Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Alan Aragon
[Back to Contents]
Page 1
_______________________________________________________________________________________
[Back to Contents]
Page 2
increase from 1970 to 2010 has come from added sugars to the
diet. To quote the actual WSRO report, the three key findings
are as follows:7
1) Worldwide trend data do not support the widely held view
that refined sugar as available for consumption has increased
dramaticallyoverthelast4050years.
2)Attheworldlevel,bothabsoluteandrelative(%energy)from
refined sugar have remained relatively stable during a period
wheretotalfoodenergyavailableforconsumptionhassteadily
increased.
3)Atregionallevel,anysmallincreasingtrendsinrefinedsugar
availability are dwarfed by the large increases in total food
energyavailableforconsumption.
Note that I would read the latter review with caution since plenty
of the supporting literature is animal research; long-term
controlled/comparative human research is lacking in this area.
This makes Estadella et als paper more of a discussion of
hypothetical mechanisms involved in dietary lipid-mediated
pathologies, rather than a solid case against high intakes of
dietary fat. Nevertheless, unlike Taubes heavy reliance on
anecdote and observation, Estadella et al base much of their
speculations on peer-reviewed research. On this note, Id like to
quote the conclusion of a review by Lara-Castro and Garvey
since it sums up the situation very well:12
Popular lowcarbohydrate, highfat diets are being widely
embraced as an alternative to challenging modifications in
lifestyleandintentionalcaloriereduction. Currentdatadonot
supportsuchunbridledenthusiasmforthesediets,particularly
as a substitute for highfiber, highcarbohydrate diets
emphasizing intake of fresh vegetables and fruits. Longterm
studies to determine the efficacy and safety of both popular
andexperimentaldietsarewarrantedinthecurrentcontextof
theobesityepidemic.
[Back to Contents]
Page 3
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Concluding thoughts
So, now that weve gone over many things that are either
misguided or utterly wrong with Taubes views, is there any
merit to them? Thats a tough question, since theyre plagued
with a killer combination of bias and ignorance. Taubes puts up
a facade of objectivity and balance by claiming there are two
competing hypotheses: 1) carbs cause obesity via insulinmediated means, and 2) overeating and/or under-moving causes
obesity through the accumulation of stored energy. The weight
of the evidence shows that #1 is hypothetical and lacking
scientific support, while #2 holds the vast majority of the
evidential weight. Is alleviating the obesity problem a matter of
eating less and/or moving more? For the most part, yes. Is the
proposed solution to eat less, move more good advice on its
own? No not without sufficient of qualification and discussion
of the details involved. Well dive into that in the next issue. In
the meantime, Ill leave you with a salient excerpt from LaraCastro and Garveys review:12
Enhanced insulin sensitivity after weight loss is partially
related to the loss of total fat and highly correlated with the
loss of visceral and intramyocellular fat (21,25,26). In these
studies, it is important to emphasize that negative energy
balance produces weight loss regardless of the macronutrient
composition of the diet (27). Although various diet plans can
emphasize factors that affect hunger and satiety (28,29),
caloric reduction is the essential component and asine qua
nonofweightloss.
12.
13.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[Back to Contents]
Page 4
Study strengths
[Back to Contents]
Page 5
young
elite
Study strengths
This study is conceptually strong since methods to alleviate
eating disorders (EDs) among athletes is an understudied yet
important area of research. Perhaps not surprisingly, SundgotBorgen & Torstveit found that ED prevalence is higher in
athletes than the general population, higher in female than male
athletes, and more common among competitors in leannessdependent and weight-dependent sports.6 This is the first largescale randomized controlled trial to study the prevention of ED
among elite adolescent athletes. To-date, studies investigating
the effectiveness of ED prevention programs have involved nonathletes, so the present study addresses that gap. As
uncommonly seen in the literature, the authors offered their
opinion of the studys strengths, which they listed as the cluster
randomization of schools in order to avoid the mixing-up of
intervention and control group, and a lengthy follow-up period
(9 mo) involving both a questionnaire and a clinical interview.
Study limitations
As acknowledged by the authors, a larger sample could have
added further strength to the outcomes. This seems unlikely
since they included the entire population of male and female
first-year students attending all Elite Sports High Schools in
Alan Aragons Research Review August 2013
[Back to Contents]
Page 6
The
effects
of
pre
versus
post
workout
supplementation of creatine monohydrate on body
composition and strength.
Antonio J, Ciccone V. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2013 Aug
6;10(1):36. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
BACKGROUND: Chronic supplementation with creatine monohydrate
has been shown to promote increases in total intramuscular creatine,
phosphocreatine, skeletal muscle mass, lean body mass and muscle
fiber size. Furthermore, there is robust evidence that muscular strength
and power will also increase after supplementing with creatine.
However, it is not known if the timing of creatine supplementation will
affect the adaptive response to exercise. PURPOSE: Thus, the purpose
of this investigation was to determine the difference between pre versus
post exercise supplementation of creatine on measures of body
composition and strength. METHODS: Nineteen healthy recreational
male bodybuilders (mean +/- SD; age: 23.1 +/- 2.9; height: 166.0 +/23.2 cm; weight: 80.18 +/- 10.43 kg) participated in this study. Subjects
were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: PRE-SUPP or
POST-SUPP workout supplementation of creatine (5 grams). The PRESUPP group consumed 5 grams of creatine immediately before
exercise. On the other hand, the POST-SUPP group consumed 5 grams
immediately after exercise. Subjects trained on average five days per
week for four weeks. Subjects consumed the supplement on the two
non-training days at their convenience. Subjects performed a
periodized, split-routine, bodybuilding workout five days per week
(Chest-shoulders-triceps; Back-biceps, Legs, etc.). Body composition
(Bod Pod(R)) and 1-RM bench press (BP) were determined. Diet logs
were collected and analyzed (one random day per week; four total days
analyzed). RESULTS: 2x2 ANOVA results - There was a significant
time effect for fat-free mass (FFM) (F = 19.9; p = 0.001) and BP (F =
18.9; p < 0.001), however, fat mass (FM) and body weight did not reach
significance. While there were trends, no significant interactions were
found. However, using magnitude-based inference, supplementation
with creatine post workout is possibly more beneficial in comparison to
pre workout supplementation with regards to FFM, FM and 1-RM BP.
The mean change in the PRE-SUPP and POST-SUPP groups for body
weight (BW kg), FFM (kg), FM (kg) and 1-RM bench press (kg) were
as follows, respectively: Mean +/- SD; BW: 0.4 +/- 2.2 vs 0.8 +/- 0.9;
FFM: 0.9 +/- 1.8 vs 2.0 +/- 1.2; FM: -0.1 +/- 2.0 vs -1.2 +/- 1.6; Bench
Press 1-RM: 6.6 +/- 8.2 vs 7.6 +/- 6.1.Qualitative inference represents
the likelihood that the true value will have the observed magnitude.
Furthermore, there were no differences in caloric or macronutrient
intake between the groups. (p > 0.05) for blood pressure or resting heart
rate. CONCLUSIONS: Creatine supplementation plus resistance
exercise increases fat-free mass and strength. Based on the magnitude
inferences it appears that consuming creatine immediately post-workout
is superior to pre-workout vis a vis body composition and strength.
SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
My main issue with the present study is that, due to its short
duration, it doesnt necessarily address whether or not creatine
timing affects subjects who are already creatine-loaded. Hultman
et al observed that 3 g/day for 28 days was able to raise muscle
creatine levels similarly to a loading protocol of 20 g/day for 6
days.9 The dosing scheme of the present study was 5 g per day,
without a loading phase. Its possible that the subjects in both
groups were only fully creatine-loaded late in the study, shortly
after which it was over (possibly too soon to make a meaningful
comparison). To reiterate, the authors also acknowledge the
confounding potential of the small number of subjects, which are
compounded by strange results in both groups. For example, one
subject in the POST-SUPP and three in the PRE-SUPP group
had a minor reduction in FFM. Two subjects in the PRE-SUPP
group showed either no change or a decline in strength.
Ultimately, although this study breaks some ground, the question
of creatine timing needs further investigation.
[Back to Contents]
Study strengths
This study is innovative since its the first to investigate the
answer to one of the most frequently asked questions about
creatine dosing. A periodized resistance training program was
implemented. Dietary intake was tracked via recall at 4 separate
points in the trial, and analyzed with nutritional software.
Study limitations
Page 7
Study strengths
This is quite an interesting study that has hasnt gotten a ton of
media exposure. To my knowledge, its the first to ever examine
the performance effects of a high-fat pre-load versus a high-carb
preload at the end of a structured carb-loading regime. The
subjects were collegiate long-distance athletes engaged in
physical training almost every day as opposed to
sedentary/deconditioned subjects. The carb-loading regime was
standardized to consist of 2562 kcal/day in total calories (71%
carbohydrates, 19% fat, and 10% protein) at all three meals for 3
days before the main trials.
time trial (TT).10-13 the problem is that TTE might not mimic
real-world race performance conditions as closely as TT. To
quote Currell and Jeukendrup:14
Avalidprotocolisonethatresemblestheperformancethatis
beingsimulatedascloselyaspossible.Wheninvestigatingrace
type events, the two most common protocols are time to
exhaustionandtimetrials.Timetrialshavegreatervaliditythan
time to exhaustion because they provide a good physiological
simulation of actual performance and correlate with actual
performance.
Comment/application
The main finding of this study were that the high-fat meal (1007
kcal, 30% CHO, 55% F and 15% P) + maltodextrin (410 kcal)
outperformed both the high-fat + placebo & high-carb + placebo
meals. There was no significant performance difference between
the latter two conditions. the fact that fat oxidation was greater
in the high-fat meal conditions is no surprise, and its doubtful
that its of any functional importance. Its easy to mistakenly
conflate greater dietary fat oxidation with greater oxidation of
stored body fat.
To our benefit, the authors listed the results of each subject in
the table above. Notice how the worst performance in terms of
TTE belonged to one of the Subject A in the high-fat meal +
placebo condition; this subject did markedly better with the
high-carb meal + placebo. This outcome illustrates the
importance of not taking study outcomes as indisputably
applicable to all (especially given the small sample size),
without considering the variability of individual response.
[Back to Contents]
Study limitations
Page 8
\
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
[Back to Contents]
Page 9
There are a few bits of research worth examining that are not
included in Mennos article. Wilson and Wilson reported the
recommendations for athletes of 8 review papers and book
chapters ranged from 1.2-2.2 g/kg (table here).10 In support of
the 1.8 g/kg upper limit of effectiveness, Menno cites a 2011
review paper by Phillips and Van Loon.11 However, while they
recommend 1.3-1.8 g/kg for maximizing muscle protein
synthesis, they also state that athletes training under hypocaloric
conditions might optimize the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue loss from
higher intakes ranging 1.8-2.7 g/kg.
[Back to Contents]
Page 10
Page 11
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
[Back to Contents]
Page 12
You'llsurelybeabletofindstudiessupportingsingle
sets, but it appears that athletes benefit more from
multiple sets compared to novices. So, as a platform for
discussion, Id like to use 6 sets to strike a balance between
highandlowvolumeprotocols.
Keepinmindthefollowingconditions:
Trainingsessionswilloccurtwiceperweek.
Reprangescanvaryaccordingtotheexercise,butmust
stayconsistentthroughouttheentiretyofthestudy.
Subjects perform no additional exercise (no cardio or
additionalstrengthtraining).
Intrasetresttimeis2minutes,atotalof6submaximal
warmup sets can be used that don't count toward the
total sets, all work sets are performed close to failure,
and no advanced techniques are used (negatives, drop
sets,supersets,orforcedreps).
[Back to Contents]
Page 13
[Back to Contents]
Page 14