workout911.com

In case you don’t know, Alan Aragon is a popular expert on nutrition in general, and sports nutrition, in particular. I’ve seen several of Alan’s articles over the years on various internet sites (including one I mentioned in a recent post on How Many Meals A Day Should You Eat) and have always been impressed with his evidence-based approach. Recently I became aware that he publishes a monthly e-zine called, not surprisingly, Alan Aragon’s Research Review (AARR). I subsequently received a copy of the latest issue of AARR, for reasons which I will describe shortly. After reading through the publication, I thought I would share my views on it.

According to Alan’s website, AARR is “is an unbiased monthly critical analysis and application of the latest research pertaining to nutrition, exercise, and supplementation. This journal is designed to help the reader develop a solid understanding of important topics in fitness that are widely misunderstood. Overall, the goal is to provide a unique science & practice-based, multi-topic, bias-free, commercial-free, in-depth, ongoing resource of information.” Pretty lofty goals. Question is, does it deliver as promised?

Each issue of AARR apparently follows a similar format. It begins with an “Editors Cut.” Here Alan dissects a recently published peer-reviewed article. It is an in depth critical analysis where the respective article’s strengths and weaknesses are discussed at length (spanning several pages). The segment concludes with Alan providing his opinion of the article’s validity as well as commenting on any relevant practical applications. Alan is frank in his analysis; he says what he feels.

Of note, the subject of “Editors Cut” in the issue I received was actually an article of mine, recently published in the Strength and Conditioning Journal. He was nice enough to send along a copy so I could see his commentary on my article. He invited me to submit a rebuttal to his criticisms, if I so desired. I did. The gesture was appreciated.

Next up are several shorter reviews of published articles (usually one page in length). These reviews are segmented into three categories: Nutrition and Exercise, Supplementation, and a “Less Recent Gem” which, as the name implies, looks at an article published in the distant past. Although Alan does not go into the detail that he does in the “Editors Cut” section, the reviews are nevertheless quite detailed. He delves into the strengths and weaknesses of each study and makes practical applications where relevant.

The last article in AARR is called “In the Lay Press.” This segment evaluates a non-refereed consumer-oriented article with the same scrutiny afforded peer-reviewed publications. This is especially apt given the pomp and hype surrounding so many articles appearing on the web and in the muscle rags. Given the lack of peer-review in these articles, there is a lot more for Alan to pick apart…and he does so without pulling any punches.

What is my overall impression of AARR? Plain and simple, it’s one of the most definitive resources on nutrition that I’ve seen. Alan is extremely knowledgeable about the subject and obviously keeps up with current research (which sadly is rare, even amongst many nutritional professors). What’s more, Alan understands how to critically evaluate research studies with respect to internal and external validity, providing appropriate recommendations on their relevance. Just as importantly, he provides information in a completely unbiased manner without allegiances to any food or supplement industry companies (as is the case with many so-called “experts in the field). The content is good, the writing is good, and the recommendations are solid. It’s a winning combination.

As for my article, his review was very balanced and fair. He actually pointed out several things that, in retrospect, I should have clarified to a greater extent. It would have strengthened the article. I could have quibbled over a few of his criticisms, but these would have debatable points. Most importantly, I learned from the experience, which is what science is all about.

In conclusion, I would highly recommend AARR for anyone who wants the straight facts about nutrition, particularly as it relates to those involved in exercise programs. You can view a sample copy here and see for yourself if it is worth the investment.

Stay Fit!

Brad

DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with AARR and, as is my policy, receive no compensation of any kind from its sale or proceeds.

Check out the T-Nation article I wrote with my good friend and colleague Bret Contreras titled, Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters. We really worked hard to provide an evidence-based evaluation of the topic. Hope you enjoy it!

Here is the link:

Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters.

Stay Fit!

Brad

Fructose is a simple sugar (a monosaccharide, in technical terms) that has been the subject of a great deal of recent nutritional controversy. Alarmist websites, Youtube videos, and even some peer-reviewed research papers have railed against the consumption of fructose, linking it with obesity and the onset of disease. A popular “health guru” has gone as far to call it the “worst of the worst,” and has suggested that fruit intake be severely curtailed (fructose is found in fruit). Are these claims warranted?

To help clear up the confusion, I consulted with nutrition expert James Krieger. I’ve known James for about a decade, and have found him to be one of the most astute fitness pros around (you might remember that I wrote a post overviewing his meta-analysis about Single vs. Multiple Sets). Here he sets the record straight on what is often a misunderstood topic. I’m sure you’ll find his comments of great interest.

BJS: Thanks for agreeing to do this interview, James. Let’s first start off by telling us about your background.

JK: I am the founder of Weightology, LLC, a website dedicated to providing honest, accurate, evidence-based information on weight management. I have a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Florida, and a second Master’s degree in Exercise Science from Washington State University. I am the former research director for a corporate weight management program that treated over 400 people per year, with an average weight loss of 40 pounds in 3 months. My research papers have been published in journals such as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Applied Physiology. I am also the editor of Journal of Pure Power, an online magazine that delivers scientific information on training and nutrition to athletes and coaches.

BJS: Fructose consumption is a controversial subject these days. How does fructose differ from other simple sugars?

JK: Fructose is much sweeter than other sugars. There are also differences in the way your body metabolizes fructose compared to other sugars. Fructose doesn’t go straight to your bloodstream; instead, it is metabolized by the liver first. The liver can take the fructose, convert it to glucose, and then release that glucose into the blood. It can also take that fructose and store it as glycogen. Finally, it can convert the fructose to fat. It is this conversion to fat that causes a lot of confusion and alarmism.

BJS: There are studies showing that fructose can have a detrimental effect on various markers of health. What’s your take on this?

JK: There certainly are studies showing that fructose can have this detrimental effect. However, these studies have used extremely high doses of fructose. Unfortunately, people have taken this information to the extreme and have concluded that, since high amounts of fructose can be a problem, then any fructose must be a problem. This is simply not the case.

Do we consume too much fructose in our society? Certainly, but we consume too much of everything else too. It is a mistake to try to point the finger at one thing. Anything consumed in excess can be problematic.

BJS: What about the theory that fructose has a greater propensity to be converted into body fat?

JK: This theory unfortunately takes fructose metabolism out of context, and fails to address the bigger picture. People think this because fructose bypasses an important enzyme in the liver, and thus think it is easier to convert the fructose to fat. The problem with this line of thinking is that it fails to address the fact that fructose metabolism changes depending upon the energy state of the body. If you are in an energy deficit, the fructose will not have a greater propensity to be converted to body fat. Rather, it will be directed towards storage as glycogen, or conversion to glucose for energy.

The other problem with this line of thinking is people confuse triglycerides with body fat. If fructose is converted to fat in the liver, it doesn’t mean the fat ends up as body fat. In fact, there is some evidence that fructose is less likely to be converted to body fat. We also have to remember that any fat formed from fructose in the liver can be burned and used for energy. Again, we have to look at the big picture.

BJS: Fruits contain fructose. Should people limit their intake of fruits if they want to lose weight?

JK: As long as you are in an energy deficit, you will lose weight. It doesn’t matter how much fructose you consume. There is no valid scientific reason to limit intake of fruit. Fruit can actually be very beneficial for weight loss because of its fiber content, which makes you feel fuller. It is also low in energy density, and there is a lot of research showing that eating foods that are low in energy density helps promote weight loss.

In the weight management program that I did research for, our clients started the program on high protein shakes sweetened with fructose, and mixed with berries. Our clients were getting a lot of fructose in the diet from the combination of shakes and berries. Yet, they lost tremendous amounts of weight.

BJS: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used in many food products. Is HFCS worse for you than sugar?

JK: There is little difference in the composition of sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Both contain similar amounts of fructose. The only reason manufacturers choose HFCS over regular sugar is because HFCS is cheaper.

When you look at all of the studies that compare sucrose (table sugar) metabolism to HFCS metabolism, they are identical as far as your body is concerned.

BJS: How do you explain the studies showing that obesity rates skyrocketed after the introduction of HFCS?

JK: This research suffers from a fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Just because event B happens after event A, doesn’t mean event A caused event B. Obesity also skyrocketed after the introduction of microwave ovens and VCR’s, but that doesn’t mean microwave ovens and VCR’s cause obesity!

BJS: What about the fact that HFCS isn’t “natural.” Should this matter?

JK: There is no evidence that products that are “natural” are any healthier or safer than products that are not “natural.” For example, there are many natural substances out there that are poisonous or carcinogenic to the human body. Calamus oil, which was a natural food additive before it was banned in 1968, is a carcinogen.

In fact, I often ask people to define what they mean by “natural” and they struggle to do so. If you think about it, there is really no clear cut way to determine what is natural or artificial. For example, aspartame is actually made up of natural ingredients (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol). So why would we call aspartame artificial? Also, we call Stevia natural, but that doesn’t make sense because it requires human intervention to extract it from the stevia herb.

BJS: Anything else you’d like to add on the topic?

JK: I would say that people do not need to worry about moderate fructose consumption. Basically, the idea of “everything in moderation” applies to fructose just like anything else. Thanks for the opportunity to interview!

Check out James’ website at: weightology.net

Check out the Journal of Pure Power at: Journal of Pure Power

I recently wrote about the lack of scientific support for the theory that you should reduce carbs at night . In the same spirit (and by popular request), I thought I’d take the time to tackle another common nutritional theory. Namely, the claim that eating small, frequent meals stokes your metabolism.

I’m sure you’ve heard this one before. Bodybuilders and nutritionists have long preached that spacing out food consumption over five to six small meals a day is optimal for losing body fat. For years I too adhered to this belief. A wealth of emerging research, however, changed my viewpoint.

The strategy to eat small, frequent meals is based on the belief that when you go without eating for more than a few hours, your body senses deprivation and shifts into a “starvation mode.” Part of the starvation response is to decrease resting energy expenditure. In effect, the body slows down its metabolic rate to conserve energy. It’s a logical theory but alas it doesn’t seem to translate into practice, at least in the short-term (i.e. over about a 24 hour period or so). As such, the vast majority of studies examining metabolic rate have failed to show a clear advantage for increasing meal frequency.

On a similar note, the thought that frequent eating enhances the thermic effect of food (TEF)–a measure of the energy expended during digestion–is also flawed. A simple example should make this readily apparent. Let’s say you eat an 1800 calorie diet that averages a 10% TEF. If you space out meals equally so that you eat six times a day, the TEF would look like this:

Meal 1: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 2: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 3: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 4: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 5: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 6: 300 x .10 = 30

Add up the numbers and total expenditure through the TEF will be 180 calories. Now let’s look at the same scenario except eating three times a day rather than six:

Meal 1: 600 x .10 = 60
Meal 2: 600 x .10 = 60
Meal 3: 600 x .10 = 60

Do the math and you’ll see it’s the same 180 calories expended through the TEF. This holds true regardless of how many times a day you eat.

Okay, so perhaps you want to focus on the benefits of more frequent meals on appetite. This is supposedly related to the effect of eating frequency on hormones. For one, it is claimed that large meals cause insulin spikes, which switch on various mechanisms that increase fat storage. The spikes then lead to a crash, where there is a tendency toward hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Hunger pangs ensue and you invariably end up binging out. For another, an absence of frequent food is thought to increase the secretion of a gut hormone called ghrelin. Ghrelin is referred to as the “hunger hormone.” It exerts its effects by slowing down fat utilization and increasing appetite. Without consistent food consumption, ghrelin levels supposedly remain elevated for extended periods of time, increasing the urge to eat.

Frequent meals are purported to counteract these negative effects on hormones. Blood sugar is supposedly better regulated and, because there is an almost constant flow of food into the stomach, the hunger-inducing effects of ghrelin are suppressed, reducing the urge to binge out. Sounds logical, right? Sorry, another instance where logic and reality don’t mesh. Recent studies by Leidy et al. (1, 2) found no difference in appetite in those who consume six meals compared to three. Interesting, the researchers actually showed an increased satiety when the three-meal-a-day group followed a higher protein diet! On the other hand, consuming fewer than three meals a day does seem to have a negative effect on appetite (3), suggesting that this may be the minimum number of daily meals that need to be consumed from an appetite-control standpoint.

But what about body fat? Surely eating more frequently has to increase fat loss by some mechanism. Not! Provided calories are controlled, fat loss is similar between three-meals-a-day versus six-meals-a-day (4) A recent review paper (5) actually found that intermittent fasting–where people abstain from eating for upwards of 24 hours at a time–was equally as effective as caloric restriction in promoting weight loss. Read this again. The fasted subjects didn’t eat for an entire day at a time and still lost weight to a similar degree as those who ate daily meals. Apparently the starvation response is a lot more complex than some will have you believe.

A recent position statement by the International Society of Sports Nutrition covered the subject of meal frequency in detail. I’d highly recommend that you check out Alan Aragon’s critique of this paper for an in depth analysis.

In sum, current evidence doesn’t support the contention that eating more frequently enhances fat loss. Provided you eat a minimum of three meals a day, there does not seem to be any difference if frequency is increased beyond this number. Now this doesn’t mean that eating more frequent meals is a bad thing. I actually prefer a “grazing” schedule and have found it to be an effective eating strategy for my lifestyle. This is a personal choice that works for me. Others might find eating three times a day to be more appropriate.

The most important important factor here seems to be maintaining a regimented eating program–those who keep to a schedule see better results than those who don’t. It also should be pointed out that the majority of research studies have evaluated overweight subjects. Might more frequent meals help to strip away that last pound or two of body fat in otherwise lean individuals? As they say, further research is needed…

Stay Fit!

Brad

1) Leidy HJ, Tang M, Armstrong CL, Martin CB, Campbell WW. The effects of consuming frequent, higher protein meals on appetite and satiety during weight loss in overweight/obese men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Apr;19(4):818-24. PMID:

2) Leidy HJ, Armstrong CL, Tang M, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. The influence of higher protein intake and greater eating frequency on appetite control in overweight and obese men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Sep;18(9):1725-32.

3) Leidy HJ, Campbell WW. The effect of eating frequency on appetite control and food intake: brief synopsis of controlled feeding studies. J Nutr. 2011 Jan;141(1):154-7.

4) Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E. Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101.

5) Varady KA. Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss? Obes Rev. 2011 Mar 17.

Here’s one of my favorite single-joint movements to target the quadriceps. It’s called the sissy squat but it’s definitely not for sissies! You can add resistance by holding a weighted plate or dumbbell against your chest. Alternatively, try supersetting the movement with a multi-joint movement such as a squat, lunge, or leg press. Very effective quad builder!

embedded by Embedded Video

Injuries to the oblique muscles are becoming increasingly more common in baseball. In just the first few weeks of the season, more than a dozen players have experienced oblique strains!

In case you don’t know, the obliques are the “waist” muscles that reside on the sides of your midsection. Given that a primary function of the obliques is to twist the torso to the right or left, an injury will obviously put a crimp in your ability to hit or throw a baseball.

A recent article in the New York Daily News suggested that the dietary supplement creatine may be linked to the current oblique injury epidemic. According to Lewis Maharam, a sports physician and former president of the New York chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine, creatine “adds water molecules to muscle fibers, which causes the fibers to separate. This makes for easier muscle tears and slows the repair process, leaving them on injured reserve longer.”

These are some bold claims. However, with all due respect to Dr. Maharam, I could not locate one peer-reviewed study that even suggests such a cause-effect relationship. Sure, creatine increases intracellular hydration, but this shouldn’t pose any negative effect on muscle tissue. In fact, studies show that increasing water content in a cell has a positive impact on cellular integrity. Hydration-induced cell swelling causes both an increase in protein synthesis and a decrease in protein breakdown, which ultimately strengthens the cell’s ultrastructure (1). If Dr. Maharam or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I would certainly like to see it.

Even more outlandish are the comments in the article by Migdoel Miranda, a personal trainer who apparently works with professional baseball players. Miranda states that “players should limit their use of creatine because it taxes bodies that are already stressed by long baseball seasons.” He then goes on to say that he’s “…not a fan of creatine unless we’re in the offseason. I think creatine should be banned by the team during the season.” Huh? Creatine is simply a high energy compound comprised of amino acids that is stored in muscles and assists in high-intensity exercise bouts. How can such a compound possibly “overtax” an athlete’s body? Again, the statement is completely unsupported by research. Since creatine helps athletes train harder, a case can be made that it may actually reduce the prospect of injury.

There are a couple of take-home messages here. First, just because someone has “credentials” doesn’t necessarily mean that they know what they’re talking about on a given subject. I’ve heard some pretty smart people say some pretty wild things that have no basis in reality–this serves as yet another prime example. Second, newspapers do nothing to check facts. At the very least, you’d have figured that the writer of the article would seek out other sources for confirmation of these claims. Not! The only thing that matters is selling papers. If this can be accomplished by splashing a headline that blames a supplement for sporting injuries, so be it.

Bottom line: There is no evidence I could locate that links creatine to an increased incidence of any type of musculoskeletal injury. The only published side-effects associated with creatine supplementation I’m aware of are some anecdotal reports of cramping, and these claims have recently been refuted (2). If anything, research indicates that creatine may in fact have a protective effect on muscle. It’s difficult to say what’s causing so many oblique injuries in professional baseball, but evidence suggests that creatine is not the culprit.

Stay Fit!

Brad

1) Schliess, F., Häussinger, D. (2002) The cellular hydration state: a critical determinant for cell death and survival. Biol. Chem. 383: 577J583.

2) Dalbo VJ, Roberts MD, Stout JR, Kerksick CM. Putting to rest the myth of creatine supplementation leading to muscle cramps and dehydration Br J Sports Med 2008;42:567-73

A website called dietspotlight.com posted a video review of my book, 28-Day Body Shapeover. I’ve never heard of the site before, but appreciate the positive sentiments!

embedded by Embedded Video

I recently did an interview with my friend and colleague, Nick Tumminello about the pros and cons of the leg extension. On several Facebook pages, the article ruffled the feathers of some who maintain that leg extensions are completely non-functional, dangerous, and an all-around useless exercise. The discussion was interesting, to say the least, and stimulated lots of good info.

Check out the article at Are Leg Extensions Good or Bad, Safe or Dangerous, Effective or a Waste of time, Functional or NonFunctional? – Exercise Expert Brad Schoenfeld has the Surprising Answers! and let me know your thoughts.

Stay Fit!

Brad