face

10 Effects of brown rice on apparent digestibility and

balance of nutrients in young men on low protein
diets.
Miyoshi H, Okuda T, Okuda K, Koishi H. J Nutr Sci
Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1987 Jun;33(3):207-18. [PubMed]

12 Sports science professor Tim Noakes goes full

low-carb, part 2.
By Alan Aragon
Copyright October 1st, 2012 by Alan Aragon
Home: www.alanaragon.com/researchreview
Correspondence: aarrsupport@gmail.com

14 Is green coffee bean extract worth a try for weight

loss?
By Alan Aragon

CLA miracle fat loss supplement?

By Mike T Nelson, MSME, CSCS, PhD(c)

Aerobic exercise does not compromise muscle

hypertrophy response to short-term resistance
training. [Guest analysis by Brad Schoenfeld]
Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Gustafsson T, Tesch
PA.. J Appl Physiol. 2012 Oct 25. [Epub ahead of print]
[PubMed]

Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on

body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese
adults.
Willis LH, Slentz CA, Bateman LA, Shields AT, Piner LW,
Bales CW, Houmard JA, Kraus WE. J Appl Physiol. 2012
Dec;113(12):1831-7. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011.
Epub 2012 Sep 27. [PubMed]

Effects of low-carbohydrate diets versus low-fat

diets on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled clinical trials.
Hu T, Mills KT, Yao L, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, Yancy
WS Jr, Kelly TN, He J, Bazzano LA. Am J Epidemiol. 2012
Oct 1;176 Suppl 7:S44-54 [PubMed]

Effects of gum Arabic ingestion on body mass

index and body fat percentage in healthy adult
females: two-arm randomized, placebo controlled,
double-blind trial.
Babiker R, Merghani TH, Elmusharaf K, Badi RM, Lang F,
Saeed AM. Nutr J. 2012 Dec 15;11(1):111. [Epub ahead of
print] [PubMed]

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 1

been quoted, Dude, you are not a rat; end of story. Wise words
indeed.
CLA miracle fat loss supplement?
By Mike T Nelson, MSME, CSCS, PhD(c)
_________________________________________________
Intro & background
Supplement companies have been on the search for a miracle fat
loss product since humans crawled out of the primordial soup
and lost their tails. Just take a few pills and watch the fat get
flushed out by magic fairies who ride around on rainbow colored
unicorns attacking your fat cells with the vicious fury of GSP ,
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Ok, so I am stretching the
marketing just a bit perhaps. Fat loss in a pill sounds awesome in
theory, but is there any data to back it up?
One compound exalted for its potential fat loss applications is
conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Recently, there have been many
claims, mostly supported by animal work, that dietary intake of
CLA is da bomb for dat fat loss. But the data have been quite
variable depending on the subject population, isomer mixture,
and dose utilized in the studies. Moreover, recent studies have
identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within genes
related to lipid metabolism and antioxidant defense systems
which may negatively or positively affect the metabolic response
to supplementation with a particular isomer or dose of CLA.1, 2
Time to help straighten out the confusion using S.C.I.E.N.C.E,
so stand back!
Conjugated linoleic acid consists of a collection of isomers of
linoleic acid with conjugated double bonds ranging from 6,8 to
12,14. For each positional isomer, there are four possible pairs
of isomers 1) cis,trans 2) trans,cis 3) cis,cis 4) trans,trans for a
grand total of 28 possible isomers. Oh yikes! Despite the high
number of possible isomers, there are only 2 major CLA isomers
commonly available commercially, the cis9, trans11 (c9,t11)CLA and trans10,cis12(t10,c12)-CLA. These major isomers are
typically found at a ratio of approximately 1:1.3 Common
sources are dairy products since the gut bacteria of the animals
can enzymatically convert linoleic acid into CLA to form
9cis,11trans, the main isomer.4 CLA can also be formed via
commercial preparation methods such as industrial partial
hydrogenation or alkali-isomerization of linoleic acid to yield
10trans,12cis isomer, which has been found in ruminant's meat
(especially beef and lamb). 4, 5
Effects of CLA in our furry friends
The effects of CLA in animals for body composition are very
impressive. Research done by DeLany et al showed a 10% drop
in body fat with CLA in only 12 weeks.6 To put this in context,
assuming these data translate to humans, in 12 weeks by taking
a single dose of CLA daily someone with 19% body fat could
lower body fat to single digits. Even more amazingly, the mice
still ate the same amount of food demonstating some incredible
repartioning effects of CLA. Many other studies went on to
verify a positive response in body composition, showing that
CLA was able to make super fit and lean animals.3, 7, 8 Lets
look at some actual human data now as it may quell your Sign
me up bro hand held high by your local Planet Fitness
compadre. A famous nutrition guy named Alan Aragon has
Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

Human data on CLA for fat loss

Despite many human clinical trials investigating the effect of
CLA on body composition, its effects have been controversial
due to inconsistency of results in the current literature.1 While
the animal data on CLA for positive body composition change is
impressive, the human data is much more mixed. In one of the
longest and most extensive human trials on CLA using a
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled format, JeanMichel Gaullier and colleagues showed that CLA did result in a
reduction of weight.9 The trial lasted 2 years with 134 (24 men
and 110 women) completing it. Two groups received 3.4g CLA/
day in a 1:1 CLA isomer mixture (cis-9, trans-11 and trans-10,
cis-12), as part of a triglyceride (CLA-TG) or as the free fatty
acid (CLA-FFA), and 1 group received olive oil as placebo.
Body composition was measured by dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA) considered to be the gold standard for
body composition changes.10 At the end of 2 years, the CLA
arm lost an average of 1.8 kg and the other CLA group lost 2.7
kgs. Only the first 6 months showed a significant loss in body
fat mass though. Even the best performing group lost less than
half a pound per month. While these results were statistically
significant, they are quite small.9
A meta-analysis by Whigham et al. in 2007 compiled eighteen
human trials and concluded that at a dose of 3.2 grams /day,
composed of mixed CLA isomers (primarily cis9, trans11-CLA
and trans10, cis12 CLA) produced an average fat loss of 0.05
kg for the CLA group alone, and 0.09 kg /week for the fat loss
compared with the placebo control group.1 In the best scenario,
extrapolated out to 6 months, it equates to a total of 2.25 lbs of
fat lost. A newer meta-analysis by Onakpoya et al. in 2012
investigated relevant randomized clinical trials of at least
6 months in duration. Their research revealed a very small yet
significant difference in fat loss favoring CLA over placebo
(MD: -1.33 kg; 95% CI: -1.79, -0.86; I (2) = 54%). They
concluded that the magnitude of the effects are small, and the
clinical relevance is uncertain .2 If you are keeping score, its
not looking too good.
Lambert et al. in 2007 measured the effects of 12 weeks of CLA
supplementation on body composition in a double-blind,
controlled trial, with 62 non-obese subjects randomized to
receive either 3.9 g/d CLA or 3.9 g high-oleic acid sunflower oil
for12 weeks. They found no significant effects of CLA on body
composition as measured by DXA.11 A unique approach by
Nazare et al. added CLA to flavored yogurt-like products to
investigate its effects on body composition. Over 14 weeks,
CLA was supplemented at a dose of 3.76 g with a 1:1
combination of the two main isomers (cis-9, trans-11 and trans10, cis-12) in a randomized, placebo-controlled manner. In the
end, it resulted in no significant effects on lean body mass or fat
mass via DXA.12
Adverse potential
Concern has been raised for CLA supplementations potential to
cause a range of adverse effects. In a 12-week trial on obese
subjects, Risrus et al13 found that a daily dose of 3.4 g CLA (the
t10,c12 isomer) increased C-reactive protein (CRP) by 110%
[Back to Contents]

Page 2

and 8-iso-PGF2 by 578%, indicating a double-whammy of

increased oxidative stress and insulin resistance. These outcomes
were consistent with prior work by the same group, who
found that CLA in the t10,c12 isomeric form increased
insulin resistance in obese subjects.14 Furthermore, CLA reduced
HDL, which is unfavorable from the standpoint of
cardiovascular risk. Gaullier et als 2-year trial (discussed
earlier)9 found modest fat loss from CLA, but they also reported
increased levels of lipoprotein (a), which is an independent
predictor of cardiovascular disease risk. Subjects consuming the
free fatty acid form of CLA as opposed to the triglyceride form
showed a drop in HDL. Notably, a 1:1 ratio of the t10,c12 and
c9,t11 isomers was used.
Subsequent studies of a longer duration failed to observe adverse
effects from CLA supplementation in obese subjects, even when
consumed as a 1:1 ratio of the two most commonly available
isomers. A 6-month trial by Watras et al found that 3.2 g CLA
reduced bodyfat and prevented weight gain, and did not
adversely affect glucose control, blood lipids, or inflammation
markers.15 In another 6-month trial, Syvertsen et al did not
observe any adverse impact of 3.4 g CLA on measures of
glucose control or insulin sensitivity.16 They also failed to detect
any benefit of CLA on body composition beyond placebo.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Summary: Is CLA worth it?

According to the evidence, supplementing with CLA appears
to be amazing at creating super lean fury animals with tails, but
not nearly as effective at promoting positive body composition
changes in humans. The most common dose in the human
studies was around 3 grams per day at a 1:1 ratio of both
isomers. It could be argued that for the amount of action taken
(including a few pills of CLA) and where a small change in body
composition is desired in an already healthy, lean individual
(e.g., elite athletes), supplementation can be considered. CLAs
safety record is mixed, but long-term trials have thus far quelled
concerns initially raised by shorter trials. However, the amazing
body composition effects seen in animal models do not appear to
positively transfer to those of us that have lost our primordial
tails and walk upright most of the time. If you are a 220 lb
Wistar rat and want to try it, go for it bro.

11.

12.

13.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

Whigham LD, Watras AC, Schoeller DA. Efficacy of

conjugated linoleic acid for reducing fat mass: A metaanalysis in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1203-1211.
[PubMed]
Onakpoya IJ, Posadzki PP, Watson LK, Davies LA, Ernst E.
The efficacy of long-term conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)
supplementation on body composition in overweight and
obese individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized clinical trials. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51(2):127-134.
doi: 10.1007/s00394-011-0253-9. [PubMed]
Tarling EJ, Ryan KJ, Bennett AJ, Salter AM. Effect of
dietary conjugated linoleic acid isomers on lipid metabolism
in hamsters fed high-carbohydrate and high-fat diets. Br J
Nutr.
2009;101(11):1630-1638.
doi:
10.1017/S0007114508118785. [PubMed]
Banni S. Conjugated linoleic acid metabolism. Curr Opin
Lipidol. 2002;13(3):261-266. [PubMed]

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

14.

15.

16.

Jeukendrup AE, Randell R. Fat burners: Nutrition

supplements that increase fat metabolism. Obes Rev.
2011;12(10):841-851.
doi:
10.1111/j.1467789X.2011.00908.x; 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00908.x.
[PubMed]
DeLany JP, Blohm F, Truett AA, Scimeca JA, West DB.
Conjugated linoleic acid rapidly reduces body fat content in
mice without affecting energy intake. Am J Physiol.
1999;276(4 Pt 2):R1172-9. [PubMed]
Joseph SV, Liu X, Wakefield A, et al. Trans-8, cis-10+ cis9, trans-11-conjugated linoleic acid mixture alters body
composition in syrian golden hamsters fed a
hypercholesterolaemic diet. Br J Nutr. 2010;104(10):14431449. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510002345. [PubMed]
West DB, Delany JP, Camet PM, Blohm F, Truett AA,
Scimeca J. Effects of conjugated linoleic acid on body fat
and energy metabolism in the mouse. Am J Physiol.
1998;275(3 Pt 2):R667-72. [PubMed]
Gaullier JM, Halse J, Hoye K, et al. Supplementation with
conjugated linoleic acid for 24 months is well tolerated by
and reduces body fat mass in healthy, overweight humans. J
Nutr. 2005;135(4):778-784. [PubMed]
Ackland TR, Lohman TG, Sundgot-Borgen J, et al. Current
status of body composition assessment in sport: Review and
position statement on behalf of the ad hoc research working
group on body composition health and performance, under
the auspices of the I.O.C. medical commission. Sports Med.
2012 Mar 1;42(3):227-49. doi: 10.2165/11597140000000000-00000. [PubMed]
Lambert EV, Goedecke JH, Bluett K, et al. Conjugated
linoleic acid versus high-oleic acid sunflower oil: Effects on
energy metabolism, glucose tolerance, blood lipids, appetite
and body composition in regularly exercising individuals.
Br
J
Nutr.
2007;97(5):1001-1011.
doi:
10.1017/S0007114507172822. [PubMed]
Nazare JA, de la Perriere AB, Bonnet F, et al. Daily intake
of conjugated linoleic acid-enriched yoghurts: Effects on
energy metabolism and adipose tissue gene expression in
healthy subjects. Br J Nutr. 2007;97(2):273-280. doi:
10.1017/S0007114507191911. [PubMed]
Risrus U, Basu S, Jovinge S, Fredrikson GN, Arnlv J,
Vessby B. Supplementation with conjugated linoleic acid
causes isomer-dependent oxidative stress and elevated Creactive protein: a potential link to fatty acid-induced insulin
resistance. Circulation. 2002 Oct 8;106(15):1925-9.
[PubMed]
Risrus U, Arner P, Brismar K, Vessby B. Treatment with
dietary trans10cis12 conjugated linoleic acid causes isomerspecific insulin resistance in obese men with the metabolic
syndrome. Diabetes Care. 2002 Sep;25(9):1516-21.
[PubMed]
Watras AC, Buchholz AC, Close RN, Zhang Z, Schoeller
DA. The role of conjugated linoleic acid in reducing body
fat and preventing holiday weight gain. Int J Obes (Lond).
2007 Mar;31(3):481-7. Epub 2006 Aug 22. [PubMed]
Syvertsen C, Halse J, Hivik HO, Gaullier JM, Nurminiemi
M, Kristiansen K, Einerhand A, O'Shea M, Gudmundsen O.
The effect of 6 months supplementation with conjugated
linoleic acid on insulin resistance in overweight and obese.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2007 Jul;31(7):1148-54. Epub 2006 Oct
10. [PubMed]

[Back to Contents]

Page 3

assessing the chronic impact of concurrent training on muscular

hypertrophy, strength, power, and endurance.
Aerobic exercise does not compromise muscle
hypertrophy response to short-term resistance
training. [Guest analysis by Brad Schoenfeld]
Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Gustafsson T, Tesch PA.. J
Appl Physiol. 2012 Oct 25. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that chronic aerobic
and resistance exercise (AE+RE) would elicit greater muscle
hypertrophy than resistance exercise only (RE). METHODS: Ten
men (254 yrs) performed 5 wks unilateral knee extensor AE+RE.
The opposing limb was subjected to RE. AE completed 6 hrs prior
to RE, consisted of ~45 min one-legged cycle ergometry. RE
comprised 4 x 7 maximal concentric-eccentric knee extensions.
Various indices of in vivo knee extensor function were measured
before and after training. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
assessed m. quadricep femoris (QF) cross-sectional area (CSA),
volume, and signal intensity (SI). Biopsies obtained from m. vastus
lateralis determined fiber CSA, enzyme levels and gene expression
of myostatin, atrogin-1, MuRF-1, PGC-1 and VEGF. RESULTS:
Increases (P < 0.05) in isometric strength and peak power,
respectively were comparable in AE+RE (9 and 29%) and RE (11
and 24%). AE+RE showed greater increase (14%; P < 0.05) in QF
volume than RE (8%). Muscle fiber CSA increased 17% after
AE+RE (P < 0.05) and 9% after RE (P > 0.05). QF SI increased
(12%; P < 0.05) after AE+RE, but not RE. Neither AE+RE nor RE
showed altered mRNA-levels. Citrate Synthase activity increased (P
< 0.05) after AE+RE. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the
increased aerobic capacity shown with AE+RE, was accompanied
by a more robust increase in muscle size compared with RE. While
this response was not carried over to greater improvement in muscle
function, it remains that intense AE can be executed prior to RE
without compromising performance outcome. SPONSORSHIP:
This study was supported by grants from the Swedish National
Centre for Research in Sports (PAT), the European Space Agency
(ESA; PAT), the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB; PAT) and
the Swedish Medical Association (TG).
__________________________________________________________

Background Info
A large body of research indicates that combining aerobic
training with resistance training (i.e. concurrent training) has a
negative effect on gains in muscular strength and size.1 There is
evidence that aerobic exercise mediates catabolic pathways
while anaerobic exercise mediates anabolic pathways. This has
led to the "AMPK-PKB switch" hypothesis, which professes that
the two types of exercise are incompatible.2 It has been shown,
however, that considerable overlap exists in signaling responses
to mechanical stimuli, calling into question the validity of this
hypothesis.3
Recently, Lundberg et al.4 found that acute anabolic signaling
markers (mTOR and p70S6K) were actually greater with
concurrent training compared to resistance exercise alone. This
seemingly contradicts the majority of previous research, and
raises the possibility that aerobic exercise may in fact be
beneficial to muscle hypertrophy. However, such results must be
taken with caution as the response of translational signaling
components to an acute exercise bout are often unrelated to the
degree of myofiber hypertrophy seen after long-term resistance
training.5 Hence, the current study was conducted by the same
lab as a follow-up to this previous work, with the objective of
Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

Study Specifics
Subjects were 10 "moderately trained" college students. The
study employed a within-subject design, where participants
performed resistance training on one leg while performing
concurrent training (both aerobic and resistance exercise) on the
other leg. The limb chosen to receive concurrent exercise was
counterbalanced between subjects, meaning that for every
subject who performed concurrent training on the right leg
another would perform the condition on the left leg. This type of
design has the inherent advantage of negating any interindividual differences in response to training, thereby improving
statistical power. Thus, the low sample size was not as big an
issue as it would have been had the researchers evaluated two
independent groups (although the study was still likely
underpowered nevertheless).
The training program was carried out over the course of 5
weeks. Aerobic training consisted of 40 minutes of one-legged
cycle ergometer exercise per session at 70 percent of peak power
output. Immediately following each 40 minute aerobic bout, the
workload was bumped up to near maximum peak power and
subjects continued pedaling until failure (which occurred, on
average, after approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds). Aerobic
sessions were performed 3 non-consecutive days a week.
Resistance exercise comprised 4 sets of 7 reps of unilateral leg
extensions with 2 minutes rest between sets. Resistance sessions
were performed 6 hours after the aerobic bout and took place 2-3
days a week (2 days/week in weeks 1, 3, and 5; 3 days/week in
weeks 2 and 4). Maximal strength was assessed via isokinetic
dynamometry; peak muscle torque, power, and endurance were
assessed by flywheel ergometry; muscle hypertrophy was
assessed by MRI as well as muscle biopsy.
The study produced some interesting findings. To no one's
surprise, the concurrent training leg showed a strong trend for
greater muscular endurance as determined by time to exhaustion.
Aerobic exercise requires local endurance and it therefore stands
to reason that consistent cycle ergometry training would mediate
specific adaptations to enhance this variable. Somewhat
surprisingly, measures of strength and power were not different
between conditions. Given that a preponderance of evidence
seems to indicate that concurrent training interferes with
strength-related gains,1 one might have assumed that the
resistance-only leg would have shown greater improvements in
strength/power. The most surprising finding was that muscle
volume and cross sectional area in the concurrent leg was almost
double that of the resistance-only leg (13.6% vs. 7.8%,
respectively)! Muscle biopsy indicated that these results were
primarily attributable to increases in type I fiber hypertrophy.
This led researchers to conclude that aerobic exercise may
provide synergistic hypertrophic benefits when incorporated into
a resistance training routine without compromising functional
gains attained from resistance exercise.
A Critical Analysis of Results
So what to make of these results? Should aerobic exercise be
included as part of any hypertrophy protocol? Let's dig a little
[Back to Contents]

Page 4

deeper and see what can be ascertained from a practical

standpoint
The first thing to evaluate in any scientific study is its theoretical
rationale; in other words, does the data make sense? In this case,
we need to consider why hypertrophic adaptations take place in
muscle tissue. The principle of specificity dictates that
adaptations are specific to the stimulus applied. With respect to
hypertrophy, muscles grow larger in an effort to respond to
strength-related challenges. When an overload stimulus is
repeatedly imposed on a muscle (such as during resistance
training), it will synthesize proteins in order to meet this
challenge in the future. By its very nature, aerobic exercise does
not challenge the muscle in a strength-related manner, so there
would be little reason for the muscle to respond by
hypertrophying. In fact, hypertrophy is detrimental to lengthy
aerobic-endurance exercise as it requires the body to continually
support a greater load during performance. So although we
should not dismiss the results of the study outright, we
nevertheless must be skeptical as to their validity.
A couple of things stand out upon close scrutiny of the findings.
For one, subjects were classified as "moderately trained." By the
authors' definition, this meant that participants were involved in
recreational activities such as skiing and team sports, but had not
performed resistance training in the past year. So in essence, the
subjects were actually untrained from a resistance training
standpoint. Why is this an issue? Well, in those without training
experience, virtually any stimulus will be a challenge to the
musculature and thus cause hypertrophy. On the other hand,
well-trained subjects have already adapted to lower-level
stresses, and it therefore remains questionable whether aerobic
training would provide enough of a stimulus for further muscular
adaptation. It stands to reason that it would not.
Another interesting finding was that while muscle hypertrophy
was deemed to be substantially greater in the concurrent leg
compared to the resistance-only leg, muscle strength and power
was not different between the two conditions. This seems to defy
logic. Studies show a direct correlation between muscle strength
and muscle CSA: a greater cross sectional area is strongly
associated with greater strength.6 The fact that a greater increase
in muscle mass did not lead to greater strength therefore sends
up a red flag. It would seem that this contradiction is due, at least
in part, to the fact that hypertrophic differences were primarily
attributed to type I fiber growth. Type I fibers are endurancerelated fibers with a limited force-producing capacity; it's the
type II fibers that are primarily responsible for strength and
power, and these fibers showed no significant difference
between groups. It seems reasonable to question whether such
type I fiber hypertrophy is sustainable over the long-term. Since
these fibers are highly fatigue-resistant, it could be speculated
that they'd be increasingly stubborn to continued growth after an
initial period of conditioning. This theory remains to be
elucidated.

related to intramuscular fluid accumulation, presumably

mediated by edema pursuant to muscle damage. The researchers
tried to minimize this possibility by obtaining MRI scans 48
hours after completion of the final exercise session. However,
peak swelling has been shown to occur approximately 5 days
post-exercise,7 raising serious questions as to whether edema in
fact played a role in results. The researchers downplayed any
potential confounding effects from muscle damage by stating
that no subject reported any soreness at the time of testing. But
studies show that DOMS is not necessarily well correlated to
various markers of muscle damage including maximal isometric
strength, ROM, upper arm circumference, and plasma CK
levels,8 making it a poor gauge of both the presence and
magnitude of tissue trauma. Taking all factors into account, it
appears likely that a good portion of the hypertrophic differences
between conditions were related to sarcoplasmic elements rather
than an increase in contractile muscle proteins.
A major limitation of the study was its short duration. One of the
biggest detriments of concurrent training with respect to strength
& hypertrophy is that it hastens the onset of overtraining
syndrome (OS). OS causes the body to shift into a catabolic
state, leading to decrements in performance and impaired
muscular adaptations.9 The chronic interference hypothesis
suggests that the addition of aerobic exercise to a resistance
training program results in long-term competing adaptations that
ultimately brings about OS and thus interferes with strengthrelated muscular adaptations.1 Thing is, the effects of OS take
time to manifest--certainly more than the five week time-course
of this study. Moreover, the volume and frequency of the
resistance routine employed was not very demanding, to say the
least. 4 sets of knee extensions performed 2-3 days a week is no
way representative of the type of routine used by most serious
lifters. A higher volume routine, similar to what is customarily
employed in a hypertrophy-oriented program, would place
greater demands on recuperative abilities and thereby increase
the potential for overtraining when combined with frequent
aerobic exercise. All things considered, it is impossible to
extrapolate the results of this study to long-term, higher volume
training programs.
Another limitation with the study is that a single type of
aerobic exercise (cycling) was evaluated for a single muscle
group (quadriceps). We cannot conclude that other forms of
aerobic exercise (i.e. jogging, treadmill, stepmill, stairmaster,
elliptical training, etc) provide the same effects for the
quadriceps, nor can we conclude that the same effects will occur
in the other lower body muscles, such as the glutes, hamstrings,
or calves. In fact, evidence shows that running interferes with
strength-related gains to a greater extent than cycling.1 Finally,
we cannot conclude that the upper body muscles would respond
similarly to upper body aerobics such as swimming or arm
ergometry.

It also should be noted that MRI signal intensity was markedly

increased with concurrent exercise but not with resistance
exercise. The significance here is that an increased MRI signal
intensity is consistent with an increase in tissue water content.
This suggests that the greater muscle volume seen with
combined aerobic and resistance exercise may well have been

In conclusion, this study provided interesting data that

challenges existing beliefs with respect to concurrent training.
However, the inherent limitations of the study make it far too
premature to draw any definitive conclusions on the topic.
Future research should seek to examine the chronic effects of
concurrent training on muscular hypertrophy over longer time
periods and employing routines consistent with what lifters
actually perform in real-world situations.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 5

Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body

mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults.
Willis LH, Slentz CA, Bateman LA, Shields AT, Piner LW,
Bales CW, Houmard JA, Kraus WE. J Appl Physiol. 2012
Dec;113(12):1831-7. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011.
Epub 2012 Sep 27. [PubMed]
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Recent guidelines on exercise
for weight loss and weight maintenance include resistance
training as part of the exercise prescription. Yet few studies have
compared the effects of similar amounts of aerobic and
resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight
adults. DESIGN: STRRIDE AT/RT, a randomized trial,
compared aerobic training, resistance training, and a
combination of the two to determine the optimal mode of
exercise for obesity reduction. Participants were 119 sedentary,
overweight or obese adults who were randomized to one of three
8-mo exercise protocols: 1) RT: resistance training, 2) AT:
aerobic training, and 3) AT/RT: aerobic and resistance training
(combination of AT and RT). Primary outcomes included total
body mass, fat mass, and lean body mass. The AT and AT/RT
groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT (P <
0.05), but they were not different from each other. RT and
AT/RT increased lean body mass more than AT (P < 0.05).
RESULTS: While requiring double the time commitment, a
program of combined AT and RT did not result in significantly
more fat mass or body mass reductions over AT alone.
CONCLUSION: Balancing time commitments against health
benefits, it appears that AT is the optimal mode of exercise for
reducing fat mass and body mass, while a program including RT
is needed for increasing lean mass in middle-aged,
overweight/obese individuals. SPONSORSHIP: This study was
conducted with funds provided by the NHLBI, National
Institutes of Health (2R01-HL057354).
__________________________________________________________

Study strengths
This study is conceptually strong since the question of whats
the most time-efficient training mode for fat loss in an important
public health concern. The sample size is the largest to-date
among studies directly comparing resistance and aerobic training
or a combination. 155 subjects completed the intervention &
testing, 119 had consistent assessment methodologies at all
testing time points. The study had a thorough range of treatments,
comparing not just the effects of aerobic training (AT) and
resistance training (RT), but also a combination of both
(AT/RT). In addition to body composition, thigh muscle area
was measured via computed tomography.

the text. Also, there was no objective assessment of energy

expenditure. This lack of control of both energy influx and
efflux was reflected in the lack of statistically significant
difference in weight and fat loss and between the combination
treatment (AT/RT) and the aerobic training (AT) treatment. Its
clear that the additional energy expenditure in the combination
treatment was offset by unchecked intake. In an ideal world
where research budgets werent limited, all dietary intake would
be provided by the lab, thus minimizing confounding effects of
compliance lapses or over- & under-estimations of intake.
Along these lines, energy expenditure ideally (though
expensively) would be tracked by an objective method such as
doubly labeled water.
Comment/application
As seen in the chart below, AT outperformed RT in measures of
fat loss. The fat loss seen in RT was not statistically significant.
Although the greater loss of fat mass seen in AT/RT compared
to AT alone did not reach statistical significance, it nonetheless
topped the field in this regard. A notable outcome unmentioned
by the authors was the nonsignificant loss of lean mass in AT.
This was the only condition that registered a loss in lean mass
(regardless of statistical significance). Lean mass increased
similarly in RT & AT/RT, which is expected in this population.
The authors conclusions are worth quoting since they open up a
can of worms:
Although it was more effective for lean body mass gains, RT
did not significantly reduce either fat mass or total body
mass. AT was more effective than RT for the reduction of fat
and body mass in previously sedentary, nondiabetic,
overweight or obese adults. While requiring double the time
commitment, a program of combined AT and RT did not
result in a greater loss of fat mass or body mass over AT.
The entire quote above is ripe for criticism. The authors
downplay the fact that indeed, the combination treatment
showed a trend toward being more effective than AT alone, as
depicted below (RT, AT, AT/RT):

Study limitations
The authors minimally acknowledge the limitations of their
work. First, they mentioned that this was not an intent-totreat analysis. Then, they said that the subjects were motivated
to undergo the programs which were semi-supervised; this
scenario might not be applicable to unsupervised populations in
the general public. To these limitations, I would add that dietary
control was minimal. 3-day diet records and 24-hour recalls
were collected at the start and end of the trial. Although total
energy was reported, macronutrient intake was not reported in

Specifically, the respective fat mass decreases in RT, AT, &

AT/RT were 0.26, 1.66, & 2.44 kg. Although it was not
statistically significantly so, AT/RTs decrease was 47% greater
than ATs decrease in fat mass. This makes the authors
dismissal of results quite hasty, leaving the impression that the
combination treatment had literally no fat loss advantage over
AT, which simply is not true. Another result downplayed by the

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 6

authors was AT/RTs superior decrease in fat percent compared

to both singular treatments, and this effect did reach statistical
significance, depicted below (RT, AT, AT/RT):

involving the combination of the two types of training tend to

yield the most favorable results, although total training volume
tends to be greater in such treatments; 3) subjects typically are
not trained/athletic.
This brings me to my personal speculations regarding the
superior fat loss effects of aerobic training seen in the present
study. With the untrained (in the presents studys case,
overweight/obese, sedentary) subjects, the initial stages of
resistance largely involve motor learning and neurological gains.
Most novices are far less accustomed to resistance than aerobic
training modes. They therefore reap less metabolic benefits from
resistance training in the initial stages, which is exactly what's
reflected in the study results. In other words, newbie resistance
trainees are too preoccupied with neural adaptations and the
motor learning curve to really push themselves into making
significant energetic inroads.

This is a clear indication that combining the two (which was

double the time commitment) was not the futile endeavor the
authors portrayed it to be. AT/RT in fact was the top performer
of the three conditions from the standpoint of the collective
changes in fat mass reduction and lean mass gain. Nevertheless,
the final sentiments of the text manage to be not just conflicting
with, but also misguiding in the face of the data:
If increasing muscle mass and strength is the goal, a
program including RT is required. However, balancing time
commitments against health benefits accrued, it appears that
AT alone is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat
mass and total body mass.
Balancing time commitments against health benefits accrued?
Seriously? With the focus of weight/fat loss in mind, if one were
forced to choose a single type of exercise during a prolonged
energy deficit, it would be the one most conducive to preserving
lean mass which obviously is the domain of resistance training.
The way the authors position their concluding application is
rather ludicrous, considering their mentioning of health benefits
accrued, which is highly dismissive of the myriad health
benefits of preserving or gaining muscle tissue in the face of fat
loss. In addition to its superior improvement of bone status
compared to aerobic training,10,11 resistance training has recently
been building a positive track record for improving measures of
glycemic control and preventing processes involved in the
metabolic syndrome.12-14 Clearly, the authors line of thinking
was myopic when crafting their conclusions.

A final issue worth touching upon is the tendency for the present
study (and others with similar design) to create a false
dichotomy between resistance and aerobic training. Contrary to a
strictly binary view of training modes, there exists whats been
called the strength-endurance continuum,22 where infinitely
variable points exist between training for maximal strength and
maximal endurance. Its entirely possible to blur the line
between the two training modes. Think of Crossfit or any
variation on the circuit training theme. Any time exercises are
staggered so that minimal rest between sets is allowed,
cardiorespiratory stimuli will be heightened, and a broader range
within the strength-endurance continuum will be covered
simultaneously. Along these lines, Alcaraz et al recently found
that high-resistance circuit training (35-sec rest intervals)
matched traditional strength training (3-minute rest intervals) for
increasing upper & lower-body 1RM and lean mass.23
Interestingly, only high-resistance circuit training reduced fat
mass, although its possible that this was a Type I (false
positive) error due to the small sample size compromising
statistical power. It could also have been due to a complete lack
of dietary control. It was an interesting set of outcomes
nevertheless. Refer to the July 2011 issue of AARR for an indepth critique of this study. Hopefully well see more of these
types of comparisons in future investigations, including
resistance vs. aerobic training, as in the present study.

This study adds to the limited & heterogeneous body of research

comparing the effect of resistance versus aerobic training on
body composition, whose results have been almost evenly
mixed. Some studies have observed the fat loss superiority of
resistance training compared to aerobic training.15,16 An equal
number of studies (including the present one) have seen the
opposite fat loss superiority of aerobic training compared to
resistance training.17,18 The largest proportion of studies in this
area by a slight lead have not detected significant differences in
fat loss between the modes of exercise.19-21 The three common
threads running through this area of research are: 1) resistance
training is superior to aerobic training for preserving or gaining
lean mass, which tends to level the field when proportional
changes in body fat percent are compared; 2) treatments
Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 7

Effects of low-carbohydrate diets versus low-fat diets

on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled clinical trials.
Hu T, Mills KT, Yao L, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, Yancy WS
Jr, Kelly TN, He J, Bazzano LA. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct
1;176 Suppl 7:S44-54 [PubMed]
PURPOSE: The effects of low-carbohydrate diets (45% of energy
from carbohydrates) versus low-fat diets (30% of energy from fat)
on metabolic risk factors were compared in a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials DESIGN Twenty-three trials from
multiple countries with a total of 2,788 participants met the
predetermined eligibility criteria (from January 1, 1966 to June 20,
2011) and were included in the analyses. Data abstraction was
conducted in duplicate by independent investigators. Both lowcarbohydrate and low-fat diets lowered weight and improved
metabolic risk factors. RESULTS: Compared with participants on
low-fat diets, persons on low-carbohydrate diets experienced a
slightly but statistically significantly lower reduction in total
cholesterol (2.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 0.8, 4.6), and low
density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence
interval: 1.0, 6.4), but a greater increase in high density lipoprotein
cholesterol (3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 4.7) and a
greater decrease in triglycerides (-14.0 mg/dL; 95% confidence
interval: -19.4, -8.7). Reductions in body weight, waist
circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not
significantly different between the 2 diets. CONCLUSIONS: These
findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective
as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk
factors. Low-carbohydrate diets could be recommended to obese
persons with abnormal metabolic risk factors for the purpose of
weight loss. Studies demonstrating long-term effects of lowcarbohydrate diets on cardiovascular events were warranted.
SPONSORSHIP: Supported by grant K08 HL091108 from the
National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.

Study strengths
The sheer volume of data comparing the effects
of diets of varying macronutrient composition
on health markers is enormous. This metaanalysis is a welcomed attempt to make sense
of the sprawling data and quantify the relative
effectiveness of the two main types low-fat
and low-carb. This is also a timely study, since
the diet wars are in high gear in light of the
newest generation of carbophobic best-selling
popular diet books. As the authors pointed out,
a strength of this design were its large sample
size (2788 subjects), which allowed for the
detection of statistically significant mean
differences, subgroup & sensitivity analyses,
and the assessment of publication bias. Only randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) lasting a minimum of 6 months were
included.

analysis indicated that this dropout rate did not significantly

influence the outcomes. Another limitation was the
heterogeneity in metabolic risk factors across studies.
Publication bias could have influenced the lipid profile
outcomes. I would add that the results of this analysis are
potentially limited to the subject profiles, which largely do not
reflect trained, athletic subjects involved with regular, rigorous
exercise. Most of the subjects were obese or overweight, so the
applicability of the outcomes to fitness-oriented populations is
speculative. Last but not least, the majority of the studies had
subjects buy and prepare their own food. This leaves room for
measurement and/or reporting error and compliance challenges.
Comment/application
The main findings were: 1) low-fat diets were slightly more
effective at lowering total cholesterol and LDL-c; 2) low-carb
diets were more effective at increasing HDL-c and decreasing
triglycerides; 3) neither diet was more effective than the other at
reducing bodyweight, waist girth, blood pressure, glucose, and
insulin levels. Interestingly, subgroup analyses (gender, diabetic
status, level of carbohydrate restriction, study duration), did not
detect any significant differences in most of the metabolic risk
factor reductions between diets. Subjects who were on low-carb
diets for more than a year lost more bodyweight than those on
low-fat diets. Also, weight loss was greater on very-lowcarbohydrate diets (60 grams per day or less). Importantly, none
of these weight loss differences reached statistical significance
when adjusted for multiple testing. This general lack of
difference between diet types is striking since protein intake is
not always matched (low-carb diets tend to be higher in protein).
Sensitivity & subgroup analyses were useful and important since
a wide range of carbohydrate proportions (4 to 45%, weighted
mean of 23%) were included in the low-carb diet condition. In a
subgroup comparison of very low-carbohydrate (less than or
equal to 60 g) and moderate low-carbohydrate (more than 60
g), the differences were minor overall, and particularly small
regarding weight loss and waist circumference:

As acknowledged by the authors, there were substantial losses of

participants upon follow-up, and half of the studies in the metaanalysis had sub-70% retention rates. Despite this, sensitivity

The authors concluded, Low carbohydrate diets had beneficial

effects on weight loss and metabolic risk factors, and these
effects were comparable to those seen on low-fat diets. [...]
Dietary recommendations for weight loss should be revisited to
consider additional evidence of the benefits of low-carbohydrate
diets. Theyre pleading a case for low-carb diets as a viable
option despite conventional high-carb/low-fat guidelines. This
study also strengthens the case for personal preference, showing
that widely ranging carb & fat intakes can yield similar results.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Study limitations

Page 8

Effects of gum Arabic ingestion on body mass index

and body fat percentage in healthy adult females: twoarm randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind
trial.
Babiker R, Merghani TH, Elmusharaf K, Badi RM, Lang F,
Saeed AM. Nutr J. 2012 Dec 15;11(1):111. [Epub ahead of
print] [PubMed]
BACKGROUND: Gum Arabic (acacia Senegal) is a complex
polysaccharide indigestible to both humans and animals. It has
been considered as a safe dietary fiber by the US Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) since the 1970s. Although its effects were
extensively studied in animals, there is paucity of data on its
quantified use in humans. This study sought to determine effects
of regular Gum Arabic (GA) ingestion on body mass index and
body fat percentage among healthy adult females. METHODS:
A two-arm randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial
was conducted in the Department of Physiology at the Khartoum
University. A total of 120 healthy females completed the study.
They were divided to two groups: A test group of 60 volunteers
receiving GA (30 gm /day) for 6 weeks and a placebo group of
60 volunteers receiving pectin (1 gm/day) for the same period of
time. Weight and height were measured before and after
intervention using standardized height and weight scales. Skin
fold thickness was measured using Harpenden Skin fold caliper.
Fat percentage was calculated using Jackson and Pollock 7
caliper method and Siri equation. RESULTS: Pre and post
analysis among the study group showed significant reduction in
BMI by 0.32 (95%CI: 0.17 to 0.47; P<0.0001) and body fat
percentage by 2.18% (95%CI: 1.54 to 2.83; P<0.0001) following
regular intake of 30 gm /day Gum Arabic for six weeks. Side
effects caused by GA ingestion were experienced only in the
first week. They included unfavorable viscous sensation in the
mouth, early morning nausea, mild diarrhea and bloating
abdomen. CONCLUSIONS: GA ingestion causes significant
reduction in BMI and body fat percentage among healthy adult
females. The effect could be exploited in the treatment of
obesity. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study strengths
This study innovates in the sense that its the first to ever
examine the effect of supplemental gum arabic (GA) on human
body composition. The trial was randomized, double-blind, and
placebo controlled. Sample size was methodically determined,
and relatively large (120 subjects). This study is conceptually
important given the world-wide prevalence of obesity and the
need for safe therapies to alleviate it.

dietary fibers. Another limitation was a set of side-effects that

were either completely absent or not significantly apparent in the
placebo condition (nausea, diarrhea, unfavorable viscous
mouthfeel, abdominal bloating, and flatulence). However, the
above side-effects reportedly lasted only the first week.
A profound limitation was the complete lack of dietary tracking
& reporting. Subjects were instructed to consume their habitual
diets. Given the nature of this study, the minimum dietary
variable that should have been controlled (or at least accounted
for to rule out confounding differences) was fiber intake.
Subjects were instructed to abstain from exercise during the
length of the study. While this removes potential confounding
variability in energy expenditure, it also compromises the
studys relevance to nonsedentary populations. Another
limitation was the use of skinfold calipers to assess body
composition,
which
introduces
the
potential
for
human/technician error. A better (but less accessible & more
expensive) alternative would have been dual x-ray
absorptiometry (DXA) or hydrodensitiometry. A final limitation
was the short trial duration (6 weeks).
Comment/application

As seen above, the main findings were that the GAsupplemented group significantly reduced body fat and BMI
compared to placebo. Since diet was not tracked or assessed, its
impossible to assess whether GA affected energy expenditure or
intake. Recent evidence points to the latter. Calame et al24 found
that after 3 hours of ingestion, two brands of GA brands
(EmulGold & PreVitae) reduced intake by 100 and 200 kcal
respectively, at doses of 40 g. At doses of 10 or 20 g, energy
intake was reduced by more than 100 kcal. At doses of 5 and 10
g of EmulGold, intake reduction was more than 60 kcal.

The authors expressed that a limitation was not exploring the

mechanism, which could potentially have been done by
measuring leptin levels. Another limitation they acknowledged
was the high dose of GA (30 g) was much higher than the
placebo (2 g pectin). This likely rendered a significant imbalance
in total fiber intake between conditions, which makes it
impossible to determine whether GA is a special fiber
compared to more commonly available (& less expensive)

Given the aforementioned figures, its reasonable to speculate

that over the 6 week period, GA dosed at a total of 40 g/day,
taken in two separate doses, could have boosted satiety and
curbed energy intake to the tune of about 100-200 kcal/day,
which over the course of 6 weeks would amount to 4200-8400
kcal, or roughly 1.2-2.4 lb or 0.6-1.1 kg (assuming 3500 kcal/lb).
Falling almost exactly in the middle of this range, the GA group
in the present study lost 0.82 kg while the placebo group gained
0.19 kg. But once again, without any control of dietary factors,
big expectations of GA as an effective weight loss supplement
just doesnt have enough grounding yet. Replication with tighter
control of energy intake and output (& more sophisticated body
composition assessment) would add strength to the evidence
basis of GA, which is attractive due to its relative safety. Just
dont plan any hot dates within the first week of taking it, unless
your date doesnt mind noxious gastrointestinal fumes.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Study limitations

Page 9

Effects of brown rice on apparent digestibility and

balance of nutrients in young men on low protein
diets.
Miyoshi H, Okuda T, Okuda K, Koishi H. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol
(Tokyo). 1987 Jun;33(3):207-18. [PubMed]
PURPOSE: The effect of brown rice with low protein intake
was studied in five healthy young men. METHODS: Feces
were weighed, the digestibility of nutrients was determined, and
blood tests were made. Each subject followed a diet consisting
mainly of polished rice for 14 days and one consisting mainly of
brown rice for 8 days. Both diets contained 0.5 g protein per kg
of body weight. The brown rice diet had 3 times as much dietary
fiber as the polished rice diet. RESULTS: On the brown rice
diet, fecal weight increased, and apparent digestibility of energy,
protein, and fat decreased, as did the absorption rates of Na, K,
and P. The nitrogen balance was negative on both diets, but
more negative on the brown rice diet. The phosphorus balance
on the brown rice diet was significantly negative, but other
minerals were not affected by the diet. The levels of cholesterol
and minerals in the plasma were not significantly different on
the polished rice diet and the brown rice diet. CONCLUSION:
Comparing these results with data on standard protein intake
(Miyoshi, H. et al (1986) J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol., 32, 581-589.),
we concluded that brown rice reduced protein digestibility and
nitrogen balance. SPONSORSHIP: [information unavailable]

As seen in the chart, the rice-based diets were strictly

experimental, and thus unrealistically low in protein (0.5 g/kg).
This carries obvious relevance limits to real-world diets.
However, to the authors credit, they explicitly stated that their
aim was, ...to study the situation common in developing
countries where nutrition is poor and diets contain high fiber but
little protein (especially animal protein). A final limitation is
that nitrogen balance is a rather crude measure of the bodys
anabolic/catabolic status. It tends to underestimate losses of
muscle protein. To quote an elegant narrative review by Wolfe,25
Use of nitrogen balance may well be appropriate for
establishing the nitrogen or amino acid requirements
necessary to prevent deficiency, but it is likely inadequate to
establish intakes that are optimal for maximizing muscle
mass, strength, and metabolic function. This is because
individuals can adapt to suboptimal protein intakes by
reducing nitrogen excretion.

Its safe to assume that the authors of this study were unaware of
the rabid fanbase brown rice has in the health & fitness
community at large. Brown rice is commonly believed to be
nutritionally superior to white rice; the clean version. White
rice is often perceived as too refined to be deemed a health food.
Therefore, this relatively ancient study has modern-day
relevance. Care was taken to match the macronutrient content of
both conditions (the white rice diet was supplemented with rice
oil to match the fat content of brown rice).

In rather poignant support of the point, Wolfe cites classic

literature by Winick describing the dietary, clinical,
hematological, and metabolic details of Jews incarcerated in the
Warsaw ghetto and being starved to death by the Nazis.26 The
prisoners under clinical examination had a daily protein
consumption of 20-40 g from vegetable sources. Wolfe makes
the point that these prisoners maintained positive nitrogen
balance in the midst of severe starvation until shortly before
death. Nitrogen excretion was greatly reduced in these subjects
despite their compromised survival. A less extreme example of
nitrogen balances misrepresentation of anabolic status is a study
by Walberg et al, who compared the effects of two protein intake
levels in weight lifters placed under hypocaloric conditions.27
Subjects with the higher protein intake (1.6 g/kg) lost less lean
mass than those with the lower intake (0.8 g/kg). The clincher
here is that nitrogen balance was positive (4.13 g/day) in the
higher-protein condition despite a loss of fat-free mass. Its clear
that if nitrogen balance studies underestimate protein needs for
basic health, they are even more likely to underestimate protein
needs for optimizing athletic goals that involve increased
performance and gain/preservation of lean mass.

Study limitations

Comment/application

Sample size was small (5 subjects), which compromises

statistical power, and thus challenges the ability to make
inferences about the effect on a larger population. The duration
of each condition was short and not evenly matched; 14 days on
a polished (white) rice diet, and 8 days on a brown rice diet. the
diets themselves, although purposely designed as such, do not at
all represent what would be consumed by health-conscious,
industrialized populations. The diets were comprised of rice,
with a small amount of added fat (corn oil), along with
supplemental essential micronutrients. See below, note that NDF
is neutral detergent fiber, PR = polished rice, BR = brown rice.

The main findings were that, 1) the brown rice diet caused
greater bodily nitrogen losses than the white rice diet; 2) the
brown rice diet decreased the absorption/utilization of protein,
fat, total energy, sodium, potassium, and phosphorus; 3) the
brown rice diet increased fecal weight. The authors speculated
that the increased fecal weight, decreased digestibility of
nutrients, and strong negative effect on protein metabolism was
most likely due the greater fiber content of brown rice.
Furthermore, other factors such as higher phytate and differences
in lipids could have contributed to the anti-nutritional effects.
Similar results directly comparing the nutrient bioavailability of
brown & white rice have been reported by Callegaro Mda &
Tirapegui.28 Therefore, while the present studys outcomes have
limited relevance in the context of diets that are
macronutritionally sound, the data is contradictory to the dogma
that brown rice is the healthier choice over white. As
demonstrated, this is not necessarily true. In fact, white rice was
the superior performer here. Ultimately, within well-balanced
diets, personal preference should dictate the choice of white
versus brown rice.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Study strengths

Page 10

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SM, Loenneke JP,
Anderson JC. Concurrent training: a meta-analysis
examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J
Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26(8):2293-307. [PubMed]
Atherton PJ, Babraj J, Smith K, Singh J, Rennie MJ,
Wackerhage H. Selective activation of AMPK-PGC-1alpha
or PKB-TSC2-mTOR signaling can explain specific
adaptive responses to endurance or resistance training-like
electrical muscle stimulation. FASEB J. 2005; 19(7):786-8.
[PubMed]
Gibala M. Molecular responses to high-intensity interval
exercise. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009; 34(3):428-32.
[PubMed]
Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Gustafsson T, Tesch
PA. Aerobic exercise alters skeletal muscle molecular
responses to resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2012; 44(9):1680-8. [PubMed]
Adams G, Bamman MM. Characterization and regulation of
mechanical
loading-induced
compensatory
muscle
hypertrophy.
Comprehensive
Physiology.
2012;
2829(2970). [Comp Phys]
Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Fielding RA, Fiatarone MA,
Evans WJ, Roubenoff R. Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr
longitudinal study. J Appl Physiol. 2000; 88(4):1321-6.
[PubMed]
Clarkson PM, Nosaka K, Braun B. Muscle function after
exercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 1992; 24(5):512-20. [PubMed]
Nosaka K, Newton M, Sacco P. Delayed-onset muscle
soreness does not reflect the magnitude of eccentric
exercise-induced muscle damage. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
2002; 12(6):337-46. [PubMed]
Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and
their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res.
2010; 24(10):2857-72. [PubMed]
Gmez-Cabello A, Ara I, Gonzlez-Agero A, Casajs JA,
Vicente-Rodrguez G. Effects of training on bone mass in
older adults: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2012 Apr
1;42(4):301-25. [PubMed]
Marques EA, Wanderley F, Machado L, Sousa F, Viana JL,
Moreira-Gonalves D, Moreira P, Mota J, Carvalho J.
Effects of resistance and aerobic exercise on physical
function, bone mineral density, OPG and RANKL in older
women. Exp Gerontol. 2011 Jul;46(7):524-32. doi:
10.1016/j.exger.2011.02.005. Epub 2011 Feb 23. [PubMed]
Bweir S, Al-Jarrah M, Almalty AM, Maayah M, Smirnova
IV, Novikova L, Stehno-Bittel L. Resistance exercise
training lowers HbA1c more than aerobic training in adults
with type 2 diabetes. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2009 Dec
10;1:27. [PubMed]
Arora E, Shenoy S, Sandhu JS. Effects of resistance training
on metabolic profile of adults with type 2 diabetes. Indian J
Med Res. 2009 May;129(5):515-9. [PubMed]
Sundell J. Resistance Training Is an Effective Tool against
Metabolic and Frailty Syndromes. Adv Prev Med.
2011;2011:984683. doi: 10.4061/2011/984683. Epub 2010
Dec 13. [PubMed]

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

15. Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G,

Kolar M, Yeater R. Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training
combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass
and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr. 1999
Apr;18(2):115-21. [PubMed]
16. Schmitz KH, Hannan PJ, Stovitz SD, Bryan CJ, Warren M,
Jensen MD. Strength training and adiposity in
premenopausal women: strong, healthy, and empowered
study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Sep;86(3):566-72. [PubMed]
17. Willis LH, Slentz CA, Bateman LA, Shields AT, Piner LW,
Bales CW, Houmard JA, Kraus WE. Effects of aerobic
and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in
overweight or obese adults. J Appl Physiol. 2012
Dec;113(12):1831-7. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01370.2011.
Epub 2012 Sep 27. [PubMed]
18. Davidson LE, Hudson R, Kilpatrick K, Kuk JL, McMillan
K, Janiszewski PM, Lee S, Lam M, Ross R. Effects of
exercise modality on insulin resistance and functional
limitation in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Jan 26;169(2):122-31. [PubMed]
19. Geliebter A, Maher MM, Gerace L, Gutin B, Heymsfield
SB, Hashim SA. Effects of strength or aerobic training on
body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen
consumption in obese dieting subjects. Am J Clin Nutr.
1997 Sep;66(3):557-63. [PubMed]
20. Sarsan A, Ardi F, Ozgen M, Topuz O, Sermez Y. The
effects of aerobic and resistance exercises in obese women.
Clin Rehabil. 2006 Sep;20(9):773-82. [PubMed]
21. Sigal RJ, Kenny GP, Boul NG, Wells GA, Prud'homme D,
Fortier M, Reid RD, Tulloch H, Coyle D, Phillips P,
Jennings A, Jaffey J. Effects of aerobic training, resistance
training, or both on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a
randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Sep 18;147(6):35769. [PubMed]
22. Nader GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training:
from molecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006
Nov;38(11):1965-70. [PubMed]
23. Alcaraz PE, et al. Similarity in adaptations to highresistance circuit vs. traditional strength training in
resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Jun 8.
[Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
24. Calame W, Thomassen F, Hull S, Viebke C, Siemensma
AD. Evaluation of satiety enhancement, including
compensation, by blends of gum arabic. A methodological
approach. Appetite. 2011 Oct;57(2):358-64. doi:
10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.005. Epub 2011 Jun 12. [PubMed]
25. Wolfe RR. The underappreciated role of muscle in health
and disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):475-82.
[PubMed]
26. Winick M. Hunger disease. Studies by the Jewish
Physicians in the Warsaw Ghetto. New York, NY: Wiley &
Sons, 1979: 11523. [brief synopsis]
27. Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey SJ,
Sebolt DR. Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet
affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight
lifters. Int J Sports Med. 1988 Aug;9(4):261-6. [PubMed]
28. Callegaro Mda D, Tirapegui J. [Comparison of the
nutritional value between brown rice and white rice]. Arq
Gastroenterol. 1996 Oct-Dec;33(4):225-31. [PubMed]
[Back to Contents]

Page 11

Sports science professor Tim Noakes goes full lowcarb, part 2.

By Alan Aragon

Onward...
Welcome to the continuation of my critique of Tim Noakes laydirected article1 that shook things up in the sports nutrition &
exercise science communities. As with the initial installment, Ill
interject my commentary between key sections of Noakes
colorful epiphany about the evils of carbohydrate.
The fifth point is that this eating plan requires some initial
discipline to be successful. As I have said, it takes discipline to
insurethatwedonotrelapseintoourformeraddiction.Those
who will be the most likely fully to commit to this change are
those who have the greatest reason for and desire to change.
InitiallyIhadthegreatestmotivationtochangeIdonotwant
slowly to degenerate in the demeaning grip of adultonset
diabetes. I then discovered that once I had rid myself of my
addictive food choices especially rapidly assimilated
carbohydrates,IfeltsoincrediblygoodthatIwouldneverwant
togobacktomyformereatingways.

So now I have two reasons to stay with this eating plan a

better(butnotabsolute)prospectoflongtermhealthandthe
vigorousfeelingsofarenewedyouth.

Thepointisthatthegreateronesreasonsforchange,themore
probableitisthatonewillstaywiththeplanlongenoughtosee
these benefits. For the point is that addictions are incredibly
powerful.Andatleastinitiallythebrainwillrebelandproducea
rangeof(fake)symptomsinanattempttokeeponesearching
forthefoodchoicestowhichithasbecomeaddicted.Onehas
to call the brains bluff until eventually it relents and these
addictive drives are replaced with renewed feelings of vigour
andthepowerofcontroloveronesfoodchoices.

weird spelling of the term, vigour). At 64 years old, its

reasonable to accept that the brash, reckless concerns during
younger adulthood give way to a greater openness to enhance
quality and quantity of life into advanced age. I completely
respect this, and am quite happy that he has found a renewed
path to personal enlightenment. However, with very fleeting
exception in this article, he preaches it as the One Best Way.
The sixth point is that many wish to know how this change
might affect their athletic abilities since they have been led to
believe, not least by my writings in Lore of Running, that
without a high carbohydrate intake they will be unable to
exerciseproperly.WhatInowunderstandisthatcarbohydrates
arerelativelyineffectivefuelsforthosewithCRsothatthereis
no risk that the exercise performance of those with CR will be
impairediftheycuttheircarbohydrateintakeashaveI.Instead
IamcertainthatthelesscarbohydratethatthosewithCRingest
(bothintrainingandinracing),thebettertheywillperform.

My experiment has shown me that I can do any amount of

exercise I wish without increasing my carbohydrate intake. (I
walkfor6hoursonthemountainandraceupto21kmwithout
needinganymorethe5075gramsofcarbohydratesadaythat
is already in my diet). We are currently researching a group of
seriousandsomeeliteathleteswhohaveadoptedtheBanting
diet and who have found that their performances have
improved substantially with weight loss and reduction of their
carbohydrate intakes both before and during racing. We need
tounderstandwhythisispossible.

Its one thing to offer personal testimony, but another thing

entirely to imply that its optimal for all. Noakes is describing
his training success with carbohydrate restriction, but notice that
the training he outlines is specific to his interests, which are
centered on prolonged endurance activity. His goals, objectives,
and habits do not necessarily apply to the full spectrum of fitness
goals. Another important detail is that Noakes has been involved
with endurance competition for a minimum of 3 decades.
Experienced trainees are less susceptible to alterations in dietary
or supplemental protocols. Also, the weight loss he has recently
experienced undoubtedly played a substantial role in his ability
to maintain his endurance performance despite changes in diet
composition. This helped fuel his excitement and resolve in the
magic of carbohydrate restriction as not just a panacea, but also
an ergogenic tactic. He has been touting his in-progress research
on elite endurance athletes adopting a low-carb regime, and I
anxiously await its publication.

Here, Noakes continues his lengthy sermon on food addiction. In

Part 1, I reviewed the literature on this topic, and food
consistently falls short of fulfilling the fundamental criteria of
the drug addiction model.2,3 Nevertheless, I find it interesting
that Noakes is motivated by feelings of youth and vigor (or the

As provocative as Noakes testimony might be, it still must

contend with the weight of the evidence. An important example
in this regard are East African distance runners, who absolutely
dominate the endurance game. Specifically, middle- and longdistance runners from Kenya and Ethiopia hold over 90% of the
all-time world records and also the current top-10 positions in
world rankings. The dietary habits of elite Ethiopian distance
runners have recently been reported by Beis et al.4 Perhaps to no
ones surprise, the dominant macronutrient by a large margin
was carbohydrate, at 64.3% of total kcal (9.7 g/kg/day). Protein
checked in at 12.4% (1.76 g/kg/day), 76% of which was plantderived. This leaves 23.3% of dietary energy as fat. This is

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 12

clearly not the Atkins/Banting model that Noakes is so in love

with. Take a look at the following table of food sources
consumed by the elite Ethiopian distance athletes. Note injera
is a type of bread made with an indigenous grain called teff):4

insulin-sensitive both and insulin-resistant subjects.7 The insulinsensitive subjects lost almost twice as much weight on the
higher-carb diet than the insulin-sensitive group did on the
lower-carb diet. The converse happened in insulin-resistant
subjects, who lost significantly more weight on the lower-carb
diet than those on the higher-carb diet. Strengthening the validity
of Cornier et als outcomes was the provision of food to the
subjects by the lab, which minimized noncompliance and
reporting error. Unfortunately, body composition was not
measured. Another limitation was the absence of a structured
training program, which through its own insulin-sensitizing
effect, could have diminished the differences between conditions
over time. Its a shame that nearly 8 years has passed since this
studys publication, and no researchers have re-opened this very
intriguing and important line of investigation.
A closing point I want to make has been demonstrated in Hu et
als recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
(reviewed on page 8 of this issue) comparing the effects of lowcarb and low fat diets on metabolic risk factors.8 Despite subtle
differences, in a total of 23 trials (2788 subjects) a rather
anticlimactic lack of significant therapeutic advantage was seen
in any particular type of diet. Notably, the low-carb treatments
ranged from 4 to 45% carbohydrate. This reinforces the principle
that we humans are extremely versatile when it comes to diet.
We can achieve excellent health on a very wide range of
macronutrient compositions. The supremacy of a single type of
diet (e.g., low-carb or low-fat) simply lacks evidence.
In the third and final installment, Ill examine Noakes musings
about overweight cyclists & runners, children & carbs,
assessment of carbohydrate resistance, dietary choices, and
seeking professional nutritional counseling.

Owen Anderson has written a well-referenced lay-friendly

article on the eating practices of the worlds best endurance
athletes that I encourage you to read.5 Anderson has extensively
studied the eating and training habits of some of the worlds top
Kenyan athletes first-hand. Does this mean unequivocally that
the worlds best endurance athletes have optimal eating habits?
No. However, as the saying goes, success leaves clues. But
beyond this, the habits of these athletes happen to fall within
current scientific recommendations for endurance athletes.6
However those who can metabolise carbohydrates efficiently
and who have always been lean despite eating a high
carbohydrate diet may not benefit in any way from this eating
plan.Iwouldnotadviseanyathletewhoisleanandquitehappy
with his or her weight and performances to change to this
eatingplansinceitmightnotmakeadifferenceandmighteven
bedetrimental.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.

Noakes T. Tim Noakes on Carbohydrates. June 18, 2012. [Health

24]
Ziauddeen H, et al. Obesity and the brain: how convincing is the
addiction model? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012 Mar 14;13(4):279-86.
[PubMed]
Benton D. The plausibility of sugar addiction and its role in obesity
and eating disorders. Clin Nutr. 2010 Jun;29(3):288-303. Epub
2009 Dec 28. [PubMed]
Beis LY, Willkomm L, Ross R, Bekele Z, Wolde B, Fudge B,
Pitsiladis YP. Food and macronutrient intake of elite Ethiopian
distance runners. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011 May 19;8:7. doi:
10.1186/1550-2783-8-7. [PubMed]
Anderson O. Eating practices of the best endurance athletes in the
world. Accessed Oct 2012. [Active.com]
Rodriguez NR, DiMarco NM, Langley S; American Dietetic
Association; Dietitians of Canada; American College of Sports
Medicine. 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. [PubMed]
Cornier MA, Donahoo WT, Pereira R, Gurevich I, Westergren R,
Enerback S, Eckel PJ, Goalstone ML, Hill JO, Eckel RH, Draznin
B. Insulin sensitivity determines the effectiveness of dietary
macronutrient composition on weight loss in obese women. Obes
Res. 2005 Apr;13(4):703-9. [PubMed]
Hu T, Mills KT, Yao L, Demanelis K, Eloustaz M, Yancy WS Jr,
Kelly TN, He J, Bazzano LA. Effects of low-carbohydrate diets
versus low-fat diets on metabolic risk factors: a meta-analysis of
randomized controlled clinical trials. Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct
1;176 Suppl 7:S44-54 [PubMed]

It looks like weve arrived at the single moment where Noakes

shows a glimmer of objectivity (be warned that in the next
installment, he dashes this moment of reason quickly). Here,
Noakes concedes that individual response should be taken into
consideration when adopting any given dietary regime. What
immediately comes to mind is Cornier et als comparison of a
higher-carbohydrate/lower-fat diet (60% C, 20% P, 20% F) and
lower-carbohydrate/higher-fat diet (40% C, 20% P, 40% F) on

8.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 13

Is green coffee bean extract worth a try for weight

loss?
By Alan Aragon
____________________________________________________

Ijustboughta90capsulebottleofGreenCoffeeBean
Extract for $25, should I return it (total waste of
money) or might there be a bit of something to this
supplementforweightloss?

Green coffee bean extract (GCE) had been hyped to the high
heavens lately, and its endorsement by Dr. Oz sent its popularity
through the roof. When I saw Starbucks pushing a GCE-based
beverage, I knew that something big was brewing, excuse the
pun. The active compound within GCE is chlorogenic acid (and
its metabolite caffeic acid), which has been shown to influence
glucose and fat metabolism in vitro and in vivo in animals and
humans.1-6 These findings have generated plenty of interest in
G CE's potential as a natural mode of weight loss therapy.
However, the human studies examining GCEs chronic effect on
bodyweight/body composition are scarce. A recent systematic
review/meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials by Onakpoya
et al identified five studies that met initial criteria.7 Two of these
studies were excluded from the analysis one did not measure
bodyweight as an outcome, and one was not randomized. This
left them with three studies to analyze (table here, one of them
isnt even published!). A moderately significant magnitude of
weight loss was seen beyond placebo. However, the authors
were highly critical of the collective body of data on the
following grounds:
All the RCTs involving the use of GCE which have been
conducted so far have very small sample sizes, which
increase the possibility of false positive results.
Two of the RCTs were unclear about drop-outs of
participants from the trial. Furthermore, they did not
indicate intention-to-treat analysis.
All of the trials so far identified have been of very short
duration, leaving open questions about the efficacy and
safety of GCE as a weight reduction agent on the medium to
long-term. To illustrate this, two participants in a study
report dropped out due to adverse events associated with the
intake of GCE.
The effective dosage of GCE for weight loss is not
established. The dosages of GCE reported in most of the
human trials were estimated subjectively, since the GCE
was a component of coffee.
The RCTs identified were not clear on blinding
methodology. None of the RCTs specified how
randomization was carried out. Thus, the internal validity of
these trials is questionable.

The latest study to-date on GCEs weight loss effects was

published after Onakpoya et als meta-analysis. Vinson et al
apparently were aware of the methodological shortcomings of
previous designs, and improved upon them by double-blinding,
imposing a longer duration (22 weeks), and attempting to find a
dose-response (1050 mg verus 700 mg).8 However, sample size
was small, requiring a crossover to alleviate that shortcoming.
Unfortunately, bioelectrical impedance (as opposed to a more
sophisticated method such as DXA) was used to assess body
composition. Nevertheless, significant bodyweight and body fat
reductions were seen in both doses of GCE (detailed chart here).
Suspiciously, the authors did not disclose the funding source of
this study.
So, is GCE worth a try as a weight loss supplement? Anything
thats safe is worth a try if the data is compelling (for example,
proper training & diet). In the case of GCE, long-term safety is
not established, and the evidence is not compelling. Not yet,
anyway.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Johnston KL, Clifford MN, Morgan LM. Coffee acutely

modifies gastrointestinal hormone secretion and glucose
tolerance in humans: glycemic effects of chlorogenic acid
and caffeine. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Oct;78(4):728-33.
[PubMed]
Rodriguez de Sotillo DV, Hadley M, Sotillo JE. Insulin
receptor exon 11+/- is expressed in Zucker (fa/fa) rats, and
chlorogenic acid modifies their plasma insulin and liver
protein and DNA. J Nutr Biochem. 2006 Jan;17(1):63-71.
Epub 2005 Jul 27. [PubMed]
Shimoda H, Seki E, Aitani M. Inhibitory effect of green
coffee bean extract on fat accumulation and body weight
gain in mice. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006 Mar
17;6:9. [PubMed]
Li SY, Chang CQ, Ma FY, Yu CL. Modulating effects of
chlorogenic acid on lipids and glucose metabolism and
expression of hepatic peroxisome proliferator-activated
receptor-alpha in golden hamsters fed on high fat diet.
Biomed Environ Sci. 2009;22:122129.[PubMed]
Narita Y, Inouye K. Kinetic analysis and mechanism on the
inhibition of chlorogenic acid and its components against
porcine pancreas alpha-amylase isozymes I and II. J Agric
Food Chem. 2009 Oct 14;57(19):9218-25. doi:
10.1021/jf9017383. [PubMed]
Murase T, Misawa K, Minegishi Y, Aoki M, Ominami H,
Suzuki Y, Shibuya Y, Hase T. Coffee polyphenols suppress
diet-induced body fat accumulation by downregulating
SREBP-1c and related molecules in C57BL/6J mice. Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jan;300(1):E122-33. doi:
10.1152/ajpendo.00441.2010. Epub 2010 Oct 13.
[PubMed]
Onakpoya I, Terry R, Ernst E. The use of green coffee
extract as a weight loss supplement: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Gastroenterol
Res
Pract.
2011;2011.
pii:
382852.
doi:
10.1155/2011/382852. Epub 2010 Aug 31. [PubMed]
Vinson JA, Burnham BR, Nagendran MV. Randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover
study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee
bean extract in overweight subjects. Diabetes Metab Syndr
Obes. 2012;5:21-7. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S27665. Epub
2012 Jan 18. [PubMed]

The authors of this meta-analysis concluded that although GCE

was found to positively affect weight loss, all of the GCE studies
were of poor methodological quality and were associated with a
high risk of bias, including commercial interest. Until more
rigorous trials are done, they feel that the usefulness of GCE is
still open to question.

8.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 14

Here is a nice article on what characterizes good

teachers/trainers, by Lenny Kravitz (the professor of exercise
science, not the 90s pop star).

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.

Alan Aragons Research Review October 2012

[Back to Contents]

Page 15