Ongoing Study Discussion Thread - Nutrition, Training, Health etc.

We had the idea to discuss interesting scientific studies here. Can be nutrition, training, health related or anything relevant.

Please only participate in the discussion if you care about science. If you only care about what works for you (n=1) this is not the thread for it.

If anyone comes across an interesting study please share it here. Or if you want to ask questions about a specific study this is a good place to do it.

I'll start with one about sleep improvement. It shows how wearing orange glasses at night can improve sleep.

[quote]
Attenuation of short wavelengths alters sleep and the ipRGC pupil response

CONCLUSIONS:
The use of short wavelength-blocking glasses at night increased subjectively measured sleep quality and objectively measured melatonin levels and sleep duration, presumably as a result of decreased night-time stimulation of ipRGCs. Alterations in the ipRGC-driven pupil response suggest a shift in circadian phase. Results suggest that minimising short wavelength light following sunset may help in regulating sleep patterns.
[/quote]

[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28656675[/url]

Subbed

"The effects of d-aspartic acid supplementation in resistance-trained men over a three month training period: A randomised controlled trial"

[Spoiler]
[B]Context[/B]

Research on d-aspartic acid (DAA) has demonstrated increases in total testosterone levels in untrained men, however research in resistance-trained men demonstrated no changes, and reductions in testosterone levels. The long-term consequences of DAA in a resistance trained population are currently unknown.

[B]Objective[/B]

To evaluate the effectiveness of DAA to alter basal testosterone levels over 3 months of resistance training in resistance-trained men.

[B]Design[/B]

Randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial in healthy resistance-trained men, aged 18–36, had been performing regular resistance training exercise for at least 3 d.w-1 for the previous 2 years. Randomised participants were 22 men (d-aspartic acid n = 11; placebo n = 11) (age, 23.8±4.9 y, training age, 3.2±1.5 y).

[B]Intervention[/B]

D-aspartic acid (6 g.d-1, DAA) versus equal-weight, visually-matched placebo (PLA). All participants performed 12 weeks of supervised, periodised resistance training (4 d.w-1), with a program focusing on all muscle groups.

[B]Measures[/B]

Basal hormones, total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT), estradiol (E2), sex-hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and albumin (ALB); isometric strength; calf muscle cross-sectional area (CSA); calf muscle thickness; quadriceps muscle CSA; quadriceps muscle thickness; evoked V-wave and H-reflexes, were assessed at weeks zero (T1), after six weeks (T2) and after 12 weeks (T3).

[B]Results[/B]

No change in basal TT or FT were observed after the intervention. DAA supplementation (n = 10) led to a 16%, 95% CI [-27%, -5%] reduction in E2 from T1-T3 (p<0.01). The placebo group (n = 9) demonstrated improvements in spinal responsiveness (gastrocnemius) at the level of the alpha motoneuron. Both groups exhibited increases in isometric strength of the plantar flexors by 17%, 95% CI [7%, 28%] (p<0.05) as well as similar increases in hypertrophy in the quadriceps and calf muscles.

[B]Conclusions[/B]

The results of this paper indicate that DAA supplementation is ineffective at changing testosterone levels, or positively affecting training outcomes. Reductions in estradiol and the blunting of peripheral excitability appear unrelated to improvements from resistance training.
[/Spoiler]

[url]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182630[/url]

Fructose scaremongering was probably unjustified.

Fructose replacement of glucose or sucrose in food or beverages lowers postprandial glucose and insulin without raising triglycerides: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conclusions: Strong evidence exists that substituting fructose for glucose or sucrose in food or beverages lowers peak postprandial blood glucose and insulin concentrations. Isoenergetic replacement does not result in a substantial increase in blood triglyceride concentrations.

[url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/106/2/506.abstract?ijkey=ff6206a59e5fa7cf57cfb1d36cea9e0168aa6298&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha[/url]

Chronic fructose substitution for glucose or sucrose in food or beverages has little effect on fasting blood glucose, insulin, or triglycerides: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Conclusions: The evidence suggests that the substitution of fructose for glucose or sucrose in food or beverages may be of benefit to individuals, particularly those with impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes. However, additional high-quality studies in these populations are required.

[url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/106/2/519.abstract?ijkey=057f300d67a64f36b0aadaf49cf8887dcc1bb376&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha[/url]

[url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/106/2/439.long[/url]

A demonstration of an anti-inflammatory drug lowering the risk of heart attack / stroke, independent of lipid level:

[url]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914[/url]

This one was also picked up by the New York Times

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/science/ilaris-heart-disease-cancer-study.html[/url]

[QUOTE=dashdash89;1517732551]A demonstration of an anti-inflammatory drug lowering the risk of heart attack / stroke, independent of lipid level:

[url]http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914[/url]

This one was also picked up by the New York Times

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/science/ilaris-heart-disease-cancer-study.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Nice. Here's another article about it with video.

[url]https://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ESC/67529[/url]

Interesting new review on whole grains vs. refined grains showing no CVD benefits.

[url]http://www.cochrane.org/CD005051/VASC_whole-grain-cereals-cardiovascular-disease[/url]

Tricky though, they excluded a lot of studies that do show benefits. Only 9 studies were included.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1518295711]Interesting new review on whole grains vs. refined grains showing no CVD benefits.

[url]http://www.cochrane.org/CD005051/VASC_whole-grain-cereals-cardiovascular-disease[/url]

Tricky though, [B]they excluded a lot of studies that do show benefits[/B]. Only 9 studies were included.[/QUOTE]

That is odd. Also, I would be interested in seeing the effects on things other than CVD, such as diabetes or all-cause mortality.

Have you seen this? [url]http://newsroom.heart.org/news/low-gluten-diets-may-be-associated-with-higher-risk-of-type-2-diabetes[/url]

I [I]think[/I] the study is still in peer-review (I can't find it..), but it suggests gluten free may be counter-productive. I wouldn't be surprised if a lack of cereal fibre also led to overconsumption of calories

I believe at least 80% of published studies are crap and not even worth looking at. Especially observational and population studies. And even randomized clinical trials with placebo, double blind groups etc should be taken with a grain of salt if they for example examined a link between let's say saturated fat intake and CVD's and got fundings from industries that want the link to be negative. Too much biasism (not sure if there's such word). Just an example though. Now something like Meta-analysis or systematic review would be more trustworthy and definitely worst considering. Again, if they do not consists of mostly population or observational studies.

[QUOTE=dashdash89;1518308371]That is odd. Also, I would be interested in seeing the effects on things other than CVD, such as diabetes or all-cause mortality.
[/quote]
I've been reading it a bit. They excluded a lot of studies on various grounds. Most of the studies excluded showed health benefits. Main reason for exclusion of several studies was that they lasted shorter than 12 weeks.

[quote]Have you seen this? [url]http://newsroom.heart.org/news/low-gluten-diets-may-be-associated-with-higher-risk-of-type-2-diabetes[/url]
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Thanks.

Here's a new one too:
[url]http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/9/8/873[/url]

Grain Foods Are Contributors of Nutrient Density for American Adults and Help Close Nutrient Recommendation Gaps: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2012

[QUOTE=regno;1518310011]I believe at least 80% of published studies are crap and not even worth looking at. Especially observational and population studies. And even randomized clinical trials with placebo, double blind groups etc should be taken with a grain of salt if they for example examined a link between let's say saturated fat intake and CVD's and got fundings from industries that want the link to be negative. Too much biasism (not sure if there's such word). Just an example though. Now something like Meta-analysis or systematic review would be more trustworthy and definitely worst considering. Again, if they do not consists of mostly population or observational studies.[/QUOTE]

It's definitely concerning just how many studies are not reproducible, and a huge problem obviously. But I wouldn't say throw out anything that isn't an RCT. There are benefits to observational studies as well: it's hard to have really long term experiments, and some things (e.g. global warming) cannot be tested in a laboratory.

Five Thirty Eight did a really nice article on this: [url]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken[/url]

Not nutrition related but very interesting:

Presence of Spotters Improves Bench Press Performance: A Deception Study.
[url]http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/publishahead/Presence_of_Spotters_Improves_Bench_Press.95701.aspx[/url]

Almost two decades of further research leads the FDA to reconsider soy as preventative of heart disease

[url]https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm582744.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1524299921]Not nutrition related but very interesting:

Presence of Spotters Improves Bench Press Performance: A Deception Study.
[url]http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/publishahead/Presence_of_Spotters_Improves_Bench_Press.95701.aspx[/url][/QUOTE]

This was a good read, thanks

I've always felt one reason, maybe a huge reason, my bench never went insanely high for me was the lack of spotters

I was thinking about getting stuck with all that weight on my chest if I failed and it's embarrassment in the gym

With spotters, I've gotten PR's, without them, not a one

[QUOTE=boo99;1524519311]This was a good read, thanks

I've always felt one reason, maybe a huge reason, my bench never went insanely high for me was the lack of spotters

I was thinking about getting stuck with all that weight on my chest if I failed and it's embarrassment in the gym

With spotters, I've gotten PR's, without them, not a one[/QUOTE]

Very interesting indeed. I'll be requesting a spotter today.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1524519751]Very interesting indeed. I'll be requesting a spotter today.[/QUOTE]

I think it would help some lifters in progressively going upward in weight, though I know some who've gotten PRs without a spotter

For me though, without a spotter, my mind is TOO concerned with that I might fail and get stuck

The spotter eliminates that and puts my mind fully into focusing/concentrating on what my objective is here

[QUOTE=boo99;1524540181]I think it would help some lifters in progressively going upward in weight, though I know some who've gotten PRs without a spotter

For me though, without a spotter, my mind is TOO concerned with that I might fail and get stuck

The spotter eliminates that and puts my mind fully into focusing/concentrating on what my objective is here[/QUOTE]

I never use one, but have safeties

Be interesting to compare safeties vs spotters, as I imagine the peer pressure aspect could add some to the lift as well.

[quote]"The participants were then required to attend the laboratory on two further occasions to
perform either the spotter trial or the deception trial. In both trials two spotters were
presence, one spotter at either side of the Smith machine bar, during lifts. In the spotter
trial, their presence was made visually obvious to the participants, before and on
completion of each set. In the deception trial, spotters remained in place only during the
lifts, but not visible to the participants, and then moved to remain hidden from view during
the rest periods between sets. This was achieved, by using opaque material shielding
around the Smith machine frame, which was in place during both experimental trials. This
allowed the bar and weight plates to move freely, whilst obscuring the view of the spotters
from the participants when needed. Participants were told that the shielding was to reduce
the chances of peripheral distractions, and were instructed to focus on a marker, which
had been placed on the middle of the bar. During the trials, the same male principle
investigator was visible to the participants and the same male spotters were used for all
trials. [/quote]
...

^ Why would they use a Smith Machine to use a spotter for, kind of silly, no?....or for that matter, why would anyone need/want to even bench on a Smith Machine?

I admit I've used it for incline bench at my gym when I couldn't get a flat bench due to crowds at 5pm there on bro Chest Monday

Smith Machine benching, eh.....that is what God created Planet Fitness for 😳

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1524560101]...[/QUOTE]

Ah okay, so it was the pure peer pressure effect after all rather than safety I guess.

I'm surprised they used a Smith machine too. Weird. Would be interesting to know if there were safety pins on the bar? I would guess there are.

So maybe they choose this decision so that there's no safety concern. So as Wolfrose says, it's all about peer pressure.

One more interesting detail: performance was higher with spotters on every set. And they reported it costed less effort (self rated RPE).

[QUOTE=WolfRose7;1524561781]Ah okay, so it was the pure peer pressure effect after all rather than safety I guess.[/QUOTE]

I think it's a combo of things but peer pressure is definitely one of them

I guess would depend on the individual, I'm more into not feeling embarrassed with 315 lbs laying on my chest, lol, I guess that might fall into a peer pressure aspect, certainly is alot of physical pressure as well

Can anyone shed some light on Layne's latest Instagram post? I can't see much from my phone.

In for educationz.

[QUOTE=KrisMM83;1528336591]Can anyone shed some light on Layne's latest Instagram post? I can't see much from my phone.[/QUOTE]

Basically it's support for using diet breaks. There's a thread about it here: [url]https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=174762961[/url]

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1528337141]Basically it's support for using diet breaks. There's a thread about it here: [url]https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=174762961[/url][/QUOTE]

Wasn't it for obese men? Not got time to look into atm.

[QUOTE=Gxp23;1528339311]Wasn't it for obese men? Not got time to look into atm.[/QUOTE]

It was in obese men but why wouldn't similar mechanisms work in leaner men. Lyle and Eric think it does have a benefit. I think they have a point.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1528337141]Basically it's support for using diet breaks. There's a thread about it here: [url]https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=174762961[/url][/QUOTE]

Great! Thank you!

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1528339931]It was in obese men but why wouldn't similar mechanisms work in leaner men. Lyle and Eric think it does have a benefit. I think they have a point.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, haven't read anything yet. Will read through shortly.

[quote]Long-term effects of provided low & high glycemic load low energy diets on mood and cognition

Energy-restricted low glycemic load diets are being used increasingly for weight loss. However, the long-term effects of such regimens on mood and cognitive performance are not known. We assessed the effects of low glycemic load (LG) and high glycemic load (HG) energy-restricted diets on mood and cognitive performance during 6 months of a randomized controlled trial when all food was provided. Subjects were 42 healthy overweight adults (age 35 ± 5 y; BMI 27.8 ± 1.6 kg/m2) with a mean weight loss of 8.7 ± 5.0% that did not differ significantly by diet randomization. Mood was assessed by using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire. Cognitive performance was assessed by using computerized tests of simple reaction time, vigilance, learning, short-term memory and attention, and language-based logical reasoning. Worsening mood outcome over time was observed in the HG diet group compared to the LG for the depression subscale of POMS (P=0.009 after including hunger as a covariate). There was no significant change over time in any cognitive performance values. These findings suggest a negative effect of an HG weight loss diet on sub-clinical depression but, in contrast to a previous suggestion, provide no support for differential effects of LG versus HD diets on cognitive performance.[/quote]

[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775046/[/url]

Edit: study did not match protein. HG 60/20/20, LG 40/30/30

[QUOTE=regno;1518310011]I believe at least 80% of published studies are crap and not even worth looking at. Especially observational and population studies. And even randomized clinical trials with placebo, double blind groups etc should be taken with a grain of salt if they for example examined a link between let's say saturated fat intake and CVD's and got fundings from industries that want the link to be negative. Too much biasism (not sure if there's such word). Just an example though. Now something like Meta-analysis or systematic review would be more trustworthy and definitely worst considering. Again, if they do not consists of mostly population or observational studies.[/QUOTE]

Generally I look for meta-analysis studies or BUNCH of studies that all point in the same direction. Sometimes that's not possible if it's a new topic or thinly studied, then you just have read the details carefully and decide for yourself whether it's quality info and applicable.