, so
this is my cue to error on the high side with protein.
Has an average of 4 weekly training hours, is desk-bound &
sede tary otherwise. n
His training is an even mix of high & low intensity,
averaging out to moderate (in the middle of the 9-11 range).

Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 4

W

ell start by figuring total kcals using my formula:
TargetBWx(810or911+avg.totalweeklytraininghours)

180 lbs x (10 + 4 avg. total weekly training hours)

= 180 x 14
= 2520 kcal

Now we can start filling in total kcals with protein & fat. Ill
choose near the upper-range for fat, and purposely exceed
the upper limit of the research-friendly protein dosing, using the
middle of my routine range in practice, which is 2-3g/kg (0.9-
1.36g/lb). Im strategically aiming high with protein and fat
allotments. This is because his overall activity level is relatively
low, and may not be optimally conducive to a proportionally
high carbohydrate intake.

Protein = 180 lbs x 1.2 = 216g
Fat = 180 lbs x 0.5 = 90g

To calculate carbs, all we need to do is add the sum of the
protein & fat kcals, subtract that sum from the total kcals, and
en well arrive at carb kcals. th

Protein = 216g x 4 kcal/g = 864 kcal
Fat = 90g x 9 kcal/g = 810 kcal

Add protein & fat kcals:
864 + 810 = 1674 kcal

Subtract this sum from the total kcals to get carb kcals:
2520 - 1674 = 846 kcal

Divide by 4 to convert kcals to carb grams:
846 4 kcals/g = 212g

In the literature, the recommended carbohydrate intake for
strength/power athletes is 5-7 g/kg (2.3-3.2g/lb) and 7-10 g/kg
(3.2-4.5g/lb) for endurance athletes.
15
Our subject does
somewhere between 25-50% of the training volume of
competitive athletic populations, and as such, his
carbohydrate allotment should reflect that and it does.

Grand totals:
Energy: 2520 kcal
Protein: 216g
Fat: 90g
Carbs: 212g


Formulas must take a backseat to reality

As with all formulas, if the number you arrive at is way off from
what you know you respond favorably to, scrap it. It cant be
overemphasized that the practicality of formulas is limited to
individuals who have a haphazard eating history and are
unaware of their maintenance requirements. Those who do have
an awareness of their maintenance needs do not have much use
for formulas (aside from number-crunching for the sheer joy of
it). All formulas are merely ballpark starting points that must be
put to trial and adjusted according to individual response. At
best, numbers derived from these predictive equations are
hypothetical. They must ultimately pass the reality test.
References

1. Institute of Medicine, Food & Nutrition Board. Dietary
Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty
acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. The National
Academies Press, Washington DC, 2005. [full report - PDF]
2. Genton L, et al. Energy and macronutrient requirements for
physical fitness in exercising subjects. Clin Nutr. 2010
Aug;29(4):413-23. [Medline]
3. Shetty P. et al. Energy requirements of adults. Public Health
Nutr. 2005 Oct;8(7A):994-1009. [Medline]
4. FAO/WHO/UNU. Human energy requirements. Oct 2001.
[full report PDF]
5. Jequier E. Pathways to obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord. 2002 Sep;26 Suppl 2:S12-7. [Medline]
6. Frankenfield D, et al. Comparison of predictive equations
for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese
adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005
May;105(5):775-89. [Medline]
7. McArdle W, Katch F, KatchmV. Exercise Physiology
Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance, 7th Edition.
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, WoltersKluwer Health,
2010. [LWW]
8. Fleck SJ. Body composition of elite American athletes. Am
J Sports Med. 1983 Nov-Dec;11(6):398-403. [Medline]
9. Vuceti V, et al. Morphological differences of elite Croatian
track-and-field athletes. Coll Antropol. 2008 Sep;32(3):863-
8. [Medline]
10. Kreider RB, Campbell B. Protein for exercise and recovery.
Phys Sportsmed. 2009 Jun;37(2):13-21. [Medline]
11. Rodriguez NR, et al. Position of the American Dietetic
Association, Dietitians of Canada, and the American
College of Sports Medicine: Nutrition and athletic
performance. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Mar;109(3):509-27.
[Medline]
12. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition
position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr.
2007 Sep 26;4:8. [Medline]
13. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes.
J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79. [Medline]
14. Wilson J, Wilson GJ. Contemporary issues in protein
requirements and consumption for resistance trained
athletes. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006 Jun 5;3:7-27. [Medline]
15. Burke LM, et al. Guidelines for daily carbohydrate intake:
do athletes achieve them? Sports Med. 2001;31(4):267-99.
[Medline]


























Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 5


The impact of protein co-ingestion on muscle protein
ynthesis during continuous endurance type exercise. s

Beelen M, et al. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Mar 1.
[Epub ahead of print] [Medline]

PURPOSE: his study investigates the impact of protein co-
ingestion with carbohydrate on muscle protein synthesis during
endurance type exercise. METHODS: Twelve healthy male
cyclists were studied during 2 h of fasted rest, followed by 2 h of
continuous cycling at 55% W(max). During exercise, subjects
received either 1.0 gkg(-1)h(-1) carbohydrate (CHO) or 0.8
gkg(-1)h(-1) carbohydrate with 0.2 gkg(-1)h(-1) protein
hydrolysate (CHO+PRO). Continuous intravenous infusions
with L-[ring-(13)C(6)] phenylalanine and L-[ring-(2)H(2)]
tyrosine were applied, and blood and muscle biopsies were
collected to assess whole-body protein turnover and muscle
protein synthesis rates at rest and during exercise
conditions. RESULTS: Protein co-ingestion stimulated whole-
body protein synthesis and oxidation rates during exercise by
223% and 7017%, respectively (P<0.01). Whole-body protein
breakdown rates did not differ between experiments. As a
consequence, whole-body net protein balance was slightly
negative in CHO and positive in the CHO+PRO treatment (-
4.90.3 vs 8.00.3 mol phekg(-1)h(-1), respectively; P<0.01).
Mixed muscle protein fractional synthetic rates (FSR) were
higher during exercise when compared with resting conditions
(0.0580.006 vs 0.0350.006%h(-1) in CHO and 0.0700.011
vs 0.0380.005%h(-1) in the CHO+PRO treatment,
respectively; P<0.05). FSR during exercise did not differ
between experiments (P=0.29).CONCLUSION: We conclude
that muscle protein synthesis is stimulated during continuous
endurance type exercise activities when ingesting carbohydrate
with or without protein. Protein co-ingestion does not further
increase muscle protein synthesis rates during continuous
endurance type exercise. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.

Study strengths

This study tackles the timely topic of intra-workout nutrient
ingestion. In light of the interest in protein as a part of the mix,
this is the first study to examine the effect of protein co-ingested
with carbohydrate during endurance-type exercise on both
whole-body protein balance as well as skeletal muscle protein
synthesis. All subjects were competitive endurance athletes,
which minimizes the variability of effects seen in newbies. The
treatments compared were isocaloric, and the dosing (1.0g/kg/hr
CHO versus 0.8g/kg/hr CHO + 0.2g/kg/hr PRO) has been shown
in previous research to be effective in allowing a continuous
substrate supply & minimize disturbances in glucose, amino
acids, and insulin levels during training. All subjects had the
same standardized dinner the night prior to testing in order to
control cofounding variations. A crossover was implemented so
that each subject underwent both conditions.

Study limitations
An obvious limitation is the acute (short-term) nature of the
study. Although the authors listed the dosing scheme of CHO &
CHO + PRO as a strength, it can also be viewed as a limitation.
Individuals aiming for a weight or fat loss via maintaining
hypocaloric conditions often restrict carbohydrate intake. As a
result, carbohydrate consumption (even during training) may
take a hit. The dose range in the present study (0.8-1.0g/kg/hr)
reflects an amount closer to the higher-end of carbohydrate
consumption. Cases with lesser doses of carbohydrate might
unmask the benefits of including protein in the mix. For
example, recent research by Ferguson-Stegall,
1
a trend toward a
greater anti-proteolytic effect (assessed via myoglobin levels)
was seen in subjects consuming a low-carb CHO+PRO solution
(3% carbohydrate/1.2% protein) compared to a 6% CHO
solution consumed during endurance exercise. Further research
on lower-carb solutions during training on muscle protein status
using the more direct assessment means of the present study are
warranted.

C

omment/application
The main findings of the present study were somewhat
dichotomous. Whole-body (in systemic circulation) net protein
balance was slightly positive in the CHO+PRO treatment, but
slightly negative in the CHO condition during exercise.
However, direct analysis of muscle amino acid concentrations
did not find any significant difference between conditions.
Predictably, mixed muscle fractional synthetic rate (FSR)
increased during exercise compared with resting conditions in
both treatments, but there was no significant difference in FSR
between the CHO+PRO and CHO treatments. The latter finding
is important because whole-body protein kinetics dont
necessarily reflect what occurs in skeletal muscle the bodily
rotein pool that matters most in this context. p

Previous research by the present studys investigators showed
different outcomes when resistance training was examined.
2

Whole-body protein breakdown was lower in the CHO+PRO
treatment compared the CHO, and importantly, FSR was 49%
greater in the CHO+PRO treatment as well. However, at
0.15g/kg/hr of protein and/or carbs of the same dose, this was
significantly less than the amounts administered in the present
study. Interestingly, despite the markedly lower CHO dose,
insulin area under the curve in the previous study (28.0 mU/l &
37 mU/l for the CHO & CHO+PRO treatments, respectively)
was substantially higher than that of the present study (9.1 mU/l
& 18.1 mU/l for the CHO & CHO+PRO treatments,
respectively). The authors of the present study attribute these
discrepant results from their previous work (especially the
differences in FSR) to the intermittent character of the
resistance type exercise in which specific muscle groups of the
lower limbs could rest during periods of exercise performed by
the upper limbs. Apparently (but not too surprisingly), when
dietary protein is available, muscle protein synthesis can better
amplified during resistance training as opposed to endurance
training. Still, further non-acute research involving adequate
aily protein is yet to solidify the necessity of this practice. d

Aside from muscle protein turnover, another important aspect to
consider is exercise performance. Steams et al recently did a
meta-analysis/systematic review of the influence of protein &
carbohydrate coingestion during exercise on endurance
performance.
3
They concluded that, the ergogenic effect of
protein seen in isocarbohydrate studies may be because of a
generic effect of adding calories (fuel) as opposed to a unique
benefit of protein.
Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 6

The effects of intermittent or continuous energy
restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk
markers: a randomized trial in young overweight
women.
Harvie MN, et al. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct 5. [Epub ahead of
print] [Medline]
BACKGROUND: The problems of adherence to energy
restriction in humans are well known. OBJECTIVE: To
compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent energy
restriction (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for
weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk
markers. DESIGN: Randomized comparison of a 25% energy
restriction as IER (2710kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER
(6276kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese
(mean (s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (5.1)kgm(-2))
premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months.
Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes,
cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance
(HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-
like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2,
androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-
reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-
derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1,
3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Last observation carried forward
analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for
weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for
IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8)kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4)kg for CER
(P-value for difference between groups=0.4). Both groups
experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen
index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL
cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex
hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2.
Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest
in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference
between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0)Uml(-
1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0)Ummol(-
1)l(-1) (both P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: IER is as effective as
CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other
health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative
equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.
SPONSORSHIP: Breast Cancer Campaign, World Cancer
Research Fund, Genesis Appeal Manchester UK, Intramural
Research Program of the National Institute on Aging of the NIH,
the Danish Research Council for Health and Disease.

Study strengths

This study is the first to compare the long-term effects of
intermittent energy restriction (IER) with continuous energy
restriction in humans. The scant amount of previous work
looked at periods spanning 12 weeks,
4,5
whereas the present trial
lasted 6 months. Another strength was the relatively large
number of subjects. 18 of the 107 randomized subjects
withdrew, which made for a relatively low rate of attrition (86%
at 6 months). To bolster compliance, motivational phone calls
(every 2 weeks) and monthly in-person meetings (assessing
weight & anthropometry) were implemented.

Study limitations

When listing the studys strengths, the authors pointed to their
chosen protocol as being potentially more realistic than
alternate-day fasting or a linear protocol. Specifically, they felt
that a 25% energy reduction via non-proprietary VLCD 2 days
per week (75% reduction on VLCD days) without restriction on
the other 5 days may be more achievable than the
aforementioned alternatives. However, when listing the studys
limitations, they reported that 58% of the subjects in the IER
group planned on continuing the diet beyond the end of the trial,
while 85% of the CER group planned to continue after the
ending point of the trial. Neither group received counseling or
recommendations about exercise, which can potentially
influence the effectiveness (or lack of) when combined with the
differing diet schemes. A final limitation worth noting is that
body composition was determined via bioelectrical impedance
(BIA), which may be acceptable for tracking changes in groups,
but lacks reliability when used on individuals.
6


C

omment/application
The main finding of the present study was that IER and CER
were equally effective for weight loss and improving the clinical
endpoints measured. There were only a few of notable
differences among broad range of biomarkers of disease risk. A
slightly greater improvement in insulin sensitivity in the IER
group was seen. Although this wasnt too small to be
detected, it was not large enough to reach statistical significance.
The CER group had a greater reductions in
dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS) levels, which is
associated with lower risk for breast cancer. However, this
finding may lack impact, since IER group had a significantly
greater menstrual cycle length which is associated with
educed risk for breast cancer. r

The CER protocols 27% greater popularity (assessed via
subjects plans to continue after the end of the trial) runs
contrary to the anticipations & hopes of the authors. I find this
somewhat surprising, since its assumable that 5 non-dieting
days per week is an attractive proposition. Its also surprising in
the sense that the long (6-month) trial period was insufficient to
allow the majority of the subjects to become fully comfortable
with the two VLCD days. Overall, the CER treatment was
slightly more favorable by the subjects in most parameters. 8%
of the IER group reported minor adverse symptoms including
lack of energy, headache, and constipation while none of the
participants in the CER reported such symptoms.
Unsurprisingly, 15% of the IER subjects complained of hunger,
while none of the CER subjects did. 15% of the IER subjects and
7% of the CER subjects reported minor adverse psychological
effects. 51% of the IER group reported difficulty adapting the
diet into their daily routine, compared to 30% of the CER group.

Although the diets were equally effective in most measures, the
IERs 2 energy-restricted days might have been too drastic to
circumvent undue diet-related stress. The VLCD was 645 kcals
comprised of approximately 1 liter of reduced-fat milk, four 80g
portions of vegetables, one portion of fruit, one low-kcal drink,
and a vitamin/mineral supplement. Despite its effectiveness, this
protocol did not win the hearts of the majority, who preferred the
daily 25% reduction. An alternative to the 2-day VLCD/5-day
unrestricted would be a variation on the opposite, where 5 days
would have an energy restriction of 35%, while 2 days would be
nrestricted. Now that would make an interesting comparison. u



Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 7

Beneficial effect of creatine supplementation in knee
steoarthritis. o

Neves M Jr, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb 8. [Epub
head of print] [ a Medline]

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the
efficacy of creatine (CR) supplementation combined with
strengthening exercises inknee osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: A randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled
trial was performed.Postmenopausal women with knee OA were
allocated to receive either CR (20 g/dfor one week and 5
g/dthereafter) or placebo (PL) and were enrolled in a lower limb
resistance training program. They were assessed at baseline
(PRE) and after 12 weeks (POST). The primary outcome was the
physical function as measured by the timed-stands test.
Secondary outcomes included lean mass, quality of life, pain,
stiffness, and muscle strength. RESULTS: Physical function
was significantly improved only in the CR group (p=0.006).
Additionally, a significant between-group difference was
observed (CR-PRE: 15.7 1.4, POST: 18.1 1.8; PL-PRE: 15.0
1.8, POST: 15.2 1.2; p=0.004). The CR group also presented
improvements in physical function and stiffness subscales as
evaluated by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities
Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (p=0.005 and p=0.024,
respectively), whereas the PL group did not show any significant
changes in these parameters (p>0.05). Additionally, only the CR
group presented a significant improvement in lower limb lean
mass (p=0.04) as well as in quality of life (p=0.01). Both CR and
PL groups demonstrated significant reductions in pain (p<0.05).
Similarly, a main effect for time revealed an increase in leg-
press 1-RM (p=0.005) with no significant differences between
groups (p=0.81). CONCLUSION: CR supplementation
improves physical function, lower limb lean mass and quality of
life in postmenopausal women with knee OA undergoing
strengthening exercises. Clinicaltrials.gov number:
NCT00992043. SPONSORSHIP: Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Cientfico e Tecnolgico (CNPq)

S

tudy Strengths
Conceptually, this study is strong since osteoarthritis is such a
prevalent disease, and non-sports/fitness applications of creatine
supplementation is a sparsely tapped area of study. This is
perhaps the first study to specifically examine the effect of
creatine supplementation on subjects with osteoarthritis. As an
extra measure to increase the bioavailability of the creatine,
subjects were instructed to dissolve the supplements in liquid
(juice was suggested) before ingestion. Compliance was
reinforced by weekly communication with the research staff.
The resistance training program was progressive and each
session was supervised by a fitness professional.

S

tudy limitations
As noted by the authors, none of the subjects had severe
osteoarthritis, so extrapolations to the latter would be
speculative. Also, the mechanisms behind the apparent effects
were not directly measured (ie, structural changes in cartilage),
and thus need further clarification. Diet was assessed on three
separate occasions via 24-hour recall, which has limited
reliability and accuracy. A final limitation is that these results in
the all-female sample may or may not apply similarly to men.

C

omment/application













As shown above, the creatine treatment significantly improved
physical function, assessed via the time-stands test, which
measures the maximum number of stand-ups that can be
performed from a standard height (without assistance from the
upper body) for 30 seconds. Predictably, creatine significantly
increased lower-limb lean mass, but somewhat surprisingly, this
did not translate to a significant difference in whole-body lean
mass. Subjective reports of improvements in stiffness and
uality of life were also significantly better in the creatine group. q

Creatinine clearance was not different between groups, and no
adverse effects were reported. The authors note that, This
observation is in agreement with an extensive literature attesting
the safety of CR in a broad range of populations, including those
suffering from chronic diseases. The authors supported this by
citing research by Bender et al in aged patients with Parkinsons
disease,
7
and a review by Persky & Rawson.
8
It should be noted
that the latter review cautions that although creatine has a good
afety profile, theres still a lack of long-term safety data. s

In related research, a review by Yoshizumi & Tsourounis
discussed the apparent safety of creatine taken within reasonable
doses.
9
However, this paper also cited a case study where acute
renal failure occurred in a 20 year-old male taking 20g/day for 4
weeks. This suggests the possibility that a predisposition to renal
disease might be exacerbated by excessive creatine dosing.
Creatine loading phases typically involve 20g/day for 5-7 days
not a month!), followed by a daily maintenance dose of 3-5g. (

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the present study is the
therapeutic potential for creatine as a means to target cartilage
repair. Phosphocreatine kinase (CK) is also present in less
metabolically active tissues such as bone and cartilage, so its
not completely implausible that supplementation might either
increase the rate of anabolism or reduce the rate of catabolism in
these tissues. The problem is, measuring the direct effects of
creatine supplementation on cartilage would be prohibitively
invasive. A notable point made by the authors was that creatines
therapeutic effects might not materialize in the absence of
exercise. In support of this, Roy et al failed to observe any
therapeutic effect of creatine on recovery after total knee
arthroplasty.
10
Its also possible that these conditions were too
severe for creatine to make a dent. In any case, future studies in
this area will interest anyone who isnt getting any younger.
Influence of ingesting versus mouth rinsing a
drate solution during a 1-h run. carbohy
Rollo I, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Mar;43(3):468-75.
Medline [
Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 8

]

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of ingesting versus
mouth rinsing a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution on 1-h running
performance. METHODS: After a 14- to 15-h fast, 10
endurance-trained male runners (mean SD: VO2peak = 65.0
4.4 mLkgmin) completed three 1-h performance runs separated
by 1 wk. In random order, runners ingested either a 8-mLkg
body mass of either a 6.4% carbohydrate-electrolyte solution
(CHO) or a placebo solution (P) 30 min before or a 2-mLkg
body mass at 15-min intervals throughout the 1-h run. On a
separate occasion, runners mouth rinsed (R) a 6.4% CHO, i.e.,
without ingestion, at the same times as in the ingestion
trials. RESULTS: Total distances covered in the CHO, P, and
R trials were 14,515 756, 14,190 800, and 14,283 758 m,
respectively. Runners covered 320 m more (90% confidence
interval = 140-510 m, P = 0.01) during the CHO trial compared
with the P trial and 230 m more (90% confidence interval = 83-
380 m, P = 0.019) in comparison with the R trial. There was no
difference in n distance covered between the R and P trials (P =
1.0). CONCLUSIONS: A greater distance was covered after the
mouth rinse and ingestion of a 6.4% CHO during a 1-h
performance run than when mouth rinsing the same solution or
mouth rinsing followed by the ingestion of the same volume of a
placebo solution. SPONSORSHIP: Loughborough University.

S

tudy strengths
The majority of studies in this area have been done on cyclists.
This is perhaps the first one to break the mold and examine
effects on 1-hour running performance. The subjects were
experienced runners, all of whom were accustomed to training
sessions (or competitions) lasting at least 1 hour. All participants
underwent a habituation trial where they completed the hour-
long run but water was ingested instead of the carbohydrate-
electrolyte solution. This served to reduce the potential for
variability resulting from the shock or novelty of the testing
protocol. To control intake variables, subjects were instructed to
consume a standardized diet 48 hours before the first trial, and to
replicate that before each subsequent trial.

S

tudy limitations
As noted by the authors, the subjects were not blinded about
the purpose of the study. They were informed about the nature of
what was being investigated, and were made aware that
ingesting and mouth rinsing carbohydrateelectrolyte drinks
have been seen to independently improve 1-hour running
performance. With this knowledge in mind, subjects carried a
certain degree of expectation bias and confirmation bias going
to the trials. in

A notable potential limitation involves the product used for
testing. Lucozade is somewhat unique among sports beverages
in that it doesnt contain fructose. Rather, its a roughly even
mix of dextrose and maltodextrin. Its possible that a
combination of glucose and fructose would have had superior
performance effects due to more efficient carbohydrate delivery
via separate intestinal transporters of the different carbohydrate
subtypes.
11
But from a more practical standpoint, Lucozade is
relatively obscure compared to the readily available commercial
beverages (ie, Gatorade), the majority of which contain a
combination of glucose and fructose.

C

omment/application















As shown above, the main finding of the present study was that
for 1-hour running performance, consuming the carbohydrate
electrolyte solution significantly outperformed mouth-rinsing the
same carbohydrateelectrolyte solution or ingesting the same
volume of a placebo solution. These results run contrary to those
in the only other study thus far comparing carbohydrate
ingestion with mere mouth-rinsing. Oddly, Pottier et al observed
the endurance performance superiority of rinsing the mouth with
a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution over ingesting it.
12
Its
possible that the ingested solution had less oral transit time than
the mouth-rinsing treatment. Thus, Pottier et al speculated that
the ingested beverage had less contact time with carbohydrate
sensors in the mouth that activate reward centers in the central
ervous system (CNS) that drive exercise performance. n

Bearing Pottier et als results in mind, the authors of the present
study took pains to standardize the duration of oral exposure to
the carbohydrate beverages. Each solution was held in the mouth
for 5 seconds before either being swallowed or spit out. Previous
work by the present studys authors found that mouth-rinsing a
carbohydrateelectrolyte solution did not improve 1-hour
running performance compared to placebo.
13
However, the
difference between the present and previous study was that the
placebo solution was consumed after the rinse, whereas
previously, it was spit out. They therefore speculated that the
slight (non-significant) benefit of the mouth-rinsing over placebo
was due to a greater ingestion of fluid, rather than any special
ffects of the rinse per se. e

The idea that CNS-mediated performance increases via oral
carbohydrate sensors is attractive & intriguing. It carries the
practical possibility of circumventing energy intake while
maintaining the ergogenic effects of carbohydrate ingestion.
However, the research thus far showing the performance benefit
of mouth-rinsing did so in subjects who exercised in a fasted
state. In the only study to-date examining the effect of
carbohydrate mouth-rinsing in fed subjects, Beelen et al found
that when a high-carb meal was consumed 3 hours pre-trial, no
performance differences occurred between the carbohydrate-
rinsing treatment and the non-carb placebo.
14
It will be
nteresting to see how the results play out in future research.. i


Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 9

Anabolic and catabolic hormones and energy balance
of the male bodybuilders during the preparation for
the competition.
Mestu J, et al. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1074-81.
[Medline]
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to
investigate simultaneous effects of energy balance, caloric
intake, and the hormonal anabolic-catabolic balance in
bodybuilders prior to competition. METHODS: Fourteen male
bodybuilders took part in an 11-week energy-restricted period to
reduce body fat. The subjects were divided into the energy-
restricted group (ERG) (n = 7), who were preparing for the
competition, or the control group (CG) (n = 7) who continued to
train regularly and did not change their dietary or training
pattern. Participants were tested at 11 weeks (T1), 5 weeks (T2),
and 3 days (T3) before competition for diet, body composition,
and fasting hormonal assessment. RESULTS: Body mass and
body fat percentage of ERG were significantly (p < 0.05)
decreased during the study period. In ERG, insulinlike growth
factor-1 (IGF-1) and insulin decreased significantly during the
11-week weight-reduction period (p < 0.05). Testosterone was
decreased only from week 11 to week 5 (from 20.3 +/- 6.0 to
18.0 +/- 6.8 nmol/L). Changes in IGF-I concentration were
significantly related to changes in insulin (r = 0.741), fat mass (r
= 0.705), lean body mass (r = 0.696), and body mass (r = 0.652).
Changes in insulin concentrations were significantly related to
changes in fat mass (r = 0.630) and lean body mass (r = 0.725).
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that severe energy
restriction to extremely low body energy reserves decreases
significantly the concentrations of 3 anabolic pathways despite
high protein intake. Monitoring of insulin and IGF-1
concentration is suggested to prevent losses in muscle mass in
energy-restricted conditions. Other nutritional strategies might
be needed to prevent possible catabolic effect during preparation
of bodybuilders to competition. SPONSORSHIP: This study
was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation, grant
number 6671.

S

tudy strengths
A conceptual strength of this design was its coverage of both the
hormonal and body-compositional changes in the competitors.
This is also the first study to report the energy expenditure of
bodybuilders prepping for a contest. Another design strength
was the inclusion of a non-dieting control group (CG - also
competitive bodybuilders) for comparison with an energy-
restricted group (ERG). Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was
used to assess body composition.

S

tudy limitations
The outcomes of this study may be limited to the age group
(mean age was 28.29), sex (men), and a lack of
anabolic/androgenic steroid (AAS) use. The subjects claimed to
be free of AAS use during the study, as well as a minimum of 2
years prior to that. All subjects were tested for AAS at the
competition they were prepping for, and none of the subjects
failed the drug test. While this can also be viewed as a design
strength, it also leaves out a large segment of the competitive
bodybuilding population that uses AAS.
Comment/application

CG kept a steady volume of about 8.3 hours per week, ERG
showed a smooth, linear uptrend of training volume, starting at
approximately 10 hours per week, graduating up to
approximately 16.6 hours per week. While its common for
dieting bodybuilders to increase training volume as a contest
approaches, ERG increased cardio at the expense of strength
training. CG kept their resistance training volume at 65% (with
cardio taking up the remainder), while ERG began with 53.5%
of total training volume as resistance training, which was
reduced to 39% (with cardio increased to the majority of the
work) during the final stretch of prep.













As seen in the chart above, macronutrient composition between
the groups was similar, but ERG was higher in protein and
carbohydrate (although not to a statistically significant degree).
Interestingly, carbohydrate was the dominant macronutrient in
both groups (at least 2x greater than protein), even the pre-
contest group. In my observations and experience working with
drug-free competitors, protein is invariably the dominant
macronutrient in the pre-contest phase. Despite the carb-
dominance of the diet, ERGs body fat decreased from 9.6% at
the beginning to 6.5% at the end of the trial. The lowest
individual value in the group was 4.8%.

Protein intake of ERG was high, at 2.3-2.6g/kg. This, in part,
explains the maintenance of lean mass. Nevertheless, the authors
expressed concern that the decrease in IGF-1 and insulin levels
under healthy levels toward the end of the trial could signal
muscle catabolism. Another concern for this same reason was
ERGs initial drop in testosterone levels. The solution proposed
by the authors for preventing the downregulation of these
anabolic indexes would be to increase carbohydrate intake.
However, I would counter that doing so might be at the expense
of achieving a greater degree of fat loss. The current state of
judging bodybuilding contests, at least for the past 20-30 years,
has placed an emphasis on leanness. Among competitors in the
same weight class, coming in peeled is often the stronger
deciding factor than having more mass.

Calling the pre-contest group the energy-restricted group is a
bit misleading because this group didnt actually restrict caloric
intake any more than the controls. In fact, CGs intake was 3051
kcal, while ERGs intake was higher, averaging 3469 kcal. But
as discussed, ERGs daily energy expenditure (4032.6 kcal) was
significantly & progressively higher than CG (3158.1 kcal).
Overall, this was an interesting study outlining one of the many
possible ways to skin a cat for bodybuilding competition.

Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 10

1. Ferguson-Stegall L, et al. The effect of a low carbohydrate
beverage with added protein on cycling endurance
performance in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2010
Oct;24(10):2577-86. [Medline]
2. Beelen M, et al. Protein coingestion stimulates muscle
protein synthesis during resistance-type exercise. Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jul;295(1):E70-7.
[Medline]
3. Stearns RL, et al. Effects of ingesting protein in
combination with carbohydrate during exercise on
endurance performance: a systematic review with meta-
analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Aug;24(8):2192-202.
[Medline]
4. Ash S, et al. Effect of intensive dietetic interventions on
weight and glycaemic control in overweight men with Type
II diabetes: a randomised trial. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord. 2003 Jul;27(7):797-802. [Medline]
5. Hill JO, et al. Evaluation of an alternating-calorie diet with
and without exercise in the treatment of obesity. Am J Clin
Nutr. 1989 Aug;50(2):248-54. [Medline]
6. Pateyjohns IR, et al. Comparison of three bioelectrical
impedance methods with DXA in overweight and obese
men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006 Nov;14(11):2064-70.
[Medline]
7. Bender A, et al. Long-term creatine supplementation is safe
in aged patients with Parkinson disease. Nutr Res. 2008
Mar;28(3):172-8. [Medline]
8. Persky AM, Rawson ES. Safety of creatine
supplementation. bcell Biochem. 2007;46:275-89.
[Medline]
9. Yoshizumi WM, Tsourounis C. Effects of creatine
supplementation on renal function. J Herb Pharmacother.
2004;4(1):1-7. [Medline]
10. Roy BD, et al. Creatine monohydrate supplementation does
not improve functional recovery after total knee
arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jul;86(7):1293-
8. [Medline]
11. Jeukendrup AE, Moseley L. Multiple transportable
carbohydrates enhance gastric emptying and fluid delivery.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):112-21. [Medline]
12. Pottier A, et al. Mouth rinse but not ingestion of a
carbohydrate solution improves 1-h cycle time trial
performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):105-
11. [Medline]
13. Rollo I, et al. Influence of mouth rinsing a carbohydrate
solution on 1-h running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2010 Apr;42(4):798-804. [Medline]
14. Beelen M, et al. Carbohydrate mouth rinsing in the fed state:
lack of enhancement of time-trial performance. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab. 2009 Aug;19(4):400-9. [Medline]





































































Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 11

T

ripartite Model of the Mind.
By Jamie Hale

____________________________________________________

Stanovichs model of the mind builds on the consensus view of
cognition termed dual processing model of cognition.
1
This
view of cognition categorizes cognition into two categories-
ype 1 processing and Type 2 processing.
2,3
T

K

ey qualities Type 1 (autonomous / heuristic) processing:
Rapid execution.
Execution is mandatory when triggering stimuli are
encountered.
They are computationally inexpensive.
Not dependent on input form higher level control systems.
Many type 1 processes can run in parallel without
interfering with each other and they can run with type 2
processing.

The defining feature of Type 1 processing is its autonomy. Type
1 processes are involved in a variety of useful things- face
recognition, depth perception, proprioception, and language
ambiguity regulation, etc, which are all beyond our awareness.

Type 2 processing contrasts with Type 1 processing on each of
ts critical qualities. i

K

ey qualities Type 2 (nonautonomous / analytical) processing:
Slow execution.
Computationally expensive.
Focus of awareness.
Only one or very few Type 2 processes can run in
parallel.
Often language-based and rule-based.

Type 2 processing is what is often called controlled processing,
and its the type of processing occurring when we discuss things
ike conscious problem-solving. l

Stanovichs Tripartite Model of the Mind bifurcates Type 2
processing into the categories- algorithmic mind, and reflective
mind. So, the Tripartite Model of Mind suggests that the mind
be divided into: autonomous mind, algorithmic mind, and
reflective mind. This model has been devised to expand on what
the previous dual process view ignored- individual differences
that contribute to differences in Type 2 processing.

Individual differences in Tripartite Framework:
1


Reflective Mind
Individual differences in rational thinking dispositions
Algorithmic Mind
Individual differences in fluid intelligence
Autonomous Mind
Few continuous individual differences

Algorithmic and reflective minds are characterized by
continuous individual differences. Intelligence tests assess
various aspects of algorithmic efficiency, but that is all they
directly assess. Rationality encompasses two things: thinking
dispositions of the reflective mind and algorithmic efficiency.
Individual differences in rational thought can occur due to
differences in the algorithmic mind or because of individual
differences of thinking dispositions (reflective mind). [T]he
reflective mind is concerned with goals of the system, beliefs
relevant to those goals, and the choice of action that is optimal
given the systems goals and beliefs. It is only at the level of the
reflective mind that issues of rationality come into play.
Importantly, the algorithmic mind can be evaluated in terms of
efficiency but not rationality, says Stanovich.
1


It is important to distinguish typical performance situations from
optimal performance situations. Under conditions of typical
performance explicit instructions are not given to maximize
performance. These conditions are similar to what occurs in
everyday situations when given few constraints. Typical
performance assessments assess the reflective mind- they assess
in part epistemic regulation and goal prioritization. In contrast,
optimal performance situations are those where explicit
instructions are given to maximize performance. Tests under
these conditions assess the processing efficiency of the
algorithmic mind. Tests of intelligence or cognitive aptitude are
optimal performance assessments, whereas tests that assess
rational thinking skills are assessed under typical performance
onditions. c

The key difference between the reflective mind and the
algorithmic mind is reflected in another distinction in the
measurement of individual differences- the distinction between
thinking dispositions and cognitive abilities. Cognitive abilities
are measures of the efficiency of the algorithmic mind.
Thinking positions or cognitive styles reflect belief formation,
and belief perseverance. Other thinking dispositions that have
been investigated are: goal hierarchy, actively open minded
thinking, need for cognition, dogmatism, and need for closure.
Thinking dispositions are important psychological characteristics
that underpin rational thinking and rational behavior.

Cognitive abilities assessed on intelligence tests are not about:

Personal goals and their regulation.
Tendency to change beliefs when faced with contrary
evidence.
Argument & evidence evaluation.

Cognitive abilities assessed on intelligence tests are not
measurements of rationality, but measurements of algorithmic-
level cognitive capacity. In conclusion, intelligence tests assess
important cognitive abilities; however, they are severely
incomplete measurements of good thinking. It is time to put
intelligence in its place and abort the deification of this often
misunderstood area of mental life.

R

eferences
1. Stanovich KE. What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of
rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. [YYP]
2. Kahneman D. A psychological point of view: Violations of rational
rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 2001;23: 681-3. [BBS]
3. Evans JS. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: extension and
evaluation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):378-95. [Medline]
________________________________________________________________

Visit Jamie Hale's Psych Central page, and his personal websites,
maxcondition.com & knowledgesummit.net.


Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 12

W

hy broscience works, part 1.
By Alan Aragon
____________________________________________________

I

ntro & background
I dont know who actually invented the term, but in August of
2008, I decided to immortalize its definition. If you run a Google
search on broscience, the top link will lead you to
urbandictionary.com, and the highest-rated definition is written
y me: b

Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in
bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked
dudes are considered more credible than scientific
research.

A more succinct but broader definition of broscience is simply,
fitness mythology. Broscience is the tenacious set of rules and
concepts that govern the bizarre behavior of health and fitness
enthusiasts. Something thats tough for folks like myself to
admit is that broscience doesnt die because a lot of it actually
works. The reason it bugs me to admit that broscience is often
effective is because the purported mechanisms and explanations
behind these concepts are false or imagined. Another reason I
hate to admit that a lot of it works is because of the inherent
implication that its the best & only way. As well see, some
examples of broscience are closer to real science than others,
while some stuff is just way out there. There are plenty of
examples, so Ill play it safe and figure that this article might not
be the only installment. After each bolded BS rule Ill offer my
personal take on why it might be effective.

High reps will get you toned & lean, low reps will get you
ulky & strong. b

Okay, so I had to throw the nonsensical application of the word
toned in there, because everyone still hears it mentioned in
actual commercials for fitness products (and in real life). The
thing about this bit of BS is that its not entirely false. But lets
first start with the obvious problems of viewing this concept in
isolation. It ignores energy balance & diet composition, which
can be limiting factors in the effects of repetition range and
tensity of load on changes in body composition and strength. in

Now. lets ignore the important foundational stuff for a moment.
Lets also ignore the fact that high & low are subjective terms
and must first be given specific definitions. Given the same
intensity of effort (ie, all sets in question taken to fatigue), its
possible that doing 3 sets of 15-20 reps could burn more calories
than 3 sets of 5-8 reps. This would especially be true for trainees
who are less experienced with heavier loads, and would be more
comfortable pushing themselves through more reps using lighter
weights. Not holding back as much through a higher volume of
work indeed can burn more calories, and in turn, better
contribute to an energy deficit, thereby helping the trainee
become leaner.
And what about low reps for size and strength? Again, if we
ignore energy balance and diet composition as limiting factors,
this aspect of the broscience is not entirely false either. Although
its given that progressive overload at any rep range can cause
gains, The sweet spot for hypertrophy appears to be roughly
70-85% of your single-repetition maximum (1RM).
1
In most
cases, this falls somewhere in the range of 6-12 reps per set (the
literature also lists 8-10), depending on how close to failure each
set is taken. Regarding goals oriented toward strength, the
literature again falls toward the traditional low-rep fare. Not that
position stands are unquestionable gospel, but the ACSMs latest
recommendation for strength programs in advanced trainees
suggests doing a wider loading range from 1 to 12 RM in a
periodized fashion with eventual emphasis on heavy loading (1-6
RM)
2

Stick to clean foods in order to get lean and healthy.
A perpetually debated topic is the importance of clean foods for
health and/or optimal body composition. The problem with this
debate is that its crippled from the get-go. Without any unifying
definition of clean, its literally impossible to make assertions
or claims based on this common descriptor. Since theres rarely
(if ever) any agreement over what clean means, then cannot be
any productive discussions or debates over it.

But beyond this, a judgment call of clean or dirty involves
looking at foods in a vacuum; in isolation from the rest of the
diet. Its useless to look at individual foods without considering
dose & context, since those exact properties determine the nature
of the foods contribution to the diet as a whole. For example,
red wine can contribute to a relatively healthy or relatively
unhealthy diet depending on whether 2 glasses per day or 2
bottles per day are consumed. So, is red wine a clean food? It
epends on dose & context. d

Still, this doesnt stop people from arguing over it clean versus
dirty foods; no way. Right now, someone is wrong on the
internet, and this dire issue must be rectified. So, I thought it
might be fun to discuss the definitions of clean across the
denominations and historical eras in nutrition & fitness culture.
Ill begin with the 1980s, which is when the fitness revolution
eally started picking up steam. r

1980s Clean: Fat is evil stuff, fat-free anything is best,
so go ahead and splurge on fat-free cookies, fat-free
cinnamon rolls, and fat-free dressings. Carbohydrates are
king, whole grain foods are the best thing you can eat.
Wheaties in the morning means youre serious about your
ealth. Fruits and vegetables are good for you. h

1990s Clean: Low-fat is okay, since now there are
neutral fats (unsaturated) and deadly fats (saturated).
Avoid cholesterol-containing foods, and remember that
yolks are only good for making tempera paint. Avoid red
meat, that stuff will surely stop your clock from ticking.
Skinless chicken breast and water-packed tuna or bust.
Upping your protein might help if youre an athlete, but
regular folks on high-protein diets might get osteoporosis
and malfunctioning kidneys. Grain-based foods are still
okay, so are other starchy foods. However, some of them
have a high glycemic index (GI), which can spike insulin
and wreak havoc on health and body composition. High-
GI food must be vigilantly avoided except postworkout,
where they must be immediately consumed in large
amounts. Postworkout dextrose should be a staple for all
in pursuit of athletic goals. Beans and legumes are
superfoods because of their low GI. Multiple small meals
around the clock is a sure way to stoke the metabolic fire
while controlling appetite. Fruits and vegetables are still
good for you, but the ones with a high-GI should be
avoided (except postworkout).

2000s Clean: Saturated fat and cholesterol are no longer
the bad guys, trans fats are the killers. People are violating
Paleolithic ancestral dietary patterns by consuming a
disproportionately high amount of omega-6 fatty acids,
and not enough omega-3 fatty acids. Fish oil is apparently
the cure for all of the worlds diseases, granted no one
wants to just die from those fishy burps all day long. It
turns out carbohydrate in general is bad for your health,
whole grain goodness is one big government conspiracy,
and simple sugar can kill you. Fructose in particular is
poison to the body, and is more worthy of lacing the tips
of arrows than being consumed. Protein is king, its
infallible. The more meat the better as long as its
organic, free-range, and grass-fed. Grains, dairy, legumes,
added salt, added sugar, and alcoholic beverages are the
downfall of the human species because they are Neolithic
foods that violate our evolutionary biology. Soy is a
particularly evil legume, despite its staple consumption in
Eastern countries with excellent health profiles.
Supplemental BCAA gets a pass for being non-
Paleolithic; that stuff will make or break your physique
goals, so the rules of evolutionary correctness dont apply
to it. Dont think youre doing your health a favor by
forsaking sugar, then replacing it with aspartame or
sucralose, you have to go with stevia or erythritol.
Vegetables are still good for you, except for nightshades
such as white potato, which contain inflammatory
alkaloids (sweet potatoes are fine because theyre not
from the nightshade family). Fruits are still good for you,
except for ones that contain a lot of fructose, so stick to
berries just to be safe.
Alan Aragons Research Review February 2011 [Back to Contents] Page 13


As you can see, not only is "clean" a meaningless abstraction,
but its something that seems to progressively evolve towards
complex states of stupidity as the decades wear on. So, does
clean eating work? Yes it does, but not for the myriad ill-
supported reasons. Clean eating works because when people
emotionally latch on to a newly-discovered dietary truth, they
take ownership of their diets, and adhere to it more consistently.
After all, theyve been betrayed and misled by the mainstream,
and why contribute to lies & conspiracy.

Attempts to eat clean also motivate folks to avoid certain foods,
and oftentimes, entire food groups. This, in turn, limits their
caloric intake. Another benefit is that most whole/unprocessed
foods are considered clean, and these foods happen to be less
nergy-dense thus they can better contribute to weight/fat loss. e

And what about unnecessary complexity? Supplementing the
diet with isolated food constituents that are already abundant in
the diet (ie, amino acids) imparts the perception of being high-
tech or cutting-edge. It keeps the person thinking that the extra
step is being taken to reach or exceed the goal faster, even
though the process is more laborious. Many folks equate
suffering & complexity with success, and pleasure & simplicity
with failure. Can people succeed on pleasure and simplicity?
Yes, but this is often too foreign a concept for many to grasp;
its almost as if most people are too deeply indoctrinated into the
no pain, no gain mentality. But this doesnt mean that this
approach does not breed success. A certain degree of suffering
and complexity can be used as a means to maintain day-long
dietary awareness, control, and adherence. There also seems to
be a sense of pride and accomplishment in people whose diets
force them to endure suffering, complexity, and unnecessary
expense. However, the dark side of any obsessive or inflexible
approach to dieting is an increased risk of developing or
exacerbating an eating disorder.
3-5


R

eferences
1. Wernbom M, et al. The influence of frequency, intensity,
volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-
sectional area in humans. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):225-64.
[Medline]
2. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Mar;41(3):687-708. [Medline]
3. Stewart TM, et al. Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with
eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women. Appetite. 2002
Feb;38(1):39-44. [Medline]
4. Smith CF, et al. Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies:
relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes. Appetite. 1999
Jun;32(3):295-305. [Medline]
5. Gonzalez VM, Vitousek KM. Feared food in dieting and non-
dieting young women: a preliminary validation of the Food
Phobia Survey. Appetite. 2004 Oct;43(2):155-73. [Medline]








A correction has been made in the January 2011 issue.
Two of the studies I reviewed had the same citation info, and
this has been fixed. Additionally, I fixed a couple of typos,
thanks to all who spotted them & alerted me. Please re-download
he issue, heres the t log-in page.

This video clip shows a uniquely endurance-based hunting
technique by Koisan tribesmen in Southern Africa. The amount
of skill and respect for nature these hunters have is humbling &
utterly fascinating. WARNING to sensitive viewers -- the
nimal dies at the end of the clip, and the footage is explicit. a




If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, bones of
contention, cheers, jeers, guest articles youd like to submit, or
any feedback at all, send it over to aarrsupport@gmail.com.