Hypothetically speaking.....

[Emma-Leigh]

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

[RandyJH]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

I don't even know where to start, I suppose I'll just post maybe 1 idea a day until I run out.

My first question I would aim to answer would be "Do the RDA guide lines for vitamin/mineral consumption suite the needs for heavy resistance training athletes"

I would want to look at this is in the form of optimal health as well as optimal changes in body composition. I'm willing to bet this would have to be a rather long term study to really answer the question.

[Scott~]

I would like to know if high fat diets cause insulin resistance/diabetes at the same rate as a high sugar diet. In a very controlled study of course.

[Vietgoboi]

Love to see study of % ratio of loss (fat vs. muscle) in calorie deficit diet for wide range of individuals (BF%, height, weight).

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by RandyJH

My first question I would aim to answer would be "Do the RDA guide lines for vitamin/mineral consumption suite the needs for heavy resistance training athletes"

I would want to look at this is in the form of optimal health as well as optimal changes in body composition. I'm willing to bet this would have to be a rather long term study to really answer the question.

What would your measure of 'health' be? Cholesterol? fasting sugar? Bone mass? Development of heart disease or cancer?

Originally Posted by Scott~

I would like to know if high fat diets cause insulin resistance/diabetes at the same rate as a high sugar diet. In a very controlled study of course.

Time frame?
Would you consider lean? Obese? Relatives of those with T2DM? Training or not training?

Originally Posted by Vietgoboi

Love to see study of % ratio of loss (fat vs. muscle) in calorie deficit diet for wide range of individuals (BF%, height, weight).

ermmmm.... just calorie deficit?
How much?
Any other limits you want to put on that....

[RandyJH]

Originally Posted by Vietgoboi

Love to see study of % ratio of loss (fat vs. muscle) in calorie deficit diet for wide range of individuals (BF%, height, weight).

Just branching off your idea for a second I would love to see a similar study, heres how I would set it up tho.

I would make it about 8-12 weeks long study, and it would measure how different caloric deficits affect the ratio of fat vs. muscle loss.

All groups would consume the same amount of protein and fats which would be at a level considered sufficent for resistance training athletes. However between groups to alter the caloric levels, carbohydrate consumption will be changed.

I'm thinking I'll add more details to this later.

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

What would your measure of 'health' be? Cholesterol? fasting sugar? Bone mass? Development of heart disease or cancer?

Well, I guess you would almost need 3 groups to really answer my question

Group A. Non weight training individuals consuming the RDA rec.

Group B. Weight training individuals consuming the RDA rec.

Group C. Weight training individuals consuming some level significant level above this.

I think for health I would look at blood pressure, cholesterol, fasting sugar, developement of heart disease and maybe other non genetic diseases, cognitive function also might be cool to look at as well.

The tough part would measureing the change in body composition. I guess I would measure the rate of change in terms of fat mass and LBM.

[ilove2run]

Originally Posted by RandyJH

Just branching off your idea for a second I would love to see a similar study, heres how I would set it up tho.

I would make it about 8-12 weeks long study, and it would measure how different caloric deficits affect the ratio of fat vs. muscle loss.

All groups would consume the same amount of protein and fats which would be at a level considered sufficent for resistance training athletes. However between groups to alter the caloric levels, carbohydrate consumption will be changed.

I'm thinking I'll add more details to this later.

Not sure if im correct but,

IMO if you were to change the carbohydrates you'd also have to test out how the effects on body-composition would compare by reducing fats and protein as well. Such as in your example you would reduce CARBS to get the deficit, and depeding on the group, you will vary how much of a deficit that they go in.

I would as well do this, but also test on a low-fat diet, by restricting only the fats, and then as well doing a low-protein diet (if that is reasonable), by restricting only the protein. Because if you think about it, everyones body can react differently to fats/protein/carbs. So to get a better understanding or a better outcome you would have to test all 3 variables and not just 1.


EDIT: One last thing to ask, is how do study's really work anyways? Since everyones makeup is different how are you able to consider 2 controlled groups and have the results. Wouldnt you need to flip flow the data? As in if you took 2 groups and gave a set of pills to one group vs. none to the next. Wouldn't you have to then after the study is over, switch it by giving the set of pills to the group that didn't have any, to see what the outcome is for both groups?

[Vietgoboi]

Originally Posted by RandyJH

Just branching off your idea for a second I would love to see a similar study, heres how I would set it up tho.

I would make it about 8-12 weeks long study, and it would measure how different caloric deficits affect the ratio of fat vs. muscle loss.

All groups would consume the same amount of protein and fats which would be at a level considered sufficent for resistance training athletes. However between groups to alter the caloric levels, carbohydrate consumption will be changed.

I'm thinking I'll add more details to this later.

Thanks for filling in the details for me, I stick with your second part.

Originally Posted by ilove2run

Not sure if im correct but,

IMO if you were to change the carbohydrates you'd also have to test out how the effects on body-composition would compare by reducing fats and protein as well. Such as in your example you would reduce CARBS to get the deficit, and depeding on the group, you will vary how much of a deficit that they go in.

I would as well do this, but also test on a low-fat diet, by restricting only the fats, and then as well doing a low-protein diet (if that is reasonable), by restricting only the protein. Because if you think about it, everyones body can react differently to fats/protein/carbs. So to get a better understanding or a better outcome you would have to test all 3 variables and not just 1.


EDIT: One last thing to ask, is how do study's really work anyways? Since everyones makeup is different how are you able to consider 2 controlled groups and have the results. Wouldnt you need to flip flow the data? As in if you took 2 groups and gave a set of pills to one group vs. none to the next. Wouldn't you have to then after the study is over, switch it by giving the set of pills to the group that didn't have any, to see what the outcome is for both groups?

You're right, were all different, each individual won't apply to another. We could find average estimation of the group, the more the better?

[Scott~]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Would you consider lean? Obese? Relatives of those with T2DM? Training or not training

I was about to go to sleep and didn't expand lol. The deal with the time frame is tricky because I realize there is no way to control a study over that amount of time, considering T2D can take many years to develop. I would like this study done on overweight individuals who are put on identical workout programs and prefer no family history of diabetes in the subjects.

My personal hunch is that a high fat diet (50% +) can lead to insulin resistance just as much as a high refined sugar diet. I understand that an exercise program will alleviate some of the blood sugar issues, but I'm curious at what fasting insulin numbers would be in this situation between the two groups.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by RandyJH

I would make it about 8-12 weeks long study, and it would measure how different caloric deficits affect the ratio of fat vs. muscle loss.

All groups would consume the same amount of protein and fats which would be at a level considered sufficent for resistance training athletes. However between groups to alter the caloric levels, carbohydrate consumption will be changed.

So it would all include resistance trained individuals? No control group (not resistance training)? who would determine 'adequate fats and protein for resistance trained individuals?

What questions would you be asking? You are simply decreasing carb contents between groups - and this will decrease calorie content.... no? So it would undoubtably result in those with less carbs and a greater calorie deficit => more weight loss...?

You need to prevent the confusion associated with this - >>> basically you would need different groups of different calorie levels and alter fats/ protein as well....

i.e: Keep ONE variable even between groups then alter the other variables.
13 x weight with -> low carb/ high protein/ high fat (eg: 15/35/40)
13 x weight with -> high carb/ high protein/ low fat (eg: 40/35/15)
13 x weight with -> even carb/ high protein/ fat (eg: 33/33/33)
13 x weight with -> traditional split (high carb/ low protein/ mod fat - 45/15/30)

12 x weight with same as above
11 x weight with same as above
10 x weight with same as above
^^
you would need a MASSIVE number of people to see any significant results due to having so many different arms to the study...

How would you follow the diets to ensure they ate what they said they ate?
How would you account for physical activity? Standardise everyone on a particular weight training program/ cardio plan?

Well, I guess you would almost need 3 groups to really answer my question

Group A. Non weight training individuals consuming the RDA rec.

Group B. Weight training individuals consuming the RDA rec.

Group C. Weight training individuals consuming some level significant level above this.

I think for health I would look at blood pressure, cholesterol, fasting sugar, developement of heart disease and maybe other non genetic diseases, cognitive function also might be cool to look at as well.

The tough part would measureing the change in body composition. I guess I would measure the rate of change in terms of fat mass and LBM.

You would need another tear in that -
Group D: Non weight training individuals consuming a level above the RDA (to determine if the benefits seen in the weight trained group from increased levels was a result of resistance training OR the change in intake

How long would the study run for? 2 yrs? 3?
Which nutrients would you measure - ALL of the vitamins/ minerals? Just some of them?
How would you account for the decrease in cognitive function over time associated with aging?
How old would the people be?

[ps - body comp is easy to measure changes in... pre/ post dexa scans... >>> and you could do a BMD at the same time to check the impact on bone mass too - which would kill two bones with a single stone.... ]

Originally Posted by ilove2run

I would as well do this, but also test on a low-fat diet, by restricting only the fats, and then as well doing a low-protein diet (if that is reasonable), by restricting only the protein. Because if you think about it, everyones body can react differently to fats/protein/carbs. So to get a better understanding or a better outcome you would have to test all 3 variables and not just 1.

Low protein is easy - people do it all the time in certain populations (eg: kidney disease)....

And I think you are referring to a cross over study type design here.... yes? That is:
START: base measurements
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet A
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet B
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet C
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)
CROSS OVER
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet B
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet C
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet A
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)
CROSS OVER
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet C
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet A
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet B
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)

Yes?

EDIT: One last thing to ask, is how do study's really work anyways? Since everyones makeup is different how are you able to consider 2 controlled groups and have the results. Wouldnt you need to flip flow the data? As in if you took 2 groups and gave a set of pills to one group vs. none to the next. Wouldn't you have to then after the study is over, switch it by giving the set of pills to the group that didn't have any, to see what the outcome is for both groups?

See above - that is what is called a 'cross over' study (expose both groups to the same variables to see if results differ between the groups and determine if the difference seen is due to group differences, or the product/pill you are testing).

BUT - not done frequently because it basically doubles your study time and costs.

In a normal study there are things that are put in place to try to prevent differences in the groups (known as confounders) so any effect seen can be accounted to the product being tested.

Things like:
- Randomisation (that is, you assign people to the groups randomly)
- Exclusion criteria (eg: removing people from the study that have factors that may effect results)
- Matching (that is, you 'age/ weight/ sex' match people in the different groups)
- Double blinding (not letting the people doing the measurements, nor the people in the study, know which group is getting which treatment)
- Multiple regression analysis (that is, looking at the numbers / results in ways which compare the differences based on the confounders as well as the different treatment - that way you can see if there are trends based only on the treatment, or if the trends are seen with any confounders as well)

Lots of other things you can do too....

Originally Posted by Vietgoboi

You're right, were all different, each individual won't apply to another. We could find average estimation of the group, the more the better?

Not sure what you mean here?

Originally Posted by Scott~

I was about to go to sleep and didn't expand lol. The deal with the time frame is tricky because I realize there is no way to control a study over that amount of time, considering T2D can take many years to develop. I would like this study done on overweight individuals who are put on identical workout programs and prefer no family history of diabetes in the subjects.

My personal hunch is that a high fat diet (50% +) can lead to insulin resistance just as much as a high refined sugar diet. I understand that an exercise program will alleviate some of the blood sugar issues, but I'm curious at what fasting insulin numbers would be in this situation between the two groups.

So -
Age: 18-40??
BMI: 30-40
Otherwise Healthy
No FmHx of T2DM

Groups:
A -> EXERCISE + High fat/ High Protein/ Low carb
B -> NO EXERCISE + High fat/ High Protein/ Low carb
C -> EXERCISE + High carb/ Mod Protein/ Low Fat
D -> NO EXERCISE + High carb/ Mod Protein/ Low Fat

Length? 2 yrs? 5 years?
How much 'exercise' will you get them to do/ allow them to do?

Measurements:
- Baseline and interval measurements of things such as Fasting Insulin? Fasting Glucose? Cholesterol? Anything else?
- Hyperglycaemic Clamps (to test insulin sensitivity) pre / during/ post
- DEXA for composition
- ? CT for visceral fat (eg: liver/ spleen etc)
- BMR pre/ during/ post

[ilove2run]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Low protein is easy - people do it all the time in certain populations (eg: kidney disease)....

And I think you are referring to a cross over study type design here.... yes? That is:
START: base measurements
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet A
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet B
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet C
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)
CROSS OVER
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet B
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet C
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet A
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)
CROSS OVER
Person A spends 12 weeks on diet C
Person B spends 12 weeks on diet A
Person C spends 12 weeks on diet B
MEASUREMENTS (basal metabolic rate/ strength/ composition/ weight loss)

Yes?

That'd be it lol.

Also was wondering totaly random was thinking of this one day. But you could do an experiment/study on this. On does the body absorb nutrients through the skin?

Such as if you were to have Peanut Butter rubbed on your hand, would you absorb some of the energy/nutrients out of that? Or as in if you stuck your hand in a tub of EVOO, would you absorb some of the kcals-energy/nutrients from that?

[Scott~]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

So -
Age: 18-40??
BMI: 30-40
Otherwise Healthy
No FmHx of T2DM

Groups:
A -> EXERCISE + High fat/ High Protein/ Low carb
B -> NO EXERCISE + High fat/ High Protein/ Low carb
C -> EXERCISE + High carb/ Mod Protein/ Low Fat
D -> NO EXERCISE + High carb/ Mod Protein/ Low Fat

Length? 2 yrs? 5 years?
How much 'exercise' will you get them to do/ allow them to do?

Measurements:
- Baseline and interval measurements of things such as Fasting Insulin? Fasting Glucose? Cholesterol? Anything else?
- Hyperglycaemic Clamps (to test insulin sensitivity) pre / during/ post
- DEXA for composition
- ? CT for visceral fat (eg: liver/ spleen etc)
- BMR pre/ during/ post

Age: 25-45
BMI: 30%-40%
Otherwise healthy
No family history

Groups A-D just as you have them

Length of time: 2 years
Exercise: 30 minutes a day 5 days a week with 2 days being resistance training. Remaining time can be moderate paced cardio.

Measurements as you have them.



Give me your 2 cents on this Emma. Lets say you have a client who is 30% body fat. Diet wise, do you think that eating low fat versus say 30%-40% fat would have any beneficial effect? We always have discussions of calories in v/s calories out, but in a situation of a high BF% individual would a moderate/high moderate fat diet provide any benefits/detriments towards the goal of leaning out, considering protein needs are adequate?

[Holyspokes]

Wouldn't it make since to differentiate between what kind of dietary fats the subjects are consuming?

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by ilove2run

Also was wondering totaly random was thinking of this one day. But you could do an experiment/study on this. On does the body absorb nutrients through the skin?

Such as if you were to have Peanut Butter rubbed on your hand, would you absorb some of the energy/nutrients out of that? Or as in if you stuck your hand in a tub of EVOO, would you absorb some of the kcals-energy/nutrients from that?

ermmm.... that would be none....
Not unless you suddenly developed the ability to digest food in your skin....
^
What happens is that you simply rehydrate and lock water in the more superficial layers of your skin. It doesn't/ wouldn't go lower, nor would it cross the basement membrane and enter into lymph vessels etc...

The skin is DESIGNED to keep things out of the body - it is what stops bugs getting in, and is what prevents you absorbing water across your skin when you get wet (can you imagine if you did --> you'd enter the water lean and 150# and walk out like a 250# puffer fish! ).

Originally Posted by Scott~

Age: 25-45
BMI: 30%-40%
Otherwise healthy
No family history

Groups A-D just as you have them

Length of time: 2 years
Exercise: 30 minutes a day 5 days a week with 2 days being resistance training. Remaining time can be moderate paced cardio.

Measurements as you have them.

Give me your 2 cents on this Emma. Lets say you have a client who is 30% body fat.
Diet wise, do you think that eating low fat versus say 30%-40% fat would have any beneficial effect? We always have discussions of calories in v/s calories out, but in a situation of a high BF% individual would a moderate/high moderate fat diet provide any benefits/detriments towards the goal of leaning out, considering protein needs are adequate?

^ there are a few things to consider here ->
1. insulin sensitivity of the individual
2. self control/ diet control/ accuracy in tracking
3. exercise of the individual

On Point One:
At 30% BF I dare say that there will be a degree of resistance in most males (females less so due to their tendency to ride higher in terms of BF).... but in those with greater issues of resistance, most studies find that lower carb content aids in weight loss (number of mechanisms for this such as reducing hyperinsulinaemia and increasing the activity of HSL, decreases levels of malonyl-CoA which helps in allowing FA to move more freely into mitrochondria for Beta-oxidation, decreasing the hypercortisolaemia and pro inflammatory response associated with high blood glucose levels, decreases hunger, etc etc).

In those who are not resistant - moderate fat / carbs diets seem to be better/ be just as good....

For Point Two:
Higher fat diets are easier to 'misjudge' calories.... So you can overeat more easily (and therefore weight loss will not be as significant)... BUT - some people also find that they are more satiating - thus this aids in weight loss in those who don't 'count' calories but just eat until satisfied.
^
so this is more of an individual situation thing.... basically:
if you like lots of VOLUME in your meals - you are better off with a more moderate fat intake so you can eat more 'stuff' (vegetables etc).
if you find fats more satiating and eat LESS when you increase fats - higher fats = better sticking to diet = better fat loss.


For Point Three:
This is.... variable.... Although most of the information/ concenses to date has suggested that in those who do exercise will do better with more carbs - as it allows greater training intensity....

But there was a recent study that showed differently ->

Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009 Aug;34(4):595-602.Click here to read Links
Daily physical activity and macronutrient distribution of low-calorie diets jointly affect body fat reduction in obese women.
L?pez-Fontana CM, S?nchez-Villegas A, Mart?nez-Gonzalez MA, Martinez JA.

Department of Physiology and Nutrition, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea, Pamplona, Spain.

Inadequate dietary patterns and sedentary lifestyles are believed to be important factors in predisposing people to obesity. This study analyzed the potential interaction between habitual physical activity and the carbohydrate (CHO)-fat distribution in 2 hypocaloric diets and the impact of such interplay on body composition changes. Forty healthy obese women, 20-50 years old, were randomly assigned to a high- or low-CHO energy-restricted diet, which was low or high in fat, respectively, during 10 weeks. Baseline and final measurements were performed to assess dietary habits, resting metabolic rate, and body composition changes. Physical activity was measured with a triaxial accelerometer and with a questionnaire. There were no significant differences in anthropometric and metabolic variables between both dietary groups at baseline. However, there was a positive correlation between total free-living physical activity and arm muscle preservation after 10 weeks (r = 0.371; p = 0.024). Interestingly, an interaction between macronutrient (CHO-fat distribution) intake and physical activity was found, [i][color=red]since less-active subjects with a high-CHO-low-fat diet showed a greater fat loss than those more active with a lower-CHO-high-fat diet, whereas more-active subjects with a high-CHO-low-fat diet showed a smaller fat loss than those receiving a low-CHO-high-fat diet. Physical activity and the macronutrient content of energy-restricted diets, when designed to promote body fat mass reduction, should be considered together to better predict the outcome.

^
so -
less active + high carbs = MOST fat loss
with
more active + low carb = more fat loss than more active + high carb.

hmmmm...... confusing....

Originally Posted by Holyspokes

Wouldn't it make since to differentiate between what kind of dietary fats the subjects are consuming?

To an extent = yes.
Different fats have different effects on insulin sensitivity...

[devo09]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

Hmm
I'd like to compare muscle retention/gain on a calorie restricted diet in AAS users VS Natural bodybuilders
The different variables would be the degree of the calorie deficit, groups of -250, -500,
-750, -1000 calories, +maybe more groups depending on amount of participants
Pretty much impossible to make it a controlled study with training/amount or types of substances/etc, but it would be damn cool

The main thing would be to determine what type of restrictions each group could "get away" with, I know lyle Mc has written about it a bit

[ilove2run]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

ermmm.... that would be none....
Not unless you suddenly developed the ability to digest food in your skin....
^
What happens is that you simply rehydrate and lock water in the more superficial layers of your skin. It doesn't/ wouldn't go lower, nor would it cross the basement membrane and enter into lymph vessels etc...

The skin is DESIGNED to keep things out of the body - it is what stops bugs getting in, and is what prevents you absorbing water across your skin when you get wet (can you imagine if you did --> you'd enter the water lean and 150# and walk out like a 250# puffer fish! ).

So in terms of Sunscreen, or Lotion, it just gets basically trapped in the outerlayer of your skin and dosnt go lower. But what about when you spill a chemical of some sort or mop your floor with a cleaning chemical, in which you are sappose to keep your child from walking barefoot across it because they can get sick. Wouldnt that be abosorbing the through the skin? or am i just blowing smoke out of my pipe?

[xAlphax]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

Why only one study if there was endless funding? At the moment,
What would be required to inhibit/bring the aging process to a complete halt?
Diet, frequency of exercise, age.
The 2nd answer.

[TrueNorth]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

I would take a set of identical twins, and ensure their lives to be exactly the same till death, and have them live on a working farm, (this is a magical research facility, right? lol). The only difference would be the one twin would eat boxed foods, processed foods, and the other twin would be restricted to only foods that present, in their natural state, like an apple off a tree, absolutely no processing, unless it was done using his own energy, like churning butter, or taking one of his own pigs if he was hungry for ham. Then I would do an autopsy when they died and just observe for differences that could be due to dietary consumption and compare medical charts throught their lives to see any differences in attitude, weight, muscularity, and illness, etc.

[Emma-Leigh]

Originally Posted by TrueNorth

I would take a set of identical twins, and ensure their lives to be exactly the same till death, and have them live on a working farm, (this is a magical research facility, right? lol). The only difference would be the one twin would eat boxed foods, processed foods, and the other twin would be restricted to only foods that present, in their natural state, like an apple off a tree, absolutely no processing, unless it was done using his own energy, like churning butter, or taking one of his own pigs if he was hungry for ham. Then I would do an autopsy when they died and just observe for differences that could be due to dietary consumption and compare medical charts throught their lives to see any differences in attitude, weight, muscularity, and illness, etc.

^^

ohhh... I like this one.... it would be impossible... but I like it!

[KLMARB]

I'd like a study that would determine if brain function as related to Alzheimer's is affected by long-term macronutrient ingestion patterns. Specifically, effects of constant sucrosis vs. periodic ketosis vs. constant ketosis.....

[wobemaster]

Study #1
Somewhat of a repeat of tipton's EAA pulsing, with isocaloric and isonitrogenous intake and adequate protein intake(1g/lbs or similar).

So have three groups: g1: control, g2: EAA in between, g3: pulsed whey(another fast protein for comparison) and measure differences in muscle mass, bodyfat % etc

Other constraints: 1-2yrs+ resistance training experience, following a standard training routine



Study #2
Meal frequency on protein balance (enery balance has been well and truly tested)

Again, using isocaloric and isonitrogenous settings, all using the same training routine.

group1: 'typical' bber 6-7 meals per day, protein intake split between them
g2: IF, fast 16 hours, protein split into 3 meals within the 8hour eating period
g3: A meal every 4-5 hours (per layne's reccommendation) with pro split evenly

[Phosphate bond]

Originally Posted by Emma-Leigh

Right - just thought it would be interesting to see what people are interested in! So -->> a random hypothetical situation to ponder....

Setting the Scene:
You are an researcher working in a 'endless funding available magical research facility' where all the resources you could so desire are at your disposal (yes, yes.... well - I *did* say it was a hypothetical situation didn't I! ). You have been asked by the co-ordinator to put together a study of your choice your area of interest involving some aspect of nutrition/ supplements/ body-composition/ weight training (aka: 'bodybuilding').....

What clinical question would your study aim to answer?
What secondary factors would you look at?
Anything you would want to make sure you covered/ did?

Calories are calories, but do micronutrient requirements differ with respect to metabolizing fats/carbs/protein?

In other words does a high carb diet require higher or lower micronutrients than a high fat diet? If so what micronutrients are most important?

[MrLovrLovr]

I would work on finding that gene that suppressed Myostatin . And make so it can be assimilated by humans for the hyuugeness


http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crispr...es/216233.html


as if

[snorkelman]

Attempting to prove whether or not free form BCAA is better for bodybuilding purposes than protein-bound BCAA given isonitrogenous conditions in diets with ample protein.