Saturday, December 31, 2011

World’s Most Popular Drug by Jerry Brainum

Here’s a quick quiz for you: What’s the most popular drug among bodybuilders? It isn’t any type of anabolic steroid or growth hormone, nor does it involve thyroid, beta agonists or any other anabolic substance. The most popular drug among bodybuilders is also the most popular drug world-wide: caffeine.


   In the United States about four out of five Americans eat, drink or swallow a product that contains caffeine. Caffeine is ubiquitous in nature, existing in more than 60 known plants. About 75 percent of the caffeine consumed comes from coffee, with the other 25 percent mainly from tea and cocoa. Coffee, at an average 100 milligrams of caffeine per cup, contains twice as much caffeine as tea. A 12-ounce bottle of cola contains between 35 and 55 milligrams of caffeine.

   Most people use caffeine to obtain benefits associated with it, including increased mental alertness, faster thought processes and reduced fatigue. Other effects—not specifically sought by most people—include stimulation of the heart, increased secretion of stomach acid and increased urine output.

   Caffeine is thought to be an ergogenic aid in that it can enhance athletic performance. A study examined some of the fat-burning properties of caffeine under resting conditions and found that it increased energy expenditure 13 percent.1 Other effects included 24 percent increased fat oxidation, with 76 percent being recycled, likely due to the resting conditions in the study. Most of the effects were attributed to increased sympathetic nervous system activity, or the release of sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, after the subjects took caffeine.

   Caffeine-induced fatty acid release can interfere with insulin activity, leading to insulin insensitivity; however, research shows that exercise relieves that particular problem. Indeed, one recent study showed that drinking coffee offers protection against type 2 diabetes and suggested that nutrients besides caffeine, such as magnesium, may be the protective factors in coffee.2

   Another recent study found that caffeine protects against Alzheimer’s disease by reducing the toxic effects of a protein called beta-amyloid on brain neurons3; buildup of beta-amyloid is considered a primary event in the onset of Alzheimer’s.

   Since caffeine promotes the release of sympathetic hormones that stimulate body processes, it’s not surprising that it can induce severe anxiety in some people. Indeed, “caffeineism” is so distressing that an estimated 20 percent of people cannot tolerate anything containing caffeine. One study, however, found that exercise can relieve anxiety brought on by high doses of caffeine.4

   The release of sympathetic hormones by caffeine can stimulate the heart and increase blood pressure. Some drugs prescribed to treat cardiovascular disease, known as beta-blockers, block the effects of sympathetic hormones on the cardiovascular system. Caffeine would appear to be a problem because of the way it affects the cardiovascular system, but most studies have found no significant adverse effects except when excess intake is involved.

   For example, one study examined the effects of caffeine on the body’s homocysteine levels.5 A toxic by-product of the metabolism of the essential amino acid methionine, homocysteine is linked to cardiovascular and other diseases. Healthy volunteers drank a liter a day of coffee for a month, and 24 of the 25 participants showed significant elevations of homocysteine in the blood. Vitamin B12, folic acid and vitamin B6 neutralize the effects of homocysteine, converting it into an innocuous substance that’s excreted from the body.

   Another recent study found that drinking four cups of filtered coffee a day for one month increased cholesterol levels.6 Previous studies had shown that drinking unfiltered coffee increased cholesterol, an effect scientists traced to elements in coffee called diterpenes. Coffee filters captured the chemicals, making filtered coffee safe—or so they thought. Even so, the increase in cholesterol from coffee is significant only to those who already have elevated cholesterol. To others the effect is insignificant.

Drinking more than about five cups of coffee daily—particularly at night—can lead to insomnia. Besides caffeine coffee contains other substances, such as theophylline, a drug commonly used to treat bronchial asthma because it dilates the bronchial tubes. Coffee does that too. Another coffee ingredient, theobromine, was recently found to have cough-suppressant power superior to that in over-the-counter cough medications. Caffeine isn’t linked to any organ damage and peaks in the blood about two hours following ingestion. It’s metabolized by the liver, then excreted by the kidneys.


   Coffee is believed to stimulate the brain by blocking brain receptors for a chemical called adenosine, which slows the activity of the brain’s working cells, or neurons. By blocking adenosine, caffeine fosters a feeling of mental clarity and focus. On the other hand, it also constricts blood vessels in the brain, which would decrease blood flow and lower metabolic activity.

   Since caffeine is a drug, you might expect to pay a price if you quit cold turkey. The effects of withdrawal include headache, drowsiness and fatigue, mainly due to an increase in adenosine receptors in the brain.

   As with other drugs, caffeine’s physiological effects depend on the dosage. The amount in an average cup of coffee—100 to 200 milligrams—leads to increased mental alertness and reduced fatigue. At the one-gram level symptoms of caffeineism, such as anxiety, mild heart-rhythm disturbances and gastrointestinal disturbances, appear. If for some crazy reason you were to ingest 10 grams of caffeine—the amount in 100 cups of coffee—at one time, you’d die.

   Many of the popular so-called fat-burning supplements on the market contain some form of caffeine. Typical ingredients include guarana, an herb from Brazil that contains 7 percent caffeine—compared to the 2 percent found in coffee. A popular stimulant sold in the 1970s called Zoom was composed entirely of guarana, and its activity matched its name. Another form found in supplements is mate, also from South America.

   The addition of caffeine to fat-burning supplements makes sense, since it promotes the release of sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, which induce a biochemical cascade of fat from fat cells. The combination of ephedrine, which also promotes sympathetic-hormone release, and caffeine was considered the most effective natural fat-burning combination. Adverse publicity about ephedrine, however, eventually led to its being banned by the FDA. Could the fact that head-to-head comparisons found the ephedrine-and-caffeine combo to be superior to popular prescription diet pills have anything to do with the ban on ephedrine? You bet it could.

   Caffeine was considered so ergogenic that the Olympics banned it above a certain quantity in the blood. The assumption was that the only way to reach that level of caffeine was to use it purposely as a means of improving performance. Some world-class cyclists were said to even use caffeine suppositories.

   Caffeine is described as ergogenic because it releases greater amounts of fat in the blood, which spares limited glycogen stores in muscle. That helps increase muscular endurance, and studies involving endurance athletes have consistently proved boosting power of caffeine. The evidence for any effect on anaerobic exercise, such as bodybuilding, has been less clear. Recent studies, however, show that under anaerobic exercise conditions, caffeine ingestion appears to increase muscular endurance and decrease fatigue. An important point about these studies is that they all involved the use of pure caffeine, not food products containing caffeine, such as coffee. The effects of pure caffeine are considered more reliable.

An Alternative to


Pro-hormones?


   In late October 2004, President George W. Bush signed the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act, an amendment to earlier legislation that had made anabolic steroid distribution illegal. The new law covers nearly all over-the-counter pro-hormone supplements and discourages the development of new pro-hormone supplements designed to circumvent the new law.

An interesting aspect of the law is that few, if any, complaints about adverse health effects of pro-hormones had been reported to the Food and Drug Administration. The philosophy behind the new law is “protective” because pro-hormone supplements are considered to be full-fledged anabolic steroids.


   Companies were able to sell various pro-hormone formulas thanks to provisions in the Food Supplement Act of 1994, which diverted proof of danger of any particular supplement from the manufacturer to the FDA. The law also said that if a supplement existed naturally, it was by definition a food, not a drug, and therefore not subject to the stringent rules that affect drugs. The new law changes all that.

   In fact, the recent banning of ephedrine for dubious reasons, plus the new mandate recently announced by the Federal Trade Commission to “vigorously pursue misleading claims in the supplement industry” may spell the beginning of the end for many other supplements that the FDA will consider fraudulent or of dubious value to consumers. In essence, the agency is saying that most Americans are brain defective and cannot protect themselves, so the big brother FDA will do it for the poor fools. That, by the way, includes you and me.

   Since pro-hormone supplements will be gone on January 23, 2005, we need to look at other ways of naturally increasing anabolic hormone levels. One way that is beyond the reach of even the FDA is movies. No, not porno movies, although they may be useful for other purposes. (I think I just gave away the fact that I didn’t vote for Bush.)

   According to new research from the University of Michigan, watching certain movies can affect hormone levels in the body. Watching romance movies increases progesterone levels in women by 10 percent. When men watch such movies, their testosterone levels plummet.

   Participants watched three different 30-minute film excerpts. The first was a romantic film called “The Bridges of Madison County.” The next group watched “The Godfather, Part 2.” The third group watched a documentary on the rain forest. All subjects had their hormone levels tested before, immediately before and 45 minutes following the films.

   No changes occurred in the rain forest group. Women watching “Bridges” showed a 10 percent rise in progesterone, with no change in testosterone. Men watching the same film showed lower testosterone levels. With “Godfather,” which involved a violent scene, men showed a 30 percent rise in testosterone levels. Women with high testosterone levels showed a drop in that hormone while watching the scene, and those with low testosterone levels got “uncomfortable” during the scene.

   An implication of the study is that by inducing an elevated progesterone level in women, romantic films increase their feelings of affiliation to men. In men progesterone increases anxiety and has a blunting effect on testosterone. Which makes one consider that profound statement made by one Rodney King, whose 15 minutes of fame resulted from being at the epicenter of the incident that started the Los Angeles riots of 1991: “Can’t we all just get along?”

References

1 Acheson, K.J., et al. (2004). Metabolic effects of caffeine in humans: lipid oxidation or futile cycling? Am J Clin Nutr. 79:40-46.

2 Salazar-Martinez, E., et al. (2004). Coffee consumption and risk for type-2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 140:1-8.

3 Dall’lgna, O., et al. (2003). Neuroprotection by caffeine and adenosine A-2 receptor blockade of beta-Amyloid neurotoxicity. Brit J Pharm. 138:1207-09.

4 Youngstedt, S.D., et al. (1998). Acute exercise reduces caffeine-induced anxiogenesis. Med Sci Sports Exer. 30:740-45.

5 Urgert, R., et al. (2000). Heavy coffee consumption and plasma homocysteine: a randomized controlled trial on healthy volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 72:1107-10.

6 Strandhagen, E., et al. (2003). Filtered coffee raises serum cholesterol: results from a controlled study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 57:1164-68.


©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

Please consider joining this blog by clicking on the blue "join this site" button to the right of this blog. This will ensure that new blogs continue to be published. It costs nothing, and takes only a few seconds. Thank you.

See Jerry's book at       www.jerrybrainum.com

Thursday, December 29, 2011

When Not to Do Your Cardio by Jerry Brainum

   Aerobics is a useful addition to any bodybuilding program for a number of reasons. It positively affects several cardiovascular risk factors, including total cholesterol, high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein and C-reactive protein. That last factor is a measure of body inflammation, which is now recognized as a primary symptom of cardiovascular disease. Aerobics also reduces elevated blood pressure and provides a relaxation effect in blood vessels through an increase in nitric oxide synthesis and secretion.


   Another reason to do aerobics is to control body composition. Bodyfat burns, or oxidizes, only when oxygen is present, and aerobics is the type of exercise that uses the most oxygen. Aerobics is still the best exercise for losing bodyfat, especially in conjunction with a good diet program designed for fat loss.

   Critics contend that aerobics isn’t recommended for those who want to build muscle. They claim that aerobics leads to overtraining, with a consequent increase in the catabolic hormone cortisol and a drop in such anabolic hormones as testosterone. Various studies show that aerobics can interfere with strength and muscle gains because of a blunting of muscle protein synthesis; however, negative effects are caused by exercise volume and frequency, as well as style.

   Engaging in hours of aerobics, often more than once daily, is likely to lead to overtraining and muscle loss, but smaller doses of aerobics, never exceeding one hour, are unlikely to adversely affect muscle and strength gains in most bodybuilders. If you’re very lean, you must use common sense in regard to aerobics, since you can indeed lose muscle if you do excess cardio.

   Most bodybuilders avoid problems by doing aerobics and weight training at different sessions. In other cases the aerobics workout follows the weight session. That makes sense physiologically, since weight training is powered by muscle glycogen stores. After a weight session, much of the stored glycogen is depleted. Aerobics, with its higher reliance on oxygen intake, will tap into fat faster if glycogen is somewhat depleted. That’s the concept behind doing aerobics on an empty stomach in the morning.

   A recent study disclosed another reason not to do aerobics before a weight workout.1 Ten men did low-intensity cycling for an hour, then a weight workout. On another day the same men did only a five-minute-warmup cycling session before their workout. When they did an hour of aerobics first, their growth hormone response to the weight session was nil. Other hormones, such as cortisol and testosterone, weren’t affected by the aerobics. That’s the good news, since it shows that moderate aerobics doesn’t negatively affect hormones related to muscle growth.

   But doing the aerobics first did blunt growth hormone release. What is it about aerobics that would block GH?

   Aerobic exercise uses greater amounts of fat as fuel, especially as the exercise continues beyond 30 minutes. The use of fat as an energy source elevates levels of free fatty acids in the blood, which, like elevated blood glucose levels, blunt the release of GH. Elevated free fatty acids also promote the release of somatostatin, a protein produced in the brain’s hypothalamus that opposes GH release.

   Clearly, it’s just plain dumb to do an extended aerobics session before an intense weight-training session. Not only do you deplete limited energy stores (glycogen), but you also block GH release during the workout. Save the aerobics for afterward.

1 Goto, K., et al. (2005). Prior endurance exercise attenuates growth hormone response to subsequent resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 94:333-338.


©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

Please consider joining this blog by clicking on the blue "join this site" button to the right of this blog. This will ensure that new blogs continue to be published. It costs nothing, and takes only a few seconds. Thank you.

See Jerry's book at       www.jerrybrainum.com

Thursday, December 22, 2011

You Can’t Flex Fat : Does bodyfat affect muscle gains? by Jerry Brainum

  Does having excess bodyfat adversely affect muscular gains? That was the focus of a recent study featuring 140 normal-weight and 81 overweight men and women who hadn’t trained in more than a year.1 They began training twice a week for 12 weeks, doing one-arm biceps curls. The researchers adjusted the training responses for bodyweight and initial values and found that the normal-weight group had made better gains than the overweight group. That led them to conclude that there’s something about being fat that hinders muscular gains. The question is: what is it about having excess bodyfat that would hinder muscle gains?
    The answer is inflammation. Fat,far from being just inactive tissue, releases over 100 chemicals, collectively known as "adopikines." Most of these substances, which are proteins, promote inflammation. This is the great danger of having too much bodyfat, since excess inflammation is the cornerstone of most serious diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. But excess inflammation also interferes with amino acid uptake into muscle, and promotes muscle breakdown (catabolism).Most obese people are also insulin insensitive,which adds to the problem, since insulin provides anti-catabolic effects in muscle, as well as aids in muscle uptake of amino acids necessary for muscle protein synthesis.
     From a practical standpoint, this means that those with higher levels of bodyfat should initially focus on losing that excess fat through diet and exercise, then switch to a more "anabolic" style of training designed to build extra lean mass.


1 Kelsey, B., et al. (2004). Adiposity alters muscle strength and size responses to resistance training in healthy men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 36:S352.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.



Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Monday, December 19, 2011

Will this system help to prevent cancer? by Jerry Brainum

Researchers and scientists are loath to tell the truth about cancer treatment.This refers to the fact that there has been little progress in the "war" on cancer since Nixon formally declared war on the disease back in the 70s. Cancer is still the number 2 killer in the world, just behind cardiovascular disease. If you are unlucky enough to acquire a cancerous disease, your best hope is that they catch it early, before the cancer has spread from its initial site, or metastasized.Once it has spread, your chances of survival plunge by 90%. This is what makes pancreatic cancer so deadly; by the time it's diagnosed, the tumor has spread throughout the internal organs, leading to a 5% survival rate after 5 years.
    Clearly, it would be better to focus on techniques that would both prevent cancer, as well as stop it in its tracks before it has the chance to kill. In relation to prevention, diet and consuming certain nutrients, as well as exercise, all play prominent roles. It's been estimated that 40% of all types of cancer could be avoided through a proper diet. But right now, I'd like to talk about a possible way of stopping cancer before it has a chance to take hold.
       Cancer cells, more so than normal cells, are dependent on a process called glycolysis, or the breakdown of glucose into lactate. Doing so provides tumors with the ATP they need to proliferate and spread throughout the body. This process can occur either without oxygen being present (anaerobic) or with the presence of oxygen (aerobic glycolysis). The latter is referred to as "The Warburg effect," after the scientist who first described it in the 1930s. Warburg surmised that interfering with a tumor's energy supply would starve the tumor. Since normal cells are less susceptible to glucose deprivation compared to tumors, which rely exclusively on glucose, lowering glucose availability would be especially fatal to cancer cells. Normal cells can survive on other fuels, including lactate and ketones from fat. Imaging of the cancerous tissues of patients show that tumors do indeed accumulate glucose more readily than do normal cells. Cancer cells are limited to glucose because of damage to cellular mitochondria in the cancer cells, which prevents them from using other fuels.
      Depriving cancer cells of glucose leads to increased oxidative stress in the cells in test-tube studies, and often results in the death of the cancer cell. Cancer cells use glucose to produce ribose, another sugar that is important for the rapid proliferation of cancer cells. Based on this, it appears plausible that consuming a very low carbohydrate diet would provide less glucose to tumor cells. Indeed, recent studies have shown beneficial effects of a low carb diet in helping to prevent cancer. You could lower glucose levels by injecting insulin, but that would also block ketone production in the liver, which is needed to fuel normal cells during glucose deprivation, as would occur with a ketogenic, or very low carb diet (less than 50 grams a day of carbs).Insulin itself also acts as a growth factor, and can promote the release of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is known to speed cell division. Since the basic process of cancer involves uncontrolled cell division, you can see what the problem would be here. Another method would involve just enough insulin to lower blood glucose, followed by an infusion of glycerol. Glycerol, which serves as the backbone of the triglyceride or fat structure, can be converted into glucose in the liver, so you would be again supplying the tumor with glucose if you used glycerol.
    The best technique would be to lower blood glucose through a ketogenic diet, and control the production of glucose made in the liver. Doing this would involve using a drug called metformin, which is used to treat diabetes and insulin insensitivity.  Metformin works to reduce the production of glucose in the liver, which results in lower blood glucose levels. But metformin does more than just that. It also interferes with the actions of mTOR, a protein that is involved in protein synthesis, but is also involved in tumor spread and survival in the body. Various recent studies show that lowering mTOR seems to control some types of cancer. Indeed, other studies have shown that metformin itself seems to offer preventive effects against several types of cancers. Lowering glucose in this manner would not produce bad effects, such as hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. The body will still produce ketones, which can be used as an energy source by most tissues in the body. Tumors themselves upgrade the production of lactate because of their reliance on anaerobic glycolysis. The lactate keeps the other cells alive while the tumor cells hoard all the glucose. Metformin is a relatively safe drug, with the main risk being a possible vitamin B12 deficiency when used long-term. This has to do with metformin interfering with the uptake of B12 into the body. It's a problem that can easily be managed by simply ingesting a sublingual B12 supplement a few hours prior to taking  metformin.


©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 


                                                                 

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Cocoa maintains endurance by Jerry Brainum

Whenever training is curtailed, any gains that have been made gradually recede, an effect known as "detraining." While strength gains tend to last longer, any gains made in endurance can rapidly diminish. One reason for this is that endurance gains are based on mitochondria activity, as well as increased blood delivery and vascularity in muscles.But according to a new study involving mice, ingesting cocoa may actually be able to "freeze" any gains made in endurance that would otherwise be lost without training.
     The study involved 32 male mice, who were divided into groups consisting of control, or those provided with epicatechin, and those who exercised, but weren't given epicatechin. thought to be the active element found in cocoa. It's also found in green tea and red wine, among other sources. The mice were detrained for 14 days. They had trained 5 days a week for 5 weeks prior to ceasing training, using an endurance mode, presumably a treadmill. Training was found to significantly induce capillary to muscle fiber ratios, as well as oxidative enzymes.The mice that exercised, but didn't receive the epicatechin (1 milligram per kilogram of bodyweight, twice a week), showed a definite detraining effect, in that the gains reverted to control levels. But those that did get the epicatechin were able to completely maintain all of their endurance gains for the entire 2 weeks of no exercise. It was thought to work by maintaining capillary patency and mitochondrial function.Although this was a mouse study, and thus may not be applicable to humans, it is known that cocoa is a potent stimulant to nitric oxide release, which would help maintain blood vessels and possibly mitochondrial function.
Huttemann, M, et al. Epicatechin maintains endurance training adaptation in mice after 14 days of detraining.FASB Journal 2011; in press.



©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 


Friday, December 16, 2011

How safe and effective is methylhexanamine (DMAA)? by Jerry Brainum

Supplements containing methylhexanamine, also known as dimethylamylamine (DMAA) have emerged as popular pre-workout products. They are also said to provide thermogenic effects that would aid fat loss efforts.DMAA isn't a new substance. It was patented back in 1944 by the Lilly drug company, who waited until April, 1971 to trademark the substance as "Forthane," for use as a nasal decongestant. It works by either blocking the reuptake of norepinephrine, or stimulating its release. Norepinephrine is known to constrict blood vessels, and by doing so, it shrinks swollen nasal passages, thus relieving congestion. The patent for DMAA expired years ago, making it subject to use by anyone who wanted to market it. But since it is a drug, this isn't as easy as it sounds. There appeared to be a workaround, when an obscure Asian science journal study  found that DMAA existed naturally in germanium oil at a concentration of 0.66-1%.
   The finding of DMAA in a natural source meant that it could be used in food supplements. This was made possible by the passage of the Dietary Health and Supplement Education Act in 1994, which opened the door to the use of countless substances, including many "pro hormones," as long as the substance was found in a natural source. Pat Arnold, a chemist known for his development of many of the early pro hormone supplements, as well as for being the brains behind the drugs used in the notorious BALCO sports drug scandal, found the obscure Asian study, and also noted that the patent on DMAA had long since expired. He was seeking an alternative to ephedrine, which was touted for its stimulant and fat-burning properties, but which had been removed from the market by the FDA in 2004. Arnold produced his own "germanium-based" supplement that he called Geranamine to the bodybuilding market. As is the usual nature of the supplement industry, others soon jumped on the DMAA bandwagon, especially with the emergence of anecdotal reports that it boosted workout intensity considerably.
    The stimulant effects of DMAA didn't go unnoticed by people who were not so interested in burning fat. It emerged as a popular "party" drug in New Zealand. But as is common with such home brew drugs, the amount of DMAA varied in the products, which lead to a few serious medical complications, including headaches, nausea, and strokes. The latter effect is more likley in those with existing high blood pressure, since anything that boosts norepinephrine also raises blood pressure slightly because of the vasoconstrictive effect of norepinephrine. The stimulant effect of DMAA also attracted the attention of the World Antidoping Agency, which banned it in 2009. Since then, a number of world-class athletes have been busted when DMAA emerged in their blood tests. But the question remains: how safe and effective is DMAA?
    The safety profile of DMAA is similar to that of caffeine. Caffeine also boost norepinephrine levels, accounting for its fat-mobilizing effects. In fact, the stimulation effect of DMAA is often compared to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee. While the Lilly company didn't perform much human testing of DMAA, some recent studies have tested its effects in human subjects. One problem with all of these studies is that they were paid for by supplement companies that sell DMAA products. As such, they stand to gain from the publication of positive studies about DMAA. Most of the studies have been "published' in online journals, in which you pay a fee to have the study published. On the other hand, the design of the studies were mostly double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover studies, meaning that they were scientifically acceptable, although all featured a small number of subjects.
     One such study showed that using a DMAA-based product resulted in a rise of glycerol (a marker of lipolysis, or fat breakdown in the blood) of 29% in men, 65% in women within 2 hours of ingesting a DMAA supplement. Free fatty acids in the blood rose by 92% in men;68% in women, while energy expenditure rose by 9% in men;24% in women. No explanation was offered for these gender-related differences. Another study tested the safety of DMAA products. This study found an average increase in heartbeat of 6 beats per minute after using a DMAA supplement, but no changes in blood pressure after 8 weeks of use compared to baseline measurements.There was also no effect in liver or kidney function. Men in the study averaged a 1.16% reduction in bodyfat, while women showed a 0.8% loss. The men also showed an average waist measurement reduction of 1.24 inches, while women showed a 0.78  inch loss.The subjects also reported a 24% drop in appetite after using the supplement. Other studies showed an slight rise in systolic blood pressure when DMAA supplement was first used, but the effect wore off after a few weeks. The study also showed that while subjects felt more energized after ingesting the DMAA supplement, their workout performance didn't change.
    Most of the stimulant and blood pressure effects of DMAA are comparable to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee.
   But just as too much coffee can prove toxic, so can overuse of DMAA,as evidenced by what happened to the New Zealand party people. DMAA supplements have been criticized by some, who say that germanium oil doesn't actually contain naturally existing DMAA. This critique was recently confirmed by a study published in the journal,Drug Testing and Analysis, which tested germanium oil and found no evidence of any naturally existing DMAA. This led the authors of the study to conclude that any DMAA found in a dietary supplement had to have been added to the product. The problem with this is that DMAA sold OTC in supplement form is permitted by virtue of the Dietary Supplement act because of its alleged natural existence in germanium oil. The fact that it isn't found in the oil means that all supplements that contain DMAA are being sold in violation of the law, since the DMAA is added to the supplement, and DMAA is a drug. Thus far, the FDA hasn't received any adverse reports about DMAA supplements, so no action has been taken. However, judging by what happened with ephedrine (DMAA is weaker than ephedrine) it is likely only a matter of time before people start to overdose on DMAA. When the adverse reports start appearing, the FDA will be able to immediately remove DMAA from the market, since it's now established that DMAA doesn't occur naturally in food or germanium oil.

  
 ©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


 

Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Snooze or Lose : Sleep deprivation can crush anabolic hormones by Jerry Brainum

   While exercise is the primary catalyst for muscular growth, all such growth occurs when you’re at rest. That’s why adequate recovery is so vital for making muscular gains. Studies show that if you don’t get enough sleep, your testosterone levels may plummet as much as 40 percent. The body secretes maximum levels of growth hormone during sleep.


   A new study using lab rats as subjects tested the hormonal effects of sleep deprivation.1 In previous studies animals deprived of sleep showed lower levels of thyroid hormones and a blunted immune response. Since the low level of thyroid output occurred in the hypothalamus, the researchers wanted to see how other hormones secreted in the same area of the brain were affected by sleep.

   The experimenters found that sleep deprivation in the rats resulted in a suppression of other hormones, including growth hormone, insulinlike growth hormone 1 (IGF-1), prolactin and leptin. Corticosterone, the rodent version of cortisol, was unaffected by lack of sleep. That hormonal milieu favors a depression in anabolic reactions in the body, with an upgrading of catabolic effects, including possible muscle loss. Don’t take sleep for granted if any type of muscular progress is your goal.


1 Everson, C.A., et al. (2004). Reductions in circulating anabolic hormones induced by sustained sleep deprivation in rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 286:E1060-E1070.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Help! My fish oil has gone bad! by Jerry Brainum

Omega-3 fatty acids, as found preformed in fatty fish and fish oil, provide a variety of health benefits. The primary benefits are related to cardiovascular health. Fish oil lowers elevated blood triglyceride (fat) levels, which is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Fish oil also seems to help control blood pressure, another CVD risk factor when elevated.Based on countess studies published over the last few years, the recommendation is to consume at least two fatty fish meals per week (such as mackerel,herring, sardines, and others), or ingest fish oil supplements if you refuse to eat fish.
    But there is a problem with fish oil supplements. Fish oil is a high polyunsaturated fat source. What this means is that it is prone to oxidation and rancidity. Oxidized fats have been shown to directly damage blood vessel linings, leading to accelerated atherosclerosis and subsequent CVD. Several studies that have tested commercial fish oil supplements have found that the supplements did contain oxidized fats. Since fish oil is prone to oxidation, does this mean that consuming fish oil may do more damage than good?
    Not according to a new study. The study consisted of healthy subjects with an age range of 18 to 50, who were divided into three groups. The first group ingested 8 grams of day of fish oil, which was consumed with two meals. The second group ingested 8 grams a day of oxidized fish oil capsules. The third group ingested 8 grams a day of high-oleic safflower oil, an omega-6 fat. Fasting blood samples were collected at the start of the study, and at weeks 3 and 7, with the study lasting 7 weeks.To determine the effects of oxidation, several tests that measure oxidative by-products were administered, as well as tests of the endogenous anti-oxidant system in the body (glutathione) and vitamin E levels to see if any changes occurred in the oxidative defense system of the body.
     The results after 7 weeks (and also at the 3-week mark) showed that both the fresh and oxidized fish oil were equally effective at increasing blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids. But no markers of oxidative stress were affected, nor was any indication of lipid peroxidation affected, or inflammation markers. In short, ingesting the oxidized fish oil had no bad effects. How can this be? The gastrointestinal tract acts as a barrier against the uptake of oxidized lipids into the blood. It this manner, it filters the potentially dangerous oxidized fats out of the fish oil. Although there is no evidence that is what happened in this study, this explanation is plausible, and would explain the lack of any side effects after ingesting oxidized fish oil for 7 weeks.
     So next time you read how "cheap" fish oil supplements contain oxidized fat and can harm your health, so you should instead purchase that $85 bottle of fresh "pharmacological grade" fish oil, just turn the page and save yourself some money.

Ottestad, I ,et al. Oxidized fish oil does not influence established markers of oxidative stress in healthy human subjects: a randomized controlled trial.Br J Nut 2011: in press.


©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.
 


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 



Friday, December 9, 2011

Does beta-alanine work for older people? by Jerry Brainum

Beta-alanine (BA) is a precursor for the synthesis of carnosine in muscle.In muscle, carnosine acts to blunt the fatigue induced by high intensity exercise by buffering against acid build-up in muscle. Previous studies show that by supplementing with BA, younger subjects could increase their muscle carnosine levels by 64%, While exercise alone is known to boost muscle carnosine levels, various studies show that ingesting BA increases muscle carnosine levels more then just exercise alone does. The usual suggested dose for BA is 3.2 to 6.4 grams a day in divided doses. The only side effect thus far known to occur is a tingling feeling similar to a niacin-style flush. This can be avoided by either ingesting smaller doses (800 milligrams or less) or using a time-released BA, which releases BA in a more gradual fashion.
    While BA works well for younger subjects, it's effects in an older population until recently wasn't known. But a new study did test the effects of BA in subjects with an age range of 60 to 80. The subjects consisted of 10 women and 4 men, all of whom ingested either 3.2 grams of BA daily, or a placebo for 12 weeks. The BA was taken as two, 800 milligram tablets in a time-released form twice a day. Others received a placebo. The results after 12 weeks showed that those in the BA group showed an 85.4% increase of carnosine in the gastrocnemius muscle, compared to only 7.2% increase in the placebo group. More importantly, those who ingested the genuine BA showed significant improvements in several performance tests. In one test that looked at time to exhaustion, the BA group showed a 36.5% gain over baseline compared to the 8.6% gain showed in the placebo group. Other tests showed similar improvements in the BA group that were all significantly greater compared to those in the placebo group.
    Based on these findings, it's clear that BA is an effective supplement for older people. In fact, based on the findings of this study, BA appears to work better in older people than it does in those who are younger.This isn't surprising, since carnosine levels in the body decline with age. Not only that, but the higher carnosine levels produced by the BA supplementation could also provide anti-aging effects through inhibiting a process known as glycation, where protein tissues react with sugar. This process is a prime suspect in the stiffness and lack of mobility associated with aging. Thus, BA may not only boost exercise performance in older people, but may also provide some significant anti-aging effects.

del Favero, S, et al. Beta-alanine(Carnosyn) supplementation in elderly subjects (60-80 years): effects on muscle carnosine content and physical capacity.Amino acids;2011: in press.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

                                                         Carnosine structure



Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Research determines the best training method—or does it? by Jerry Brainum

You may not know it, but some of the most common styles of training have little-known names. For example, the method in which you start light and increase the weight on each set is called the DeLorme technique, after the researcher who first suggested it in 1945. According to the DeLorme principles, you hold your reps to fewer than 30 per set, since he found that with more than 30 reps, a muscle doesn’t get enough resistance to promote growth.

   With the DeLorme technique you generally start with a weight that’s half the amount you can lift for 10 reps. On the second set you increase the weight to 75 percent of maximum for 10, and on the final set you do the maximum amount of weight you can lift for 10 reps. When you’ve achieved that goal, you increase the weight on all sets.

   The idea was that the lighter sets helped prevent excess muscle soreness while promoting proper exercise form. On the other hand, when the DeLorme technique was used by anyone but highly motivated athletes, people got too fatigued after the first two sets to reach 10 reps with a maximum weight on the final set.

   As a result, another technique was developed, known as the Oxford technique. It works in the opposite manner—you start with the heaviest weight for 10 reps and decrease the weight on each subsequent set. The idea was to diminish muscle fatigue while promoting exercise intensity, since you have to complete the full number of reps for each set.

   Most bodybuilders today use either or both of of these weight-training techniques. The DeLorme method is commonly known as pyramiding, and the Oxford technique is known as reverse pyramiding. Is one of them superior for promoting muscular gains? Researchers examined that question in a recent study featuring 50 subjects who used one technique or the other on the leg extension for nine weeks.1 Both techniques produce similar results, with neither clearly superior at promoting muscle increases.

   In practical terms that means it doesn’t make much difference which technique you favor; you’ll likely get the best results from the style that feels the most comfortable to you.

1 Fish, D.E., et al. (2003). Optimal resistance training: comparison of DeLorme and Oxford techniques. Am J Physic Med Rehab. 82:903-909.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Selenium Sabotage : Can too much of a good mineral derail weight loss? by Jerry Brainum

Selenium is a trace mineral and antioxidant that’s a popular supplement, but some studies have found that increasing selenium intake to five times the recommended allowance, which is 55 micrograms, led to a modest weight gain in men. A new study shows that the effect likely stems from selenium’s role in thyroid hormone metabolism.1


   Selenium promotes the activity of enzymes called deiodinases, which convert the relatively inactive T4 thyroid hormone into the five times more active T3 form. In the study men living in a metabolic ward for four months were given foods either naturally high or low in selenium. During the initial 21 days all the subjects got 47 micrograms a day of selenium, or just below the minimum suggested intake of 55 micrograms. After that the men were divided into two groups, with one group getting only 14 micrograms of selenium a day and the others getting a whopping 297 micrograms. That part of the experiment lasted 99 days.

   At the 45-day mark those in the low-selenium group showed a 14 percent increase in T3, while those in the high-selenium group experienced a 23 percent drop. The men in the high-selenium group also showed an increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), which is secreted by the pituitary gland in the brain and controls thyroid output. The TSH increased in the high-selenium group because the body was attempting to compensate for the lower T3 levels.

   By the 64th day the men in the high-selenium group began to gain weight, while those in the low-selenium group lost it. The authors suggest that the high-selenium group had a subclinical hypothyroid, or low thyroid, which explained the weight gain. Just the opposite occurred in the men in the low-selenium group, who showed increases in blood fat and loss of bodyfat, pointing to hyperthyroidism, or thyroid-gland overactivity. Despite the rise in thyroid activity, none of the men in the low-selenium group lost any lean tissue, or muscle, which often accompanies an elevated thyroid state.

   One question not answered in the study was why selenium has these effects on thyroid metabolism. It may be that while a certain amount of selenium activates the deiodinase enzymes, past a certain point the mineral may have a paradoxical, inhibiting, effect. Hydrogen peroxidase is required for thyroid hormone synthesis, and it may be that selenium neutralizes the hydrogen peroxide found in the gland as part of glutathione peroxidase, which would interfere with thyroid hormone production. That effect, by the way, is one of the positive features of free radicals, along with helping immune cells kill invading organisms. It’s a type of “smart bomb.”

   Does that mean you should limit selenium intake as a means of promoting thyroid activity? The researchers suggest that eventually the body adjusts to the increased selenium intake and that thyroid hormone levels return to normal. I can attest to that, since I’ve taken at least 500 micrograms of selenium daily for more than a decade yet have never shown any low thyroid lab values.

   Considering the vital role that selenium plays in preventing the onset of the major killers cancer and cardiovascular disease, it would be sheer folly to limit selenium intake as a means of promoting thyroid activity. On the other hand, since taking more than 1,000 micrograms daily over an extended time can prove toxic, leading to such unpleasant effects as garlic breath and loss of nails and hair, it’s prudent to monitor your doses of this trace mineral.

1 Hawkes, W.C., et al. (2003). Dietary selenium intake modulates thyroid hormone and energy metabolism in men. J Nutr. 133:3443-3448.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Nutrition Scientist Anthony Almada Talks Supplementation, Building Muscle and Losing Bodyfat by Jerry Brainum

   In September 1992 Anthony Almada was doing his customary search of the recent medical literature at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Library when he came across a study that immediately aroused his interest. Almada had studied under legendary scientists and researchers Lester Packer and George Brooks at the University of California, Berkeley, where he’d observed the depletion of ATP and creatine phosphate in working muscle. He was intrigued when he saw that the new study reported on the effects of creatine as an ergogenic aid to athletes. Finding it that day led him to start a revolution in sports nutrition that continues to this day.


   Almada, who holds degrees in physiology and nutritional biochemistry, had been working in the supplement industry since 1975, specializing in product development. In 1989 he identified and introduced vanadyl sulfate to the nutrition industry, and in 1991 he introduced the first “fat-burning” supplement to use the word thermogenic. Almada contacted a former associate named Ed Byrd and discussed the possibility of marketing creatine. The two had previously supplied raw nutrient materials to food supplement companies and tried to offer creatine, at the time a rare and expensive product, to them. All the companies rejected creatine because it was not well known at the time.

   Almada and Byrd started their own company, initially named California Body Club and later Experimental and Applied Sciences, a.k.a. EAS. The first product Almada designed was a creatine compound called Phosphagen.

   In keeping with Almada’s science background, EAS set a standard of proof by sponsoring two studies during the first year of business, made possible by sales of $6 million. Not long after the company was formed, Almada offered to sell Bill Phillips creatine, but Phillips didn’t seem too interested. In June 1994, however, Phillips joined EAS, and the company was moved from California to Phillips’ home state of Colorado in 1995. In April of that year Phillips offered to buy EAS for $1 million, despite the company profits of $40 million. By October, however, Almada no longer wanted to make the weekly trek from California to EAS headquarters in Colorado, so he sold out to Phillips.

   While at EAS, Almada created the “cell volumizer” concept, pioneered the use of taurine in dietary supplements and created the first low-calorie weight gain/lean mass supplement—Phos­phagain. After leaving EAS, he founded a medical food company that produced a product used to offset HIV-induced wasting.

   Almada has been an active researcher in more than 50 published studies, many of which examined the effects of popular dietary supplements. Currently, he is a founding partner in GENr8, which produces a product called Vitargo SG. Clearly he’s qualified to discuss performance and sports nutrition, so let’s get to it.

   JB: One of the reasons you opted to sell EAS to Bill Phillips was your growing disenchantment with the supplement industry. Has that opinion changed over the years?

   AA: I’m an outspoken critic of the industry because most of the major supplement companies have the funds to sponsor research yet don’t. The first question is, Why don’t they support such research? Some companies do sponsor research, but the findings are never made public, often because the studies found no beneficial effects associated with the tested products.

   The current trend is to have studies done by independent sources, where the results can be tightly controlled and not released if the findings aren’t favorable. In contrast, studies done by university labs aren’t subject to such stringent gag orders.

   Another relevant question is, How many companies are owned by people trained in nutrition science? If you look at pharmaceutical companies, many are run by people who hold science doctorates or medical degrees.

   JB: Are medical doctors good sources of information about nutrition?

   AA: Medical doctors are among the worst sources of information relevant to nutrition. The medical-school curriculum offers nutrition as an elective, or voluntary, course, and most med students feel they are already overburdened with the study of traditional medical courses, so few future doctors have even the minimal training in nutrition science.

Registered dietitians are also often considered a good source of nutrition information, but this, too, isn’t true. While RDs are experts at designing diets, their knowledge of supplements is surprisingly minor. In fact, they are indoctrinated during their training to believe that all required nutrients should be obtained solely through food, thus making any supplements superfluous and even dangerous in some instances. You’ll even find that most people in the sports supplement industry who have advanced degrees, such as doctorates, have them in physiology, not nutrition.


JB: What’s your general philosophy in designing nutritional supplements?

   AA: My philosophy is to create products that work and foster persistent consumer confidence, which leads to lasting brand allegiance. That creates a consumer base that is loyal to the particular product, not only because the product is based on science rather than speculation, but also because the product consistently works. Consumers often switch to other products, or search for the next “miracle” product, because past products simply have not produced the promised gains in muscle size, strength or bodyfat loss. It’s comparable to a marriage: If you’re fulfilled and satisfied with your current partner, you have no desire to seek a replacement.

JB: Many sports supplements don’t list specific amounts of contents on their labels, instead listing nonspecific amounts of nutrients as “proprietary formulas.” Is that ethical or, more important, honest?

   AA: Consumers often evaluate products based entirely on the label chemistry. Listing a bunch of exotic-sounding ingredients tends to obscure the fact that many such ingredients have no science behind them. To the unwary customer, though, they look impressive. The Food and Drug Administration permits the labeling of nonspecific amounts of substances that don’t have established dietary value, so the practice is legal.

   The only FDA requirement is to list the ingredients in descending order of content. So the first listed ingredient comprises 99.9 percent of the product, with the remaining ingredients representing about 00.1 percent of the total ingredients.

   The more relevant question is not what’s in the product but what the product will do for me. Another question to consider is, How many products have I purchased over the last decade that I no longer use? If the products matched their advertising claims, users would be getting exceptional results. Are they?

 JB: Can the placebo effect play a role in results obtained from any particular food supplement?

   AA: It can play a role in the popularity of many supplements, but it’s also short-lived, in contrast to a true biological effect, which consistently lasts. Again, how many products are used year after year by most people? People don’t discard products that work. New products are constantly being introduced to replace products that have fallen out of popularity, mainly because they don’t produce consistent results.

JB: Are there any effective fat-burning supplements?

   AA: People don’t buy fat-burning supplements to “burn” fat; they buy them to lose fat. Then the question arises: Who cares if I’m burning fat, if I’m not actually losing fat? It’s analogous to testosterone. Who cares if my testosterone level rises if I don’t get bigger, stronger or both? People tend to get lost in the mechanism rather than the result.

   Unfortunately, most of the present ingredients touted as fat-burners have little or no effect in stimulating fat loss in humans. One current popular weight-loss herb, hoodia, has zero published science to support it. A major problem with botanicals, or plant-based products, is that the contents can vary enormously from batch to batch, even if the herb is supposed to contain the same level of active ingredients in each tablet or capsule. That explains the varying results of studies involving botanicals.

JB: What’s the truth about protein requirements for bodybuilders?

   AA: Again, you have to look at studies that directly examined the fate of dietary protein in an exercising population. Most bodybuilders, aware of the need for a high protein intake, take in some form of protein about every two to three hours. As a result, bodybuilders get a significant amount of protein from food sources alone. The consensus of studies that have examined protein needs for bodybuilders shows that taking in more than 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight leads to no added muscle or strength gains.


   In one study that I was involved in, we compared a popular meal-replacement product with maltodextrin, a carbohydrate source, and found that both supplements produced the same muscle and strength gains in trained football players. People tend to underestimate the amount of protein they are getting from ordinary foods. If you already take in the optimal amount of protein, taking anything above that will not further boost muscle gains. People are indoctrinated to believe that they must eat massive amounts of protein or lose muscle size.

JB: Can too much protein make you fat and damage your kidneys?

   AA: You have to view protein as a source of calories. Current studies show that taking in more than 30 grams of protein at a time produces no added benefits. While protein can take various metabolic routes in the body, the more protein you have above actual requirements, the less protein is used for building muscle. Eating small, frequent protein meals won’t produce any greater muscle gains if you exceed the amount of protein your body can use for muscle protein synthesis.

JB: Are some sources of protein superior to others?

   AA: Some studies show that soy is as good as whey, meat is as good as whey, and so on. I would say that the primary issues regarding protein intake are palatability and convenience. Soy protein is often said to lower testosterone counts. Yet if that’s true, how do you explain the other studies that show equal muscle gains when soy is compared to whey?

JB: What about the studies showing that whey has the highest biological value of any protein source?

   AA: Studies that measured biological values of various protein sources didn’t involve any subjects engaged in resistance training. Again, it’s a matter of what appears on paper compared to what happens in real life.

©,2013 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.
 


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com

 

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Protein and Muscle Size Increase : New studies answer the question: Do you need more aminos to grow? by Jerry Brainum

It may seem on par with those who insist that the earth is flat, but some self-styled nutrition experts insist that bodybuilders need no more protein than a couch potato does. Two recently published studies that examined protein use specifically for building muscle, however, show that protein type and timing are of fundamental importance.

   The first study lasted 14 weeks and compared the results of taking protein or carbohydrate after training.1 The participants were 22 men, average age 23, none of whom had trained in the six months prior to the study. Nor had they used any food supplements that could be construed as having “anabolic” properties, such as creatine or protein drinks.

   The men were divided into two groups, with one group getting protein, the other carbohydrates. The protein serving contained 16.6 grams of whey, 2.8 grams of casein, 2.8 grams of egg white protein and 2.8 grams of L-glutamine. The carb serving contained 25 grams of maltodextrin. Both supplements contained an equal number of calories, and both were heavily flavored with vanilla to disguise which was which. The subjects took them before and after each workout and in the morning on rest days.

   All the men trained only their legs during the study, using standard exercises, such as leg presses, leg extensions and leg curls.They did the workout three times a week for 14 weeks, doing three to four sets of each exercise.

   The results were hardly surprising. Only those in the protein group showed gains in muscle size and strength. The training and additional protein led to an 18 percent size increase in the type 1, or slow-twitch, muscle fibers, and a respectable 26 percent increase in the size of type 2, or fast-twitch, muscle fibers. Despite using an identical training program, those who got only the carb supplement gained nothing.

   Why would anyone compare protein with carbs as a way of encouraging muscle gains? Past studies show that taking in carbs after a workout appears to blunt the effects of cortisol, an adrenal catabolic hormone that increases with exercise. Blunting the effects of cortisol would tip the balance toward muscle growth, and carbs promote an insulin release that drives amino acids into muscle. Amino acids must be present as protein, however, for that to occur. As the study shows, carbs without protein do nothing to promote muscular gains.

   The second study compared the effects of milk and soy proteins in promoting muscle growth in young men.2 Some authors have mistakenly identified soy as a slow-acting protein, but like whey it is, in fact, a rapidly absorbed protein source. That, however, is where the similarity ends. Whey supports muscle protein synthesis because of its rapid uptake, while soy protein more rapidly degrades in the liver and supports liver protein synthesis more than muscle.

   The study mentions previous research showing that when you increase whey protein intake, its efficiency drops, likely due to greater oxidation in the liver. The efficiency of soy, though, drops even more. So if you get amounts of protein that exceed the requirement for muscle protein synthesis, most of the excess will be oxidized in the liver.

   Some scientists who study protein metabolism think that suddenly limiting protein in those who, like bodybuilders, have a habitually high protein intake can result in a negative nitrogen balance—again, because of upgraded liver oxidation of excess protein. The scientists think that the body gets so used to oxidizing protein that if you take in less, the body will increase the breakdown of existing protein—as in muscle. That’s a controversial theory that isn’t supported by a large body of proof.

   The other fate of excess protein is conversion into fat, though that doesn’t happen in active people. That doesn’t keep “experts” from saying that “eating too much protein can make you fat.” Well, yes, but only if you do nothing more physical than press buttons on your TV remote.

   In the new study, intake of milk protein led to a markedly greater uptake of amino nitrogen than soy did. Another part of the study found that milk protein was far more efficient than soy in promoting muscle gains.

   Clearly, there is no reason to add soy to a milk protein blend. Soy offers no advantages from an anabolic perspective, and it tends to promote internal organ protein synthesis instead of skeletal muscle. Soy does offer one advantage: It’s cheap and a good filler, so you can use less of the higher-grade milk proteins.

References

1 Andersen, L.L., et al. (2005). The effect of resistance training combined with timed ingestion of protein on muscle fiber size and muscle strength. Metabolism. 54:151-56.

2 Phillips, S., et al. (2005). Dietary protein to support anabolism with resistance exercise in young men. J Amer Coll Nutr. 24:134S-139S.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.


Have you been ripped off  by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Jerry Brainum's book Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.

 

The Applied Ergogenics blog is a collection of articles written and published by Jerry Brainum over the past 20 years. These articles have appeared in Muscle and Fitness, Ironman, and other magazines. Many of the posts on the blog are original articles, having appeared here for the first time. For Jerry’s most recent articles, which are far more in depth than anything that appears on this blog site, please subscribe to his Applied Metabolics Newsletter, at www.appliedmetabolics.com. This newsletter, which is more correctly referred to as a monthly e-book, since its average length is 35 to 40 pages, contains the latest findings about nutrition, exercise science, fat-loss, anti-aging, ergogenic aids, food supplements, and other topics. For 33 cents a day you get the benefit of Jerry’s 53 years of writing and intense study of all matters pertaining to fitness,health, bodybuilding, and disease prevention.

 

See Jerry's book at  http://www.jerrybrainum.com

 

Want more evidence-based information on exercise science, nutrition and food supplements, ergogenic aids, and anti-aging research? Check out Applied Metabolics Newsletter at www.appliedmetabolics.com