May 2016

Powered By

Ditching Diet DogmaBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D

Cutting Through The Crap with ScienceBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D

The Recent Battle over CarbohydratesBy: Brad Dieter Ph.D.

Supp of The Month!By: Brad Dieter, Ph.D.

The Importance of SkepticismBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D

FAT CARBS

Driven By ScienceGuided By Evidence

Bridging the Gap Between Science and

Industry, to Deliver you Evidence-Based Nutrition

Information

2

3

Learn the science & methods behind successful coaching.

The ETP Nutrition Certification Course is a 10 week guided study program that covers everything you must know to get your clients the

results they need. Click below to find out more!

COACHES COURSE

http://bit.ly/1T2NdKg

CONTENTSMain Articles

DepartmentsLetter from the Editor

5

The Battle over CarbsBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D. 6Supp of The Month!By: Brad Dieter, Ph.D. 8

Ditching Diet DogmaBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D. 12Cutting Through the CrapBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D. 21The Importance of SkepticismBy: Brad Dieter, Ph.D.

26

Letter From the Editor

The month of April brought a lot of really big

changes for Science Driven Nutrition. We are

constantly improving, learning, and growing.

There are a lot of changes going on behind that

scenes that will result in massive upgrades in

value to all of you! Stay tuned for those to be

revealed in the coming months.

In this issue we have an Op-Ed on the recent

squabble over the Carbohydrates Insulin

hypothesis that you might find intriguing. It

goes to show that science is awesome, but only

if the question is meaningful.

We also have an article that breaks down the

science of diets and indirectly fleshes out some

of the ideas of the Carbohydrate Insulin

hypothesis. That article, “Ditching Diet Dogma”

is really a call to action for coaches and all

“nutrition” people. It will highlight the fact that

all diets have a place and can be used as

successful tools.

The very last portion of this month’s issue is all

about the importance of being skeptical and

cutting through the crap. Our industry is full of

hyperbole and marketing nonsense that you are

entirely too good for. We want to make sure you

get the raw truth and the tools to be successful.

I also want to take a second to give my sincerest

thank you to you, the reader. It is your support

that allows me to do this and I couldn’t me more

grateful. So sincerely, from me, I say thank you!

Brad Dieter

Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief.

5

6

Op Ed: The Recent Battle Over Carbohydrates

The past month has involved a media frenzy

over the “Carbohydrate-Insulin” hypothesis of

obesity. I have been actively involved in this area

for quite some time and wanted to share my

insights on the recent work and ensuing

discussions surrounding low carb diets providing

a "metabolic advantage".

First we need to place the question in the two

different contexts.

1) There is the scientifically interesting

question: do low carb diets convey some

advantage for fat loss through leveraging

insulin (and other hormones)?

2) Then there is the far more important,

pragmatic question: if there is a said

"metabolic advantage" is it even a meaningful

advantage?

Here is my take on it. First, you need to set your

personal food philosophy aside and take an

honest look at the data. If you do take an honest

look at the cumulative research on the topic a

clear concept emerges. The vast majority of the

data suggests that there is not a metabolic

advantage. However, it is indeed plausible that

there might be a small one.

Now if there is any real “metabolic advantage” or

“hormonal optimization” of certain

macronutrient ratios and/or dietary frameworks,

the effect of that advantage is exceptionally small

when you compare it to dietary adherence,

caloric intake, and caloric expenditure.

Of note, I am incredibly open to this not being

the case; and if there is any compelling data to

suggest that it is, please let me know. If I could

eat an extra 1,000 calories a day of a specific

macro, keep my expenditure the same, and not

see any negative results I would be the first

person on board. Give me the jar of peanut

butter so I can go to town.

Based on the current body of literature, dietary

adherence, calorie balance, and our food

environment are where we should put the

majority of our focus. . .

As practitioners we ought to utilizewhatever

dietary frameworks we know that allow our

clients to reach those goals first.

I remain open to inquiries and thoughtful

questions and discussions on the topic.

7

8

L-CitrullineCitrulline malate is the supplemental form of

the amino acid L-citrulline. L-citrulline’s claim to

fame is its ability to increase performance

during both anaerobic and aerobic training.

Most of the beneficial effects of L-citrulline are

mediated by its ability to reduce fatigue.

Interestingly, L-citrulline is broken down into

two other amino acids that are also taken as

supplements, L-arginine and L-ornithine.

Currently, L-citrulline appears to be one of the

more promising anti-fatigue supplements on

the market.

L-citrulline has been shown to have a myriad of

benefits in humans; including increased training

volume, decreased muscle soreness, decreased

fatigue, and increased blood flow.

In a fairly large (large as far as supplement

research goes) double-blind placebo-controlled

study, 41 participants supplemented with 8mg

of citrulline or placebo and performed 8 sets of

bench press to fatigue. The citrulline group

noticed a drastic improvement (52.92%

increase) of reps they were able to achieve than

the placebo1. In this same study, the group

receiving citrulline noted a 40% decrease in

soreness at 24 and 48 hours compared to the

placebo group. A separate study showed that

supplementing with citrulline decreased fatigue

during a rest-recovery style training protocol2.

9

Another well-known aspect of citrulline is

the breakdown of citrulline into L-arginine.

L-arginine then can be converted into nitric

oxide and increase blood flow. In a small

study of only 8 men, supplementing with 2

and 15g of citrulline increased arginine

levels in the blood, and in a dose

dependent manner3. In a double-blind

placebo-controlled trial of healthy men,

citrulline supplementation did in fact

increase serum nitric oxide and decrease a

measure of arterial stiffness, indicating

possible vasorelaxation4.

Given the large effect of citrulline on

cardiovascular parameters and recent

evidence from individuals with heart failure,

L-citrulline may be an ideal supplement for

individuals with cardiovascular problems5.

Besides changes in fatigue, soreness, and

cardiovascular parameters there may be

some positive effect of citrulline

supplementation on growth hormone. In

one double-blind placebo-controlled study

conducted in 17 young men, 6g of citrulline

prior to exercise increased exercise induced

growth hormone response almost 70%6.

Currently, this aspect of citrulline needs to

be validated with follow-up studies.

10

Bottom Line

Citrulline-malate displays a wide range of

potential benefits from decreasing fatigue and

increasing training volume to improving exercise

capacity in individuals with heart failure. While

there are some reported gastrointenstinal side

effects (similar to creatine), citrulline appears to

be a well-tolerated supplement that has

potential to be on par with creatine and beta-

alanine in terms of efficacy. Doses of

approximately 6 g prior to exercise are the most

common dosages observed in the literature.

Pros

• Increases training volume

• Decreases muscle fatigue and muscle

soreness

• Can improve exercise capacity in healthy and

individuals with heart failure

• May have beneficial effects on growth

hormone

Cons

There are some reports of gastrointestinal

issues similar to those reported by some

users with creatine

References

1. Citrulline malate enhances athletic anaerobic performance and relieves muscle soreness.

2. Citrulline/malate promotes aerobic energy production in human exercising muscle.

3. Dose-ranging effects of citrullineadministration on plasma amino acids and hormonal patterns in healthy subjects: the Citrudosepharmacokinetic study.

4. Short-term effects of L-citrullinesupplementation on arterial stiffness in middle-aged men.

5. Effect of L-arginine or L-citrullineoral supplementation on blood pressure and right ventricular function in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction.

6. L-citrulline-malate influence over branched chain amino acid utilization during exercise.

11

12

Ditching Diet Dogma

Many bar fights have started and

relationships have been ended arguing over

whose diet is best. I mean put a clean

eating person and an IIFYM person in the

same room and only one will leave.

Ok, that is probably hyperbole and it really

isn’t that bad but there is such polarizing

dogma present in the nutrition world that it

can be hard to make sense of the myriad

diet schemes and try to uncover the truth.

About a decade ago I decided I wanted to

find some answers and figure out what the

truth is about diets and weight loss. I want

the real truth, the scientific truth not just

the popularized version of the truth. This

required a solid 10 years learning the ins

and outs of each diet.

Aside from research studies and articles,

personal experience is also a key piece of

understanding diets. To this notion I have also

personally tried each of the major diet

approaches (sans vegan, sorry vegans I tried it

for like 3 days and just couldn’t handle it) so I

could have intimate knowledge of how they

actually work in the real world.

This article is a culmination of about 10 years

of reading, learning, and asking questions. I

am going to give you my honest reflections

and thoughts of a 10 year journey and

elucidate the key principles of diets and

weight loss.

I’ll get this out of the way now; there will be

some anecdotes put forth in here*. Yes, I

know those are poor substitutes for rigorously

controlled studies, but they do give you pause

and should cause you to think and reflect.

13

Diet Paradigms and Their Successes

To start the journey, I think it is only

appropriate to begin by looking at some of

the most popular diets, their basic principles,

and whether they have been successful

PALEO

The Paleolithic Diet, aka the Paleo Diet, is

based upon the idea that our current food

environment is at odds with our evolutionary

heritage and that the optimal diet is to mimic

that of our Paleolithic ancestors.

The basic tenets of this diet are to 1) avoid:

processed foods, grains, legumes, and dairy,

2) consume: lean meats, fruits, vegetables,

and “healthy fat”. Also, calorie counting is

not generally promoted by the Paleo Diet;

food quality is the primary focus.

In general, it adopts a more low-carbohydrate

stance. It tries to minimize starch intake and

often times the types of foods people tend to

consume on a Paleo diet shifts their

macronutrient intake to a high protein, high

fat, low carb diet.

A recent study demonstrated that a 10 day

excursion on a paleo diet was capable of improving

insulin sensitivity and favorably altered blood

triglycerides (1). Another study showed that a Paleo

diet lead to improvements in glycemic control and

cardiovascular risk factors in patients with T2DM.

Importantly, they also showed that the Paleo Diet

led to “spontaneous caloric restriction” (2).

IIFYM/FLEXIBLE DIETING

If it fits your macros (IIFYM)/ Flexible Dieting is

based solely on the concept of calories in vs

calories out. Weight loss and body composition are

simply a math equation. You use a calculator to

determine your energy needs and then just eat

foods to fill those exact numbers.

The type of foods you eat don’t matter in the

equation. 100 grams of carbohydrates from a sweet

potato and from pixie sticks are equivalent.

Essentially, a calorie is a calorie and it doesn’t

matter where it comes from.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any well

conducted trials on “calorie based weight loss”

irrespective of food quality to present; however

there are some interesting case studies to suggest

the notion of a calorie is a calorie holds at least

some water in this debate. Personally, I find the

“Professor loses 27 pounds by eating only Twinkies”

self-experiment rather interesting and shows us that

weight loss on “junk food” is actually possible. Ideal,

No. Possible, Yes.14

KETOGENIC

The Ketogenic diet is based on a

physiological mechanism by which

restricting carbohydrates causes your body

to run primarily on fat and induces the

process of nutritional ketosis. During ketosis

your liver produces ketones for your brain

and other select tissues to run on instead of

glucose.

Consuming a high amount of dietary fat and

a low amount of dietary carbohydrate are

the key features of a ketogenic diet. Exactly

how high fat and low carb? Traditional,

strict, ketogenic diets are structured with

about 70-75% of your daily caloric intake

coming from fat and about 5% from

carbohydrates. The range of carbohydrates

you can consume and stay in ketosis varies

from person to person but you can usually

eat up to about 12% of your daily caloric

intake and stay in nutritional ketosis.

Practically, consuming protein about .8

grams per pound is enough to kick you out

of ketosis.

So ideally, to optimize a ketogenic state and

maintain lean mass your diet should be

about 75% fat, 5% carbohydrates, and 20%

protein.

In one study, a short term (4 week), high-

protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet

reduced hunger, led to spontaneously lower

food intake, and induced a roughly 12 pounds

weight loss in seventeen obese men were

studied in a residential trial (5). Another study

demonstrated that a ketogenic diet was more

effective than a low-fat diet at for weight loss

(9.9 lbs in ketogenic vs. 4.4 pounds in low-fat)

(6)

SOME INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

Lets stop and take a quick recap.

• Each of these seemingly disparate diet

philosophies was able to induce weight loss and

improve health markers in-either research

studies, clinical trials, or case studies.

• In virtually all cases weight loss was

commensurate with calorie reduction, either

spontaneous or forced.

•While calorie intake appears to be a major

driving in weight loss in these studies, it appears

that the quality of food, and maybe the type of

macronutrients you consume can influence the

degree of weight loss and impact health

parameters (i.e. blood biochemistry, insulin

signaling, markers of heart disease, etc.)

15

Part II: A Deeper Examination of Diet

Principles

What I hope was clear from Part I is that

each of these diets are quite different from

each other, yet they all appear to be able to

induce weight loss and improve health.

How is that possible? Lets dive into it.

On the surface, these diets often fall into

two camps: 1) it’s all about calories (i.e.

IIFYM, Weight Watchers), or 2) its all about

food quality (i.e. Clean Eating, Paleo).

The issue is often polarized, with people

adopting a stance at either end of the

spectrum. Well, as with most things the real

truth is in the middle: Calories play a huge

role in your weight, but the composition of

your food also dictates it.

CALORIES AND OBESITY

The idea of caloric balance is not a new

one; it has been around for millennia. The

ancient Greeks had a very good

understanding that eating too much

resulted in weight gain and advised

moderate food consumption.

The foundation of the argument for caloric

balance being the driving causative factor in

weight gain or weight loss is

thermodynamics.

Put simply, the first law of thermodynamics

is that energy cannot be created or

destroyed, simply converted. The reasoning

then follows if we consume more energy

than we expend we must store it in the

form of fat (our bodies most stable way to

store excess energy).

This argument does indeed hold merit.

When we really look through the literature

it is abundantly clear that hypercaloric

states can lead to weight gain while

hypocaloric diets can lead to weight loss. It

appears as though regardless of the

macronutrientapproach you take, altering

the quantity and quality of your diet can

result in weight loss (8).

16

In fact, most successful dietary protocols,

be it low-carb, high-protein, low-fat, etc.,

one of the underlying themes is that the

successful studies tend to reduce overall

caloric intake.

Many studies, including one mentioned

above, state that non-energy restricted

“macronutrient shuffling” can result in

weight loss. However, although they are not

restricting energy on the face, they often

are reducing their overall caloric intake,

which research refers to as “spontaneous

caloric restriction”. Simply put, people just

naturally consumed less calories.

To sum up this part, calories do matter, they

matter a whole lot; however the story isn’t

as simple as calories-in and calories-out,

especially when it comes to weight-loss.

When you look at all the research combined

that is precisely what you find. Both the

quantity and quality of what you eat play a

role in both weight gain and health: it is an

intricate dance of the two.

The Battle for Macros

Clearly calories matter, however I believe at

this point the greatest point of contention in

the nutrition sphere is the macronutrient ratio.

Let us ditch the dogma and instead use the

scientific evidence to substantiate claims and

tease out the real answer. In order to do so we

need to look at how macronutrient ratios have

affected weight in the scientific literature?

LOW-FAT

Over the past 3 decades low-fat diets have

been nutritional dogma when it comes to

weight-loss (except for the Atkin’s Diet which

did its best to carve out a niche in the 90’s and

2000’s). It was simple, fat makes you fat and

reducing fat was the way to lose weight. Does

research show it to be effective? You bet it

does (10,11,12). Yes, I understand that the

studies sighted were energy-restricted, that is

not the argument here. I am simply stating that

low-fat diets can be effective for weight loss. It

is likely that reducing fat intake is effective in

weight loss based on the simple idea that fat is

in fact more calorically dense and swapping out

9kcal (fat) for 4kcal (protein or carb) per gram

of food is an easy way to reduce overall calorie

intake.

17

Do studies such as those presented above

suggest that low-fat diets are optimal for weight

loss? No, they absolutely do not. Do they

indicate they are optimal for improving health?

Again, no they do not. What they do show is

that low-fat diets can and do result in weight

loss and can be one dietary tool used in a

nutritional program for specific reasons

LOW-CARB

Similar to low-fat diets, low-carb approaches can

also result in weight loss (13,14,15).

Why might that be?

I think there are several explanations for this,

beginning with the simple one. In these studies

the subjects were only restricted in their

carbohydrate or fat intake (depending on which

arm of the trial they were in) and instructed to

eat ad libitum in the other macronutrients.

Reducing overall carbohydrate intake was

probably achieved by either choosing more

leafy-greens and fibrous vegetables and/or

increasing protein and fat consumption, thus

resulting in greater satiety (due to increased

protein/fat) and reducing the caloric density of

their carbohydrates.

When all of that occurs together you have the

ideal environment to reduce caloric intake; less

caloric density and greater satiety.

FOOD QUALITY AND OBESITY

For years I was convinced that food quality was

the single most important factor in obesity. I

was wrong. Yes, I will admit I have changed my

perspective (learning, growing, and changing

your perspective is important in life). In the

context of weight-loss, food quality is important

(as mentioned above) but I think calories may

be a bigger driver of weight loss*. What

spurred the change in my perspective?

Well first, there are all the studies mentioned

above where it looks like different macro-

nutrient ratios, and dietary strategies are

effective in weight loss with the single most

common theme amongst them is a reduction in

caloric intake.

Second are some compelling stories of

individuals who have lost weight eating only

Subway (The infamous Jared Story), the

professor who ate only Twinkies for 27 days, or

the person who lost weight eating only

McDonalds. Clearly, it is possible to lose weight

eating “low-quality foods”.

18

Now don’t confuse losing weight with

optimal health. The quality of your food

effects a lot of physiological processes that

can ultimately lead to disease states (i.e.

CVD, hypertension, etc.). Clearly we do not

want to eschew food quality, as

micronutrition and other aspects of food

can impact your health, we simply use

these examples to illustrate a point: you can

lose weight eating only “low quality” foods.

Resolving the Paradigms

When we take all of the information

presented above into consideration we get

a picture that appears complicated but in

reality is quite simple. There are countless

dietary approaches and each one can be

successful if calories, macronutrients, and

food quality are accounted for. We can boil

down most of diets and weight loss

paradigms into the following key concepts.

1) Calories play a major role in weight gain

and in weight loss. Our internal

mechanisms for regulating food

consumption and body fatness is not built

for our current food environment. We live

in an environment with highly rewarding,

energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods.

2) One of the biggest contributors to that

environment is processed carbohydrate, specifically

sugar and the ability to consume large amounts of

it fairly unknowingly. We cannot rule out fat as a

large contributor to this environment either. Fat is

the most energy dense macronutrient, provides a

very appealing mouth feel, and when combined

with sugar or salt promotes overconsumption. This

does not mean processed foods have to be avoided

at all times, just be aware that caloric control takes

more care, thought, and planning when eating a

diet high in processed carbohydrates and processed

fat.

3) To avoid weight gain from overconsumption it

would be prudent to eat a diet well balanced in the

macronutrients, consuming more carbohydrate if

you are extremely active and less if you are

sedentary.

4) Don’t fret about the perfect ratio, instead focus

on nutrient-dense, non-industrialized foods. If you

want carbohydrates, eat a sweet potato with a little

butter. If you want some protein eat some simply

roasted or braised meat. If you want some fat leave

the skin on your chicken or have some veggies with

olive oil or coconut oil. There is a place in your diet

for “dirty foods”, just ensure that they fit within

your calorie and macro goals.

19

5) If you are overweight or obese it is a little more nuanced, but still simple. Reducing your caloric intake can result in weight-loss.

6) Each dietary strategy has pros and cons and you can use whichever framework best fits your lifestyle and personality.

References

1. Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet

2. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study

3. Comparison of high-fat and high-protein diets with a high-carbohydrate diet in insulin-resistant obese women

4. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction

5. Effects of a high-protein ketogenic diet on hunger, appetite, and weight loss in obese men feeding ad libitum

6. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents

7. Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet

8. Effects of Low-Carbohydrate vs Low-Fat Diets on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Risk FactorsA Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

9. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women

10. Energy Restriction and Weight Loss on Very-Low-Fat Diets Reduce C-Reactive Protein Concentrations in Obese, Healthy Women

11. The Effects of Low-Carbohydrate versus Conventional Weight Loss Diets in Severely Obese Adults: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

12. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity

13. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity

14. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women

20

21

Cutting Through the Crap with Science

Science is great and all but sometimes it’s

the practical things that matter the most.

But with all the hype and hyperbole out

there the truth can get lost amidst the

noise. How can we use science and cut

through the crap? Lets clear up some of

that noise and get down to the secrets to

gains that your trainer either isn’t telling

you or is getting lost in the noise.

You Don’t Need a Magical Program

I know I am going to ruffle a lot of feathers

with this one but I’m going to give it to you

completely straight. Your secret “program”

and the complicated training days and rest

days you have programmed probably isn’t a

magical combination of anything. Fancy

programs are needed to get results. In fact,

successful programs can be simple (Think

Wendler 5/3/1). If you aren’t making gains

the reason is simple: either 1) your program

probably isn’t hard enough, or 2) it doesn’t

have enough volume.

.

When you look at the research on

hypertrophy in detail you see a common

theme emerge. The key to gains is total

volume and your work ethic. Think I am full

of it? Well how about the research study

showing that a 2 day split and a 3 day split

in elite level body builders yielded the same

gains.1 Or even better, a study comparing

training at 25-35 reps or 8-12 reps yielded

the same muscle growth.2 Go heavy and

hard or Go light and hard…. Go hard, and

increase the volume over time. That is the

key to making gains

3 sets of 10 is not a magical number

We have all been there. Remember the

days banging out 3 sets of 10 on the bench

press in your old high-school gym. Well, it

turns out there isn’t anything magical about

3 sets of 10 when it comes to muscle

growth. When you look at the studies

comparing rep and set schemes where the

total volume is held equal, 7 sets of 3 and 3

sets of 10 yield similar increases in muscle

mass.

22

When you dig a little deeper, it looks while there

is no big difference in hypertrophy between 3

sets of 10 and 7 sets of 3, the 7 by 3 leads to

strength gains in a 1 RM.3 If you are trying to

make strength and size gains, it might be helpful

to incorporate more low rep, higher weights

schemes into your training. But you are also

going to have to increase the number of sets.

But hey, I never said gains would come easy.

DOMS doesn’t mean you are making progress

Not being able to sit on the toilet is a great story

to tell your friends about how “hardcore” you

are. Having debilitating muscle soreness doesn’t

mean you are maximizing your gains. Both

research and anecdote from the most successful

athletes will tell you that DOMS doesn’t directly

equate to maximizing growth.

Now that isn’t to say you should avoid DOMS.

Sometimes your training session involves

exercise that induces DOMS and that is totally

fine, but don’t be fooled into thinking you need

to experience it after every session, you

shouldn’t use it as a marker of an effective

workout. It might be the by-product of a heavy

eccentric session but you shouldn’t go into the

gym chasing DOMS, especially if it prevents you

from training for 4-5 days.

Training fasted is dumb

For years it has been fitness lore that you

are going to burn more fat and get

shredded training fasted. Sadly, that is not

the case. In a study comparing fed versus

fasted cardio, training fasted showed no

benefit for fat loss, and may have led to

greater losses in muscle mass. Also, as

many people will train faster during a fat

loss cycle, or a “cut”, eating before training,

especially whey protein can preserve lean

mass. I don’t know about you but I am not

about to give up some hard earned lean

mass just because I want to cut a few

percentage points off my body fat.

Conversely, there are studies showing that

if you eat before training you might elicit

greater muscle growth than if you consume

the same meal post workout or train

fasted.4 Given that it is as easy as drinking

some whey and eating a banana before you

train, you should probably stop training

fasted if you are focused on making gains.

23

You aren’t eating enough

When it comes to nutrition, the concept of

calories is both the most and least well

understood concept. There are extremely

big debates on the subject but their

remains one very clear concept. If you

consume more calories than your body

expends, you will gain weight. If you

consume fewer calories than your body

expends, you will lose weight. That seems

pretty simple right? Well, truth be told, it is

both that simple and incredibly

complicated.

THE SIMPLE: When we boil it down, it really

is balancing a scale. If you have more

energy coming in than going out you gain

weight (which is our focus) and if you have

more energy going out than coming in you

lose weight (opposite of our focus).

THE COMPLEX: The balance of that scale is

a quagmire. We know the 1 input to the

equation: food. But what controls the

output (energy expenditure) is dictate by

more processes than you can imagine…

exercise, non-exercise physical activity

(NEPA), the thermic effect of food (TEF),

thyroid hormone, cortisol, sex hormones,

neural regulation (i.e. leptin signaling). Let

me demonstrate with a figure.

Now you have 2 choices: 1) you can freak

out about all the stuff controlling calories

out and try and scrutinize everything you do

to try and optimize them (which is a bad

idea because they are complex systems) or

2) you can focus on the input, food.

Lets go with option 2. Dominate your food

intake.

If you are hammering it in the gym,

increasing volume (by increasing the

weight, sets, or reps), not training fasted,

and aren’t seeing any more progress, you

aren’t eating enough.

Now I know you are going to say, “but I am

eating enough, trust me, I eat so much”.

Well, sorry, but you aren’t eating enough.

If you are a 6-foot, 185 pound male trying

to put on mass you are going to need

around 3,000 calories just to meet your

daily energy expenditure. Add your training

on top of that and the desire to put on

muscle; you are going to need to be eating

upwards of 4,000 calories day.

24

Trying to eat 4,000 calories in a day is not an easy task, especially if you adopt the chicken breast, broccoli, potato approach to your nutrition. I mean, lets say you go with a 30/40/30 ratio of protein/carbs/fat for you macros, that means you will be eating around 300 grams of protein and 400 grams of carbs.

That is an obscene amount of chicken breast and potato. . . You probably need to add in some more calorie dense (more calories per volume) foods like beef, eggs, rice, honey, nut butters etc.

REFERENCES

1) Effect of Two- Versus Three-Way Split Resistance Training Routines on Body Composition and Muscular Strength in Bodybuilders: A Pilot Study.

2) Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men.

3) Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men.

4) Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise

25

26

BUT PROBABLY SHOULDN’T

The Importance of SkepticismRecently, a study was published looking at

the effect of branched chain amino acids

(BCAAs) on lean body mass and fat mass

during periods of caloric restriction (aka,

cutting). The conclusion from the original

paper (found here) was the following,

“These results show that BCAA

supplementation in trained individuals

performing resistance training while on a

hypocaloric diet can maintain lean mass

and preserve skeletal muscle performance

while losing fat mass.” This paper is the

perfect example of “the devil is in the

details” and why it is important to be your

own skeptic and critically analyze things

yourself.

While the abstract shows a conclusion

based on certain data, when you dive into

the full study there are a lot of issues. This

prompted myself, Dr. Brad Schoenfeld, and

Alan Aragon to dive into the paper a bit

more and voice some of our concerns with

the editor. Here is a synopsis of the issues

we had with the paper.

The study reports a statistically significant

change in fat mass for the group

supplementing with BCAAs, but not in the

placebo group (isocalorically matched

carbohydrate [CHO] beverage). However,

this outcome is paradoxical with the results.

Table 2 states that the BCAA group lost 0.6

kg of fat mass while the CHO group lost 1.4

kg. Given that the standard errors were

virtually identical between groups (the SE

was actually less for the CHO group pre-

study), it is counterintuitive to believe that

statistical probability for a true effect would

be higher in the group that supplemented

with BCAA.

27

“. . .it is important to be your

own skeptic and critically

analyze things yourself.”

The second issue with the data was the

discrepancy between statistical significance

and meaningfulness in the fat mass

changes.

The authors claimed that the BCAA group

lost more fat mass than the CHO group. The

data presented does not support that and

the fact they said the BCAA group was

significant really highlights the importance

of statistical significant versus physiological

meaningfulness. I think their stats are

wrong but that’s not the point. I would

rather lose 1.5% fat and have it be not

statistically significant than lost 0.5% fat and

have it reach some stupid alpha value

Now there is something else that really

“rustles my jimmies” in this paper. It is the

response the authors gave and the

individual data they present. It really

highlights what I feel I as underlying issue in

the study.

Supposedly the participants where in a

caloric deficit (they didn’t even match

calories between groups but that is a

separate issue), yet they report some

magical ability of some people in the CHO

group in a deficit to gain body fat. Now that

indicates either A) bad adherence, B) the

study diet was not actually a deficit, c)

instrument error.

All that aside, if anything, I would say there

really is no appreciable different between

the groups given this data.

28

Science is an imperfect process. It makes

forward progress small steps at a time.

Fortunately it is a self-correcting processes

whereby the truth eventually comes out. It

is our job as scientists (that includes you) to

place the truth at the helm and always be

searching for it!

29