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

[Strawng]

This isn't a study per se, but Eric Helms was on the Sigma Nutrition Podcast last week & he had a pretty fascinating discussion about an upcoming study he's involved with that will evaluate varying levels of caloric surpluses (controlled to match actual net weight gain per week) with regard to muscle gain. He also talks about preparing for his latest contest without tracking. Interestingly, he goes so far as to say that he doesn't think any leaner person outside a relatively novice lifter could hope to gain muscle in a caloric deficit due to factors outside of MPS. He also suggests that weight gain may confer strength advantages outside of merely increased leverages. Here's a link to the show & transcripts:https://sigmanutrition.com/episode277/

[Mrpb]

Great podcast. Thanks for the share.

Here's what he literally said.

Danny asks Eric what his hypothesis was and what he is expecting to see from the study that compares maintenance vs. 5% surplus vs. 15% surplus. (data collection wasn't finished at the time of the interview)

Yeah. So it was pretty cool and that when we came up
with the research question, we got to have the input of
a lot of the other advisers for Legion athletics which
you may be familiar with who they are. So we got some
good brains in there to make sure it made sense. And I
would say that collectively based on what we'd seen as
coaches and like I said, the limited data in this area, I
think we expect that with trained lifters, which that's
what the participants are. They're not incredibly well
trained, but they've got at least be able to bench their
body weight, squat their body weight and a half and
we're trying to recruit a relatively trained population.
So that's kind of the minimum requirement. We're
expecting people that at this level, there's only so much
muscle mass you can gain in a given time period, and if
you try to force feed that like we saw on Garth, we're
probably not going to get an increase at least in body
composition efficiency, right?
It'll be much less efficient from, I'm guessing from a fat
to muscle mass gain in the 15% group versus the 5%
group. And then it'll be a question of, all right, well, is
that worth it and what would that mean for someone
long term? So, I mean an athlete would probably have
to go through more frequent dieting phases if they're in
the 15% surplus group, would that be worth it? And
that's going to be context dependent. But I'm also really
interested just to see what happens in the maintenance
group. You know, there's, there's some people who are
vocal proponents that really it's about protein balance,
not energy balance for, you know, putting on muscle
mass. And I think that's probably true when you're
pretty novice and you have a very low “threshold” to
respond to training adaptations. But when you start to
look at some of the mechanisms where if you're in a
acute energy deficit there is a lowering of muscle
protein synthesis.
So certainly muscle protein synthesis is the driver and
what drives muscle protein synthesis is protein. But
there's a lot of other mechanisms like related to amp
kinase [00:21:21] and being in a deficit that ended up
short circuiting the effect of protein. I think this is some
recent research that came out of Philips lab, if I recall
correctly, that looked at that. And they said, hey, you
know, we've talked about being in a “catabolic” state
when you diet. But what's really happening, at least in
people who are decently high in body fat, is you are less
anabolic, right? So there seems to be this, this cap on
how high you can push up muscle protein synthesis.
However, there's also other data showing that when
you're lean, there's a disparity between lean and obese
people or overweight people that when you're actually
very lean and in the diet, not only is there a cap on
muscle protein synthesis, but there's also an increased
rate of muscle protein breakdown, which kind of
parallels what we see in natural bodybuilders, right?
You see, yeah, you're probably not gaining much
muscle. Your progress slows. And then man, you start
to get really lean and that's where you risk seeing a
pretty drastic negative change in your physique if you
don't pace yourself and be smart about it. And that's,
you know, that's what I see like guys and gals
sometimes and like the last six weeks before a show,
you're like, oh, you dieted off some muscle groups
there, you know. So I think that kind of makes sense
and that's why I do think that there's going to be an
impact over feeding. You also see impacts overfeeding
on things like IGF 1 and [00:22:46] and there are other
effects like, you know, when you're really full of
glycogen, there's some downstream signaling like I
could see a rationale for why being in an overfed state
would help you improve your ability to gain muscle.
And that it's probably too reductionist just to look at
the protein balance side of it.

Another part that I found interesting, a 'recommendation' (for some) for what sounds to me like a perma recomp.

So I think it really
depends on what the demands of that your endeavors
are. And, you know, for example, if you're never going
to get on stage and you're just someone who wants to
look big and a shirt and not be disgusted with yourself
with your shirt off, then ****, you know, with a lot of
muscle and putting on muscle in the right spots, you
could be as a male, 18%, 19%, 20% body fat, that's
certainly healthy. There's no data show that's
unhealthy. Not only does it bother you mentally. And if
you feel strong and you're filling out shirts and you
know, your bros give you the brofist and women still
don't care, then that's awesome. Yeah. And same thing
for a gal. It's like, you know, you can get up close to 30%
body fat and you're able to handle heavier loads, you
know, be able to fill out the muscle groups that you
want to fill out and be stronger. So I think it really
depends on the individual and the goal there. There
may be a time where you're happy to gain weight
quickly and then you just work on making that body
weight better over time and maintenance. I think that's
a really reasonable thing to do if you're in it for the long
haul, but you're not going to compete in anything. Or if
you're a power lifter who's going to move up a weight
class and stay there.

https://sigmanutrition.com/wp-conten...Eric-Helms.pdf

[HotDogManB]

Thanks for the podcast, I'll listen to the whole thing later.

[AdamWW]

I just saw this:

"LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature"

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...3.2018.1519391



haven't read it yet, but wondering if anyone has.

[Mrpb]

^ yeah I'm aware of it. They published similar claims a couple of times. It's a response to:

Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/a...2/2459/3745109

I suggest giving this ^ one a read.

[Strawng]

^ yeah I'm aware of it. They published similar claims a couple of times. It's a response to:

Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/a...2/2459/3745109

I suggest giving this ^ one a read.

This. Defending cholesterol is kind of Ravnskov's "thing". He wrote "The Cholesterol Myth" in the year 2000. Here's a brief article that picks apart one of his studies from 2016:http://www.cardiobrief.org/2016/06/1...nother-attack/. Ravnskov even shows up in the comments section to defend himself.

[AdamWW]

This. Defending cholesterol is kind of Ravnskov's "thing". He wrote "The Cholesterol Myth" in the year 2000. Here's a brief article that picks apart one of his studies from 2016:http://www.cardiobrief.org/2016/06/1...nother-attack/. Ravnskov even shows up in the comments section to defend himself.

Gotcha -- wasn't aware

[Strawng]

Latest from Greg Nuckols:https://www.strongerbyscience.com/ge...-expectations/. Cliffs: People told they had either favorable or unfavorable genes for either performance or fat loss tended to have corresponding outcomes regardless of their actual DNA. It's not particularly surprising by any means but it's an interesting read. If anything, it's further proof of why people would be far better of if "hardgainers", "metabolisms", & ****types were never mentioned with regard to fitness. That is, besides all the obnoxious newbie posts on this site every damn day from people who're convinced their bodies are exceptionally cursed to never gain or lose weight.

[boo99]

Latest from Greg Nuckols:https://www.strongerbyscience.com/ge...-expectations/. Cliffs: People told they had either favorable or unfavorable genes for either performance or fat loss tended to have corresponding outcomes regardless of their actual DNA. It's not particularly surprising by any means but it's an interesting read. If anything, it's further proof of why people would be far better of if "hardgainers", "metabolisms", & ****types were never mentioned with regard to fitness. That is, besides all the obnoxious newbie posts on this site every damn day from people who're convinced their bodies are exceptionally cursed to never gain or lose weight.

Gym self fulfilling prophecies

Sometimes it's best not to know anything, just bust your asss with much intensity as possible and accept/be pleased with the results received

[Mrpb]

Things are looking worse and worse for BCAA supplementation.

Need another reason not to take BCAA - aside from the fact they don't do anything? - Branched-chain amino acids impact health and lifespan indirectly via amino acid balance and appetite control

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-019-0059-2

These effects are not due to elevated BCAA per se or hepatic mammalian target of rapamycin activation, but instead are due to a shift in the relative quantity of dietary BCAAs and other amino acids, notably tryptophan and threonine. Increasing the ratio of BCAAs to these amino acids results in hyper****ia and is associated with central serotonin depletion. Preventing hyper****ia by calorie restriction or pair-feeding averts the health costs of a high-BCAA diet. Our data highlight a role for amino acid quality in energy balance and show that health costs of chronic high BCAA intakes need not be due to intrinsic toxicity but instead are a consequence of hyper****ia driven by amino acid imbalance.

Animal data as far as I can tell.

From Stu Phillips on ********.
https://www.********.com/stu.phillip...61605271630317

[Voyager92]

Do foods like dairy, chicken, wheat and soy really negatively affect testosterone levels?

[Mrpb]

Do foods like dairy, chicken, wheat and soy really negatively affect testosterone levels?

No, not meaningfully.

Even if they did, small changes within the normal range of testosterone are completely meaningless.

Anyone who tells you to eat food X or not eat food Y to increase your testosterone is usually wrong.

[Mrpb]

Oh boy, this does not look good for keto:

Abstract
Objective
The objective of this study was to measure changes in glucose, lipid, and inflammation parameters after transitioning from a baseline diet (BD) to an isocaloric ketogenic diet (KD).

Methods
Glucose homeostasis, lipid homeostasis, and inflammation were studied in 17 men (BMI: 25‐35 kg/m2) during 4 weeks of a BD (15% protein, 50% carbohydrate, 35% fat) followed by 4 weeks of an isocaloric KD (15% protein, 5% carbohydrate, 80% fat). Postprandial responses were assessed following mixed‐meal tests matched to compositions of the BD (control meal [CM]) and KD (ketogenic meal).

Results
Fasting ketones, glycerol, free fatty acids, glucagon, adiponectin, gastric inhibitory peptide, total and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and C‐reactive protein were significantly increased on the KD. Fasting insulin, C‐peptides, triglycerides, and fibroblast growth factor 21 were significantly decreased. During the KD, the glucose area under the curve was significantly higher with both test meals, and the insulin area under the curve was significantly higher only for the CM. Analyses of glucose homeostasis suggested that the KD insulin sensitivity decreased during the CM but increased during the ketogenic meal. Insulin‐mediated antilipolysis was decreased on the KD regardless of meal type.

Conclusions
Switching to the KD was associated with increased cholesterol and inflammatory markers, decreased triglycerides, and decreased insulin‐mediated antilipolysis. Glucose homeostasis parameters were diet dependent and test meal dependent.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...HliRxdg_hwi0Jo

[Heisman2]

Oh boy, this does not look good for keto:



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...HliRxdg_hwi0Jo

Takeaway for me is that if you plan to do keto short term (ie, while cutting for a couple months) then probably not a big deal at all. If you would like to do keto long term then it would be worth getting your cholesterol (and likely a hepatic function panel based on other things I've read) tested before and 2 months after starting it (in case 4 weeks isn't fully long enough to see the full effects) and then if the numbers look bad on the repeat test it would be worth considering stopping it.

The other major point of the paper for me is that the rank order of most parameters did not change significantly. That is very interesting as it implies that most people did not respond "better" to one type of diet or another, but it is still possible they would respond more significantly or less significantly to both diets. Some will criticize this and state the time period was not long enough to see full effects but I think 4 weeks is a decent length of time (certainly long enough for gene expression changes to fully occur and they did not notice differences in most tested parameters between weeks 3 and 4 indicating no active change at that time). Participants were losing weight (albeit at a small deficit) so cannot quite say the same things would be found at maintenance or when bulking.

[Mrpb]

Interesting stuff Heisman2. I haven't read it fully myself. Funny how NuSi (the low carb promoters) keep funding studies that don't really work out too well for their agenda.

[AMG63Pete]

I think, as has been previously stated, at the end of the day, ketogenic diet can be useful in those who have problems with a caloric deficit. ie. it isn't any better than any other diet...

I currently have my father-in-law on the keto diet. He's 58 years old, 5'10 and started at 286 lbs. He was extremely obese. He's now down to 218 lbs. We gave him diet breaks to allow him to eat whatever he wanted every couple of months. Interestingly enough, he never binged. He was able to still choose healthy foods and eat in moderation. Ultimately, he had a bad relationship with food in general. He would stress eat and eat absolute trash all the time. Now he eats salads, healthy meats, eggs, etc. He just overall, benefited from the structure of the diet, more so than the "ketogenic" effect. His mood has improved drastically and he looks forward to his weigh-ins.

Ultimately, I think he will do find once "off" the diet since his relationship with food has changed. His brain has essentially been rewired to prefer healthy foods over all the processed trash and fast food he was used to eating.

[boo99]

No surprises here; cancer and poor diet.

Just published today May 22


https://academic.oup.com/jncics/adva...pkz034/5492023

[AdamWW]

I

No surprises here; cancer and poor diet.

Just published today May 22


https://academic.oup.com/jncics/adva...pkz034/5492023

Lol, makes me wonder why they’d spend money and time doing a study like that... what exactly are we learning ;-)

[boo99]

I

Lol, makes me wonder why they’d spend money and time doing a study like that... what exactly are we learning ;-)

Ya so true

It's like saying don't sit in your garage while your car is idling; it might cause death

Not funny but obvious

[AdamWW]

Ya so true

It's like saying don't sit in your garage while your car is idling; it might cause death

Not funny but obvious

Wait a second, you’re saying running the car in a closed garage is bad!?

Way to ruin my Saturday plans! ;-)

[boo99]

Wait a second, you’re saying running the car in a closed garage is bad!?

Way to ruin my Saturday plans! ;-)

Hehe Adam. We need to have coffee sometime if I'm in Seattle or you are in Los Angeles

[AdamWW]

Hehe Adam. We need to have coffee sometime if I'm in Seattle or you are in Los Angeles

I’m down! Haven’t been to LA in ages, so I’m sure I’ll be due for a visit in the not too distant future.

[Mrpb]

No surprises here; cancer and poor diet.

Just published today May 22


https://academic.oup.com/jncics/adva...pkz034/5492023

Thanks. Interesting that they specifically mention dairy.

Also interesting: "By cancer type, colorectal cancer had the highest number and proportion of diet-related cases (52225, 38.3%)"

[Strawng]

Thanks. Interesting that they specifically mention dairy.

It is strange how dairy continually tends to be associated with positive health outcomes across the board when it’s one of the most maligned foods by all the fad diets & tinfoil hatters who say it’s loaded with “cancer-causing” chemicals and “hormones”. Although it could be that people who cut out dairy are typically already unhealthy, it seems like there is a dearth of evidence that dairy has anything but a positive impact on health outcomes.

[Strawng]

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advanc...dFrom=fulltext

This recent study claims that keto offers no cognitive benefits over a higher carb diet. While I certainly buy the claim, there seems to be a lot wrong with this one. Huge potential problems are the fact that they only used 11 subjects & had a diet of 15% carbs, 60% fat, 25% protein. If they were eating 2k calories, then that’s 75g of carbs. Can anyone explain how they were proven to be “in a nutritional state of ketosis” if they were potentially eating 75g carbs per day?

[Mrpb]

It is strange how dairy continually tends to be associated with positive health outcomes across the board when it’s one of the most maligned foods by all the fad diets & tinfoil hatters who say it’s loaded with “cancer-causing” chemicals and “hormones”. Although it could be that people who cut out dairy are typically already unhealthy, it seems like there is a dearth of evidence that dairy has anything but a positive impact on health outcomes.

From what I've seen that's probably a bit too positive. There's been quite a few studies showing increased prostate cancer risk for example.

In general it's associated with mild positive effects though, I agree.

[boo99]

Here in LA/California the state thinks MANY things (too many?) cause cancer, that I just can't keep up with it all the warning signs

[boo99]

Just saw this, skimmed it, posting to keep this thread alive

Released today, June 12

"Association of changes in red meat consumption with total and cause specific mortality among US women and men: two prospective cohort studies"



https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110

[Mrpb]

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/2/180/htm

Recent Perspectives Regarding the Role of Dietary Protein for the Promotion of Muscle Hypertrophy with Resistance Exercise Training

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110

Thanks for the share Boo. I hadn't seen it yet.

[boo99]

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/2/180/htm

Recent Perspectives Regarding the Role of Dietary Protein for the Promotion of Muscle Hypertrophy with Resistance Exercise Training






Thanks for the share Boo. I hadn't seen it yet.

Sure thing, thnx for the above link, will look later