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

[Strawng]

I saw this when it first came out (I browse AJCN) and even included it in the nutrition/weight management course on my website. I wish the general public would get this. The Biggest Loser study got way too much popularity compared to the several other studies suggesting metabolic adaptation is generally not more than 50 kcal/d. The Biggest Loser study also obviously took things to the extreme and should not be considered representative of the general population anyway in my opinion.

Separately though, this also casts more doubt on Hall's findings in the metabolic chamber studies where the subjects do not maintain perfect energy balance throughout (this was one of the criticisms of his work). Unfortunately metabolic chambers are very expensive to run so those studies always have small numbers of subjects and it is hard on a short time scale to determine if one is in perfect energy balance or not.

The problem is all those damn HAES fat acceptance advocates keep citing that BL study as proof that "diets never work" and do more harm than good because they "ruin your metabolism". HAES is some of the most anti-science nonsense out there.

[AdamWW]

The problem is all those damn HAES fat acceptance advocates keep citing that BL study as proof that "diets never work" and do more harm than good because they "ruin your metabolism". HAES is some of the most anti-science nonsense out there.

Agreed.

Even as someone who knows first hand the dangers of dieting in certain people, HAES has grossly twisted an otherwise reasonable idea (PURSUING health regardless of current size) and turned it into a catch phrase to literally justify any weight imaginable...

[Strawng]

Agreed.

Even as someone who knows first hand the dangers of dieting in certain people, HAES has grossly twisted an otherwise reasonable idea (PURSUING health regardless of current size) and turned it into a catch phrase to literally justify any weight imaginable...

100%. It's honestly just as damaging as pro-anorexia movements or the "diet culture" they lambast imo. Ik that's a bold statement and that being underweight is far more dangerous than being obese, but not only does it encourage obese people to pride themselves in not getting to a healthier weight, but it's a MAJOR trigger for people with restrictive EDs. Personally, one of the biggest sticking points in my recovery from anorexia was my discovery of HAES. I was gaining weight for some months & then stumbled upon a HAES podcast. I smelled through the bullchit immediately & it triggered the Hell out of my ED thoughts because it made me second-guess whether responding to my extreme hunger cues and eating the thousands of calories per day my body needed to repair and recover was part of the same nonsense they proselytize. They apply things that are true of anorexics in recovery to grossly overweight people. Yes, people who are recovering from starvation need thousands of calories to repair their bodies and binging can be a byproduct of restriction. No, you don't have extreme hunger & a license to binge because you went on a 2-week diet at 300 lbs. They even claim they were "anorexic" because they went on diets. I'm not the only person who struggled with a restrictive ED who was severely triggered by all their nonsense, either. I know plenty. It's in many ways the "flat Earth" movement of nutrition, & the fact it's gained as much traction as it has is absolutely appalling. I discovered HAES in the early days of the "movement" but there are somehow now even plenty of legitimate dietitians & MD's who endorse these people. I just think the whole thing is an absolute cancer.

/rant

[AdamWW]

100%. It's honestly just as damaging as pro-anorexia movements or the "diet culture" they lambast imo. Ik that's a bold statement and that being underweight is far more dangerous than being obese, but not only does it encourage obese people to pride themselves in not getting to a healthier weight, but it's a MAJOR trigger for people with restrictive EDs. Personally, one of the biggest sticking points in my recovery from anorexia was my discovery of HAES. I was gaining weight for some months & then stumbled upon a HAES podcast. I smelled through the bullchit immediately & it triggered the Hell out of my ED thoughts because it made me second-guess whether responding to my extreme hunger cues and eating the thousands of calories per day my body needed to repair and recover was part of the same nonsense they proselytize. They apply things that are true of anorexics in recovery to grossly overweight people. Yes, people who are recovering from starvation need thousands of calories to repair their bodies and binging can be a byproduct of restriction. No, you don't have extreme hunger & a license to binge because you went on a 2-week diet at 300 lbs. They even claim they were "anorexic" because they went on diets. I'm not the only person who struggled with a restrictive ED who was severely triggered by all their nonsense, either. I know plenty. It's in many ways the "flat Earth" movement of nutrition, & the fact it's gained as much traction as it has is absolutely appalling. I discovered HAES in the early days of the "movement" but there are somehow now even plenty of legitimate dietitians & MD's who endorse these people. I just think the whole thing is an absolute cancer.

/rant

Wow, I never thought about it that way, but I can completely relate. It’s essentially a form of gaslighting and when I was at my worst and earlier in recovery, I noticed an almost resentful distrust of the HAES poster-people because I could sense their pure lack of regard for the well-being of others... and in fact I find it hard to believe any of them TRULY believe what they say, much like most anorexics know they’re sick but just downplay the severity.

I would venture to guess none of the morbidly obese HAES advocates truly believe they’re healthy, and certainly not optimally healthy, but they’re using the ‘movement’ as a way to squelch the rational voices in their heads through strength in numbers. Once they build a support system around them, they feel less inclined leave the group and become an ‘ex-fat’ for fear of alienation.

That’s a truly toxic aspect of this lifestyle especially for famous people like the chick who was on the cover of Cosmo. If she chooses to lose weight now because she wants to live a healthy life, she literally has to trust that she’ll be financially OK because so much of her identity and her career is based on being in an obese body.... kind of like actors who are type-cast for being large and don’t want to lose work if they slim down.

[Mrpb]

Study review by Menno. He concludes: Diet breaks seem to mostly be a waste of time.

https://mennohenselmans.com/icecap-d...-study-review/

Pretty interesting. Afaik Eric Helms disagrees.

[xuerebx]

Mrpb - I'm trying to find Menno's recommendations on body recomposition, do you have any links please? I found and read articles that it works, but can't find his practical recommendations online.

Study review by Menno. He concludes: Diet breaks seem to mostly be a waste of time.

https://mennohenselmans.com/icecap-d...-study-review/

Pretty interesting. Afaik Eric Helms disagrees.

I thought the purpose of diet breaks was more for a psychological benefit rather than physiological?

[Mrpb]

Mrpb - I'm trying to find Menno's recommendations on body recomposition, do you have any links please? I found and read articles that it works, but can't find his practical recommendations online.

I don't know such article. Perhaps listen to some podcasts. Summarised: eat enough to make consistent strength progress in the medium rep ranges. He generally recommends 4 protein rich meals per day.

As for programs: Menno likes training full body every day with 1 exercise per muscle group.

I thought the purpose of diet breaks was more for a psychological benefit rather than physiological?

It's mentioned. "Psychologically, yet again there were no significant differences between groups, including for sleep quality, irritability, muscle dysmorphia, control over eating, overall mood states, eating disorder behaviors and behavioral consequences of hunger.

However, the diet breaks did achieve 1 benefit: they resulted in lower levels of hunger and desire to eat with greater food satisfaction. This benefit was not consistent, however, because there were no differences in ratings of fullness or prospective consumption. As mentioned, it also didn’t lead to a difference in behavioral consequences of hunger, actual energy intake or overall diet adherence, so it’s questionable how practically relevant the difference in appetite sensations was. Probably not worth spending 25% more time on the diet for that you could have spent bulking or just cutting more slowly."

[xuerebx]

Cheers - I've never applied a diet break but if I did, purely just to eat 'more' for a shorter while. Anyway that's another article for bed time reading.

As for the recomp recommendation - that's what I'm doing as per your recommendation some 2 months ago. I'm maintaining my weight but getting stronger in all rep ranges, so hoping this is building muscle. We'll see.

[Mrpb]

As for the recomp recommendation - that's what I'm doing as per your recommendation some 2 months ago. I'm maintaining my weight but getting stronger in all rep ranges, so hoping this is building muscle. We'll see.

What kind of progress are you making? Lifts, weights, reps etc.

[EiFit91]

Study review by Menno. He concludes: Diet breaks seem to mostly be a waste of time.

https://mennohenselmans.com/icecap-d...-study-review/

Pretty interesting. Afaik Eric Helms disagrees.

Interesting. I suspect this to be different for extremely long cuts though. I cut from 230 lbs to about 175 lbs last year and was going insane after 9 months of cutting without any breaks.

A bit puzzled by the statement "Maintenance phases after a diet also seem to largely be a waste of time", as that assumes you need to bulk to gain muscle and I didn't think Menno was in this camp. I don't think this statement really follows from this study either, 3 weeks is no time at all if the aim is to build muscle past the novice stage.

[Mrpb]

A bit puzzled by the statement "Maintenance phases after a diet also seem to largely be a waste of time", as that assumes you need to bulk to gain muscle and I didn't think Menno was in this camp.

Although one of his articles gives a different impression, Menno believes in cutting and bulking for most intermediates and beyond. He mentioned that in that last podcast I linked in the other thread. But he has a pretty high standard of what he calls an intermediate.

I don't think this statement really follows from this study either, 3 weeks is no time at all if the aim is to build muscle past the novice stage.

Can't comment on that as I have not read the study.

[EiFit91]

Although one of his articles gives a different impression, Menno believes in cutting and bulking for most intermediates and beyond. He mentioned that in that last podcast I linked in the other thread. But he has a pretty high standard of what he calls an intermediate.



Can't comment on that as I have not read the study.

What is his definition of an intermediate?

[Mrpb]

What is his definition of an intermediate?

I don't know. I'm just paraphrasing what I've heard him say.

[xuerebx]

What kind of progress are you making? Lifts, weights, reps etc.

Since volume in terms of sets x reps x load isn't the best measure of progress, I'll try to summarise using alternative measures. I've got lots of data points, but I'll focus on the main lifts.

I lift the main compounds in the low rep range (T1 lifts: 5 sets of 3, last set AMRAP) and mid rep range (T2 lifts: 3 sets of 10) as per the GZCLP protocol. When I fail to get minimum reps I lower volume but weight increases (6 sets of 2, and 3 sets of 8, T1 and T2 respectively). Isolations 3 sets of 15 (last set AMRAP) but I don't progress much in weight here, I just try to get more reps.



My bodyweight has remained 65.5kg on average throughout. Bench and deadlift are my 'best lifts', haven't failed in the T1 'strength' range yet. Squats I'm deloading the T1 range starting next week since I'm near my 1RM.

[Mrpb]

My bodyweight has remained 65.5kg on average throughout. Bench and deadlift are my 'best lifts', haven't failed in the T1 'strength' range yet. Squats I'm deloading the T1 range starting next week since I'm near my 1RM.

First thing I noticed is the amount of low rep work in that program. As you probably know sets of 1 and 3 reps aren't ideal to accumulate enough volume for hypertrophy. But hey if the program is working for you and you like it it will get you there too, eventually.

Second thing I noticed is that you joined the forum in 2008 and you can bench your body weight for 3 reps. What happened?

[xuerebx]

First thing I noticed is the amount of low rep work in that program. As you probably know sets of 1 and 3 reps aren't ideal to accumulate enough volume for hypertrophy. But hey if the program is working for you and you like it it will get you there too, eventually.

I like lifting in both rep ranges, but am aware that less than 3 reps aren't ideal for hypertrophy. I do want to go up in strength too and I enjoy GZCLP. I don't want to program hop so I'll continue doing this until I stall 3 times in the main lifts.

Also I didn't show you the whole program - I have more volume in the accessory exercises (T3s and T2s):

Second thing I noticed is that you joined the forum in 2008 and you can bench your body weight for 3 reps. What happened?

I was 16 years old (not committed) living with my parents (no control over my nutrition), and I spent a few years working out not really understanding the science and mechanics behind lifting. I then stopped soon after joining university.

I returned back to lifting August 2021 a month before my 29th birthday as I got too fat (36" waist at 70kg). I'm married and live with my wife now, so we control all aspects of our nutrition ever since committing to lifting. Much happier with my physique, but still a long ways to go.

[Mrpb]

I like lifting in both rep ranges, but am aware that less than 3 reps aren't ideal for hypertrophy. I do want to go up in strength too and I enjoy GZCLP. I don't want to program hop so I'll continue doing this until I stall 3 times in the main lifts.

Also I didn't show you the whole program - I have more volume in the accessory exercises (T3s and T2s):

Well as long as you're getting stronger in the medium rep ranges (5-25) over multiple sets you're moving in the right direction.

I was 16 years old (not committed) living with my parents (no control over my nutrition), and I spent a few years working out not really understanding the science and mechanics behind lifting. I then stopped soon after joining university.

I returned back to lifting August 2021 a month before my 29th birthday as I got too fat (36" waist at 70kg). I'm married and live with my wife now, so we control all aspects of our nutrition ever since committing to lifting. Much happier with my physique, but still a long ways to go.

Sounds good.

I think I may have said this before but in case I haven't I'll repeat it. Although I'm not sure what your exact goals are, for the physique you want you'll probably want to able to bench say 90 kg for 5 reps for 3 sets. For your other lifts there are similar goals. As long as you're moving in that direction you're doing it right. You'll find out when you need a surplus to get there.

[radiokombala]

What are your High fat VS High Carb experiences, given a high protein intake (>2g/kg)?

I'm currently on a lean bulk with a calorie surplus of 5-10% (+ abt 200 kcal/day).

Current macros
Protein: 200-220g (2,5-2,7g/kg body weight)
Fat: Around 100g (normally 80-90)
Carbs: Remaining calories

My experience is that it's much easier to reach my daily calorie goal with some extra fat vs carbs (which ofc isn't surprising as 1g fat = 9 kcal vs 1g carbs = 4 kcal) — but are there any common disadvantages associated with increasing fat a little bit & lowering carbs, as long as I feel like I have the energy needed during my workouts?

Ofc it varies from one individual to another, but what're your personal experiences?
Where do you guys put your macros at when you're bulking?

[xuerebx]

Well as long as you're getting stronger in the medium rep ranges (5-25) over multiple sets you're moving in the right direction.

Sounds good.

I think I may have said this before but in case I haven't I'll repeat it. Although I'm not sure what your exact goals are, for the physique you want you'll probably want to able to bench say 90 kg for 5 reps for 3 sets. For your other lifts there are similar goals. As long as you're moving in that direction you're doing it right. You'll find out when you need a surplus to get there.

Thanks man - I appreciate the advice and help you give out. I'll get there...one day.

Ultimately I want to look bigger and stronger - maybe around 75-80kg at 12%bf (probably the lower end, given my subpar genetics).

[Mrpb]

What are your High fat VS High Carb experiences, given a high protein intake (>2g/kg)?

I'm currently on a lean bulk with a calorie surplus of 5-10% (+ abt 200 kcal/day).

Current macros
Protein: 200-220g (2,5-2,7g/kg body weight)
Fat: Around 100g (normally 80-90)
Carbs: Remaining calories

My experience is that it's much easier to reach my daily calorie goal with some extra fat vs carbs (which ofc isn't surprising as 1g fat = 9 kcal vs 1g carbs = 4 kcal) — but are there any common disadvantages associated with increasing fat a little bit & lowering carbs, as long as I feel like I have the energy needed during my workouts?

Ofc it varies from one individual to another, but what're your personal experiences?
Where do you guys put your macros at when you're bulking?

Keep in mind that we're trying to have discussions here that center around studies. Your question is interesting but you can just post it as a separate thread. You'll likely get better replies.

Personally I bulk on high fat, with the large majority of it coming from unsaturated fats.

Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans
https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/63/7/2356

[radiokombala]

Hey, thanks for the reply!
Sorry, I'll put it somewhere else.

[Mrpb]

Hey, thanks for the reply!
Sorry, I'll put it somewhere else.

It's a good topic for the Nutrition forum. Or you could search for it as the question has been asked many times.

But in short: do whatever works for you, as long as you don't load up on saturated fats you'll be fine.

[Mrpb]

This was pretty surprising to me: 30 gram wheat protein as good as 30 gram milk protein for MPS.

Post-prandial myofibrillar protein synthesis rates did not differ between MILK vs WHEAT (0.053±0.013 vs 0.056±0.012 %∙h-1, respectively; t-test P=0.56) or between MILK vs WHEAT+MILK (0.053±0.013 vs 0.059±0.025 %∙h-1, respectively; t-test P=0.46). In conclusion, ingestion of 30 g milk protein, 30 g wheat protein, or a blend of 15 g wheat plus 15 g milk protein increases muscle protein synthesis rates in young males. Furthermore, muscle protein synthesis rates following the ingestion of 30 g milk protein do not differ from rates observed after ingesting 30 g wheat protein or a blend with 15 g milk plus 15 g wheat protein in healthy, young males.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33597056/

Free full text: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...5E5711B6B90217

[AdamWW]

This was pretty surprising to me: 30 gram wheat protein as good as 30 gram milk protein for MPS.



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33597056/

Free full text: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...5E5711B6B90217

I've always wondered about the methods of testing MPS here.

"Blood and muscle biopsies were collected frequently for 5 hours to assess post-prandial plasma amino acid profiles and subsequent myofibrillar protein synthesis rates"

How exactly do these methods of testing measure the rate of synthesis?

Edit: actually just found this https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...tein_synthesis

Might give that a read

[Mrpb]

I've always wondered about the methods of testing MPS here.

"Blood and muscle biopsies were collected frequently for 5 hours to assess post-prandial plasma amino acid profiles and subsequent myofibrillar protein synthesis rates"

How exactly do these methods of testing measure the rate of synthesis?

Edit: actually just found this https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...tein_synthesis

Might give that a read

I think it's explained at 3.5 FSR in that article.

[AdamWW]

I think it's explained at 3.5 FSR in that article.

gotcha, gunna give it a read

[Mrpb]

Many strength trainees are familiar that proteins and carbs can help fuel their gains. However, there is also compelling evidence that certain fatty acids can stimulate lean tissue growth.

The most famous are the omega-3 fatty acids, but other poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have also been linked to increased lean body mass: see the attached table.

PUFAs may be incorporated into (muscle) cell membranes, improving their fluidity and thereby increasing their interactions with proteins and hormones.

We really need more research on the potential of fat intake on muscle growth in strength trainees.

source: https://www.********.com/MennoHensel...12435318814274

Menno is posting a lot of interesting stuff lately.

[EiFit91]

Another interesting study posted by Menno (saw it on his Instagram):

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/4/427

Strength training just as effective as stretching to increase range of motion.

[EiFit91]

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/articl...5/1170/5906560

Have been reading a lot of literature lately on the problem of weight regain after weight loss. It is a bit depressing reading as it's striking how few manage to maintain their weight loss on their own. Would love to hear others' thoughts on this particular one. A relatively recent study challenging the "compensatory theory" of weight regain.

They make a big point of the fact that weight regain isn't correlated with appetite-regulating hormones/subjective feelings of hunger. But my problem with this is that correlation doesn't imply causation (people with differences in appetite-regulating hormones could be systematically different from each other along other dimensions that could be related to weight regain), so I find it useful to think of what a hypothetical randomized study manipulating appetite would show. Suppose we could exogenously manipulate the hunger levels of a random sample of people. I'd be willing to bet you would see weight gain in the group exposed to that manipulation...

[Heisman2]

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/articl...5/1170/5906560

Have been reading a lot of literature lately on the problem of weight regain after weight loss. It is a bit depressing reading as it's striking how few manage to maintain their weight loss on their own. Would love to hear others' thoughts on this particular one. A relatively recent study challenging the "compensatory theory" of weight regain.

They make a big point of the fact that weight regain isn't correlated with appetite-regulating hormones/subjective feelings of hunger. But my problem with this is that correlation doesn't imply causation (people with differences in appetite-regulating hormones could be systematically different from each other along other dimensions that could be related to weight regain), so I find it useful to think of what a hypothetical randomized study manipulating appetite would show. Suppose we could exogenously manipulate the hunger levels of a random sample of people. I'd be willing to bet you would see weight gain in the group exposed to that manipulation...

I did read that (to be clear, it's a review, not a study). Keep in mind that is referencing people with obesity going to normal weight; not fitness/physique individuals going to very low levels of body fat. They also do note that fasting hunger levels increase after weight loss.

However, it goes along more with the other research on this topic that it's social pressures/food environment/decreased physical activity in modern society/etc that is causing obesity in the first place. Then if you go back to normal weight it makes some sense our hunger levels will not be astronomically high; the problem for many is when they lose weight they stop doing the behaviors that helped them lose weight so they gain it back (hence the need for "lifestyle changes" rather than "diets"). They do acknowledge the increased fasting hunger levels and the change in ghrelin/GLP-1/PYY/CCK that favor weight regain; perhaps this nudge towards increased calorie consumption plus relaxation of habits that led to the initial weight loss collectively leads to weight regain.

Purely regarding correlation, mathematically you will not see a big one if everybody has a similar change in the hormones after weight loss. Then it could be a big driver to weight regain (for people who relax other habits) but there won't be a strong correlation if everyone is impacted similarly with that variable.