©,2015 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Jerry Brainum on Bodybuilder's Belly Bloat Video
©,2015 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Bodybuilding Legend Bill Grant and Science Writer Jerry Brainum
Bill Grant is a world renowned fitness expert, a legendary Bodybuilder , Mr. America and Mr. World. He is the president of Bill Grant Nutrition and has been the producer/host of his own TV and Radio show. He has appeared in numerous movies including Pumping Iron starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Bill has written articles for health and fitness magazines and has over 40 years experience in the field. He is the recipient of the Muscle Beach Hall of Fame award. Bill lives in New Jersey.
©,2015 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
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Jerry Brainum a conversation, publisher of Applied Metabolics By Dr. Michael Dusa
SEE FULL INTERVIEW AT...http://jerrybrainum.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-conversation-with-jerry-brainum.html
MD: Hey Jerry. Thanks so much for
talking with me. You know, I've been reading your cutting-edge material
in the physique magazines since I was a kid in the 70's. Much of what I
know and practice to this day has been borne from the information you
have disseminated.
JB: Thanks Mike. Yes, I have over 5,000
published articles in my name or under a pen name in over 35 years of
involvement in the industry.
MD: So, as we always want to know,
how did you get your start and what kindled your interest in
bodybuilding, science, and nutrition?
JB: Well, I grew up in
Brooklyn. When I was three, my mother simply threw me in the pool
(laughs) and I started dog paddling. I became a swimmer, and as the
years rolled by I won some AAU swim meets. Of course, the swimming
coaches back then said that using weights would slow you down. One day
at the community center where I'd swim in the Olympic sized pool, there
was a throng of people blocking the hallway. Suddenly, the group parted
in the middle and a guy in posing trunks came walking out. It was Jerry
Winick. He had great arms and had placed second to Larry Scott in the
Mr. Universe in either 1962 or 63. I was about 12 years old at the time,
and (laughs) two days later I saw Jerry outside the center smoking a
cigarette. I asked him how he got so big, and, of course, he told me he
did so by lifting weights. He told me to go buy some muscle magazines,
so I did..........SEE REST OF INTERVIEW AT...http://jerrybrainum.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-conversation-with-jerry-brainum.html
©,2015 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, May 13, 2015
Is Conjugated Linoleic Acid Anabolic? by Jerry Brainum
Conjugated linoleic acid is an isomer of linoleic acid, an essential
omega-6 fatty acid. Structurally, CLA contains both cis and trans fat
configurations, but it doesn’t function in the body in the negative way
that trans fats normally do. In fact, many health benefits are
associated with CLA, including cancer prevention as well as prevention
of both cardiovascular disease and obesity.
Those potent effects were initially noted in a mouse experiment conducted in 1979. A meat extract was applied to a rodent’s skin, followed by a strong carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance. The meat extract blocked tumor formation in the mice by 20 percent. There was something clearly present in meat that seemed to help prevent cancer.
It wasn’t until 1987 that the mysterious ingredient was isolated by Michael Pariza at the University of Wisconsin. He discovered it in, of all things, Cheez-Whiz, and named it conjugated linoleic acid, which reflects its complex structure. It turns out that both meat and dairy products are rich in CLA, and much of their health effects can be directly attributed to it.
One of the richest natural sources of CLA is egg yolks, which are routinely discarded by many misguided bodybuilders. In terms of meat, grass-fed beef is far richer in CLA than beef produced from grain-fed animals—one of the primary reasons that grass-fed beef is considered nutritionally superior.
Not long after its isolation in 1987, a few supplement companies began to market CLA supplements. They usually contained a 1-1 ratio of two CLA isomers, namely cis-9, trans-11, known as C9, and trans-10, cis-12—C10. That’s important because further research with CLA showed that those two isomers have often-opposing actions. Unlike its parent compound, linoleic acid, CLA is not considered essential in human nutrition.
Some studies show that CLA may exert antioxidant activity because it promotes in-the-body antioxidants, such as catalase and glutathione peroxidase. As noted, much of the animal research has focused on its anticancer effects. Although having antioxidant properties would aid in cancer prevention, CLA also stimulates the activity of a specific gene that has a tumor-suppressive effect, and it appears to modify several inflammatory mediators in the body called cytokines. Since cancer is known to have an inflammatory component, the significance is obvious.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of CLA is its effect on body composition, including building muscle and losing fat, the two primary goals of most bodybuilders. On paper CLA would seem to provide a potent fat-loss effect through several mechanisms. For one thing, it is known to upgrade the activity of several substances in the body that speed fat burning and the conversion of fat calories into energy. Here’s where differences in the two basic CLA isomers come in. While C10 is known to boost fat burning and help retain lean mass, it is also associated with insulin resistance. C9 , on the other hand, lowers insulin resistance. Thus, it makes sense that most commercial CLA supplements contain both isomers in balanced levels, since one would likely cancel the possible side effects of the other.
The published studies that have examined body composition changes with CLA are paradoxical. Generally, however, it seems to work better at reducing higher bodyfat in animals than it does in humans. One reason is that the dose of CLA supplied in animal studies is comparatively far larger than what human subjects get. While human-based studies have averaged three to six grams of CLA daily, to get the equivalent dose of what is used in animal studies, human trials would have to involve 50 grams a day or more. That could lead to problems, since similarly to other natural substances, CLA has a U-shaped curve of effectiveness—in massive doses its antioxidant effect converts into a pro-oxidant effect, which can damage cells and cause cell mutations. The same is true for resveratrol, another highly touted natural substance.
Again, human studies done with CLA have shown either small losses of bodyfat or no changes at all. That may be due to not only the smaller doses but also the differences in subjects. The animal studies usually feature young, growing animals that may respond better to CLA than the obese older females who form the majority of subjects in human published studies. And as noted, one form of CLA may be more effective at altering body composition than the other.
In relation to exercise, the ergogenic effect of CLA is considered unimpressive. In one study sedentary men and women took five grams a day of CLA and also engaged in a weight-training program. They were tested for the effects of CLA on body composition, strength and muscle -breakdown markers.The study lasted for seven weeks. Those using the CLA supplement showed a slight but significant increase in lean mass plus a greater loss of bodyfat than those getting a placebo. The supplemented male subjects also increased their bench press strength more than those getting the placebo. CLA appeared to exert anticatabolic effects in muscle as well, judging by a decreased excretion of muscle-breakdown products.
It sounds good, but in another placebo-controlled study, the subjects were not sedentary but, rather, experienced weight trainers. Once again, the focus was on changes in body comp, strength and muscle catabolism induced by CLA supplementation. The subjects got six grams daily while engaged in a weight-training program during the monthlong study. In this case the results showed no changes in body comp, lean mass or markers of muscle breakdown in those taking CLA compared to the placebo group. The subjects did, however, report some ergogenic effects in their training due to the CLA.
Based on the small amount of data suggesting that CLA may provide anticatabolic effects in exercising people, a more recent study tested its effects on testosterone.1 It had both an in vitro and in vivo design: The in vitro, or test tube, portion involved exposing isolated testicular Leydig cells from rats to CLA. (The Leydig cells are where testosterone is synthesized in men.) The cells were treated with varying concentrations of CLA for 24 and 48 hours. The results showed increased testosterone concentration in the cells at the 48-hour mark.
The in vivo, or “in the body,” portion of the study featured 10 resistance-trained men who got either six grams a day of CLA or a placebo for three weeks. They provided blood samples both before and after their weight workout, and they were tested for total testosterone as well as sex-hormone-binding globulin, which is the protein carrier of testosterone in the blood. Those in the CLA group showed a large boost in testosterone after the workout, while those in the placebo group got a moderate rise, which is not a surprise, as exercise alone can boost testosterone.
How might CLA increase testosterone? It has to do with a protein called perilipin, which modifies the body’s use of fat. Perilipin promotes the activity of the enzyme cholesterol esterase, which in turn promotes free cholesterol, the basic substrate for the formation of steroid hormones, including testosterone.
Simply put, CLA may kick-start the “factory line” in the Leydig cells that produces testosterone. In the men who exercised and used CLA, testosterone increased more after exercise than what the placebo group experienced, while levels of cortisol also rose. That was related to the exercise itself, since exercise is a form of stress. Even so, levels of cortisol, estrogen and sex-hormone-binding globulin didn’t differ between the placebo and CLA groups.
What is confusing is that in one section of the study the researchers say that CLA promoted a significant increase in testosterone in the exercising men, while elsewhere they say, “CLA supplementation does not significantly increase testosterone synthesis after an unmarkedly stressful bout of acute resistance exercise.” So which is it? Does CLA promote a rise in testosterone, or doesn’t it? It may be a late-occurring effect, since the test tube part of the study showed that CLA didn’t boost testosterone release until after two days. At this point the effects of CLA remain as confusing and obscure as ever. For example, what would be the correct dose to boost testosterone? No one yet knows.
There are, however, good reasons not to go overboard with CLA. For example, the C10 form has been linked to increased oxidative stress, increased incidence of gallstones and a lowering of DHA by 25 percent in animal hearts. DHA is an omega-3 fatty acid that, when increased in heart tissue, may exert protective effects. Lowering it could prove detrimental to heart function. Women with suspected breast cancer or the genes for breast cancer should also avoid using CLA, despite its reputation as a cancer preventive. In truth, however, here is little evidence that the small amount of CLA found in supplements is dangerous to health. That would be about three to six grams taken daily.
1 Macaluso, F., et al. (2012). Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on testosterone levels in vitro and in vivo after an acute bout of resistance exercise. J Str Cond Res. 26:1667-74.
©,2015 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited
Those potent effects were initially noted in a mouse experiment conducted in 1979. A meat extract was applied to a rodent’s skin, followed by a strong carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance. The meat extract blocked tumor formation in the mice by 20 percent. There was something clearly present in meat that seemed to help prevent cancer.
It wasn’t until 1987 that the mysterious ingredient was isolated by Michael Pariza at the University of Wisconsin. He discovered it in, of all things, Cheez-Whiz, and named it conjugated linoleic acid, which reflects its complex structure. It turns out that both meat and dairy products are rich in CLA, and much of their health effects can be directly attributed to it.
One of the richest natural sources of CLA is egg yolks, which are routinely discarded by many misguided bodybuilders. In terms of meat, grass-fed beef is far richer in CLA than beef produced from grain-fed animals—one of the primary reasons that grass-fed beef is considered nutritionally superior.
Not long after its isolation in 1987, a few supplement companies began to market CLA supplements. They usually contained a 1-1 ratio of two CLA isomers, namely cis-9, trans-11, known as C9, and trans-10, cis-12—C10. That’s important because further research with CLA showed that those two isomers have often-opposing actions. Unlike its parent compound, linoleic acid, CLA is not considered essential in human nutrition.
Some studies show that CLA may exert antioxidant activity because it promotes in-the-body antioxidants, such as catalase and glutathione peroxidase. As noted, much of the animal research has focused on its anticancer effects. Although having antioxidant properties would aid in cancer prevention, CLA also stimulates the activity of a specific gene that has a tumor-suppressive effect, and it appears to modify several inflammatory mediators in the body called cytokines. Since cancer is known to have an inflammatory component, the significance is obvious.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of CLA is its effect on body composition, including building muscle and losing fat, the two primary goals of most bodybuilders. On paper CLA would seem to provide a potent fat-loss effect through several mechanisms. For one thing, it is known to upgrade the activity of several substances in the body that speed fat burning and the conversion of fat calories into energy. Here’s where differences in the two basic CLA isomers come in. While C10 is known to boost fat burning and help retain lean mass, it is also associated with insulin resistance. C9 , on the other hand, lowers insulin resistance. Thus, it makes sense that most commercial CLA supplements contain both isomers in balanced levels, since one would likely cancel the possible side effects of the other.
The published studies that have examined body composition changes with CLA are paradoxical. Generally, however, it seems to work better at reducing higher bodyfat in animals than it does in humans. One reason is that the dose of CLA supplied in animal studies is comparatively far larger than what human subjects get. While human-based studies have averaged three to six grams of CLA daily, to get the equivalent dose of what is used in animal studies, human trials would have to involve 50 grams a day or more. That could lead to problems, since similarly to other natural substances, CLA has a U-shaped curve of effectiveness—in massive doses its antioxidant effect converts into a pro-oxidant effect, which can damage cells and cause cell mutations. The same is true for resveratrol, another highly touted natural substance.
Again, human studies done with CLA have shown either small losses of bodyfat or no changes at all. That may be due to not only the smaller doses but also the differences in subjects. The animal studies usually feature young, growing animals that may respond better to CLA than the obese older females who form the majority of subjects in human published studies. And as noted, one form of CLA may be more effective at altering body composition than the other.
In relation to exercise, the ergogenic effect of CLA is considered unimpressive. In one study sedentary men and women took five grams a day of CLA and also engaged in a weight-training program. They were tested for the effects of CLA on body composition, strength and muscle -breakdown markers.The study lasted for seven weeks. Those using the CLA supplement showed a slight but significant increase in lean mass plus a greater loss of bodyfat than those getting a placebo. The supplemented male subjects also increased their bench press strength more than those getting the placebo. CLA appeared to exert anticatabolic effects in muscle as well, judging by a decreased excretion of muscle-breakdown products.
It sounds good, but in another placebo-controlled study, the subjects were not sedentary but, rather, experienced weight trainers. Once again, the focus was on changes in body comp, strength and muscle catabolism induced by CLA supplementation. The subjects got six grams daily while engaged in a weight-training program during the monthlong study. In this case the results showed no changes in body comp, lean mass or markers of muscle breakdown in those taking CLA compared to the placebo group. The subjects did, however, report some ergogenic effects in their training due to the CLA.
Based on the small amount of data suggesting that CLA may provide anticatabolic effects in exercising people, a more recent study tested its effects on testosterone.1 It had both an in vitro and in vivo design: The in vitro, or test tube, portion involved exposing isolated testicular Leydig cells from rats to CLA. (The Leydig cells are where testosterone is synthesized in men.) The cells were treated with varying concentrations of CLA for 24 and 48 hours. The results showed increased testosterone concentration in the cells at the 48-hour mark.
The in vivo, or “in the body,” portion of the study featured 10 resistance-trained men who got either six grams a day of CLA or a placebo for three weeks. They provided blood samples both before and after their weight workout, and they were tested for total testosterone as well as sex-hormone-binding globulin, which is the protein carrier of testosterone in the blood. Those in the CLA group showed a large boost in testosterone after the workout, while those in the placebo group got a moderate rise, which is not a surprise, as exercise alone can boost testosterone.
How might CLA increase testosterone? It has to do with a protein called perilipin, which modifies the body’s use of fat. Perilipin promotes the activity of the enzyme cholesterol esterase, which in turn promotes free cholesterol, the basic substrate for the formation of steroid hormones, including testosterone.
Simply put, CLA may kick-start the “factory line” in the Leydig cells that produces testosterone. In the men who exercised and used CLA, testosterone increased more after exercise than what the placebo group experienced, while levels of cortisol also rose. That was related to the exercise itself, since exercise is a form of stress. Even so, levels of cortisol, estrogen and sex-hormone-binding globulin didn’t differ between the placebo and CLA groups.
What is confusing is that in one section of the study the researchers say that CLA promoted a significant increase in testosterone in the exercising men, while elsewhere they say, “CLA supplementation does not significantly increase testosterone synthesis after an unmarkedly stressful bout of acute resistance exercise.” So which is it? Does CLA promote a rise in testosterone, or doesn’t it? It may be a late-occurring effect, since the test tube part of the study showed that CLA didn’t boost testosterone release until after two days. At this point the effects of CLA remain as confusing and obscure as ever. For example, what would be the correct dose to boost testosterone? No one yet knows.
There are, however, good reasons not to go overboard with CLA. For example, the C10 form has been linked to increased oxidative stress, increased incidence of gallstones and a lowering of DHA by 25 percent in animal hearts. DHA is an omega-3 fatty acid that, when increased in heart tissue, may exert protective effects. Lowering it could prove detrimental to heart function. Women with suspected breast cancer or the genes for breast cancer should also avoid using CLA, despite its reputation as a cancer preventive. In truth, however, here is little evidence that the small amount of CLA found in supplements is dangerous to health. That would be about three to six grams taken daily.
1 Macaluso, F., et al. (2012). Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on testosterone levels in vitro and in vivo after an acute bout of resistance exercise. J Str Cond Res. 26:1667-74.
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
Please post the links and information about Jerry Brainum on your facebook and also let your friends at the Gym know about Jerry . This way Jerry can continue to offer state of the art information in his Applied Metabolics newsletter. Thank you for your help!
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Why Most Diets Fail by Jerry Brainum
It’s a common observation that most diets fail, but the reason they
fail isn’t about the weight loss. In fact, most diets are successful in
that regard if the dieter has any degree of discipline and motivation.
The reason most diets fail is that the dieter fails to keep the weight
off. You can easily observe the phenomenon in the dieting efforts of
celebrities who have weight problems.
Oprah Winfrey is a notable example. Years ago Oprah went on a special liquid-protein diet that resulted in her losing 67 pounds of fat, which she proudly wheeled out in a wheelbarrow on her TV show (not her real fat, just 67 pounds of animal fat). Alas, her svelte figure turned out to be painfully ephemeral, as Oprah soon gained all the weight back and then some.
More recent examples include most participants in the popular TV show “The Biggest Loser”—although the high recidivism rate there isn’t surprising, as the program involves a crash diet with a lot of exercise. That’s a stress on the body’s reserves that cannot be sustained, and as a result, the weight soon returns.
In fact, only one out of every six dieters is able to maintain a 10 percent weight loss after a year, and studies suggest that as many as 97 percent of those who lose bodyfat from dieting alone will gain it all back, often within a year. Why is that figure so high?
When you lose weight, your body adapts to the reduced calories through a process called adaptive thermogenesis, which is a fancy way of saying that, because of the reduced mass, it burns fewer calories than it did prior to the weight loss. Unless you can continue to eat fewer calories, your weight-loss efforts are doomed.
What’s more, other studies show that your body works against you. Research done years ago suggests that there’s an “appestat” in the brain, likely in the appetite center of the hypothalamus, that must be reset to adjust to a new calorie level. The problem is that it takes years to occur—some have suggested up to five years for the brain to adjust to a chronic lower caloric intake. In the meantime you will be extremely hungry most of the time, which doesn’t bode well for long-term weight loss.
Does the type of diet you eat make a difference? Indeed, some hormonal factors are affected by diet type, which could play a major role in your weight-loss success. Leptin, a protein released from fat cells that signals to the brain that the cells are full, is one, as are insulin and thyroid hormones.
More recent research shows that the key diet factors that determine appetite control—and weight-loss success—are carbohydrate and to a lesser extent protein. Specifically, eating greater amounts of unprocessed and low-glycemic-index carbs helps control appetite and prevent fat gain by modulating the activity of insulin.
Protein is important because the body burns more calories to process it and also because it directly affects appetite. For example, several studies have clearly shown that concentrated protein supplements, such as whey, provide a satiating effect on appetite—which, of course, makes dieting a bit easier and aids your efforts.
Recently, French researchers delineated precisely how that works. After you take in a high-protein food source, small protein residues called oligo-peptides interact with certain opiate receptors in the gut, sending a message to the brain. The brain responds with a message back to the gut via the nervous system. That triggers the release of glucose in the intestine, which sends another signal to the brain that results in appetite suppression.
A major reason that the weight returns after a diet is energy expenditure. The body has two types of energy expenditure: resting, which is the energy expended to keep the body alive—heart function, brain function and so on—and total energy expenditure, which includes both resting energy and that burned in activity. You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that lowered energy expenditure after a diet is over would tend to favor a return of lost weight, especially if you also can’t maintain the calorie reduction. So what types of diets favor greater resting and total energy use?
That was the focus of a widely reported study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.1 Twenty-one overweight men and women, aged 18 to 40, followed one of three diets, all of which contained the same number of total calories but different macronutrient contents. This was a crossover-designed study, in which the subjects followed all three diets at different times.
Before they started, however, they went on another diet and achieved a 10 to 15 percent weight loss. So the study focused on maintenance diets, designed to keep the lost weight off:
1) Lowfat diet: 60 percent carb, 20 percent fat, 20 percent protein—the diet most commonly recommended for weight loss and health.
2) Low-glycemic-index diet: 40 percent carb, 40 percent fat, 20 percent protein.
3) Very low-carb diet: 10 percent carb, 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein—similar to the popular Atkins low-carb plan. It’s also similar to the way many bodybuilders eat when trying to lose excess bodyfat, although bodybuilders would have less fat and more protein.
The subjects stayed on each diet for four weeks. Those on the low-carb diet also got a fiber supplement that supplied three grams with each meal. That’s important, as constipation is a frequent side effect of low-carb diets that eliminate dietary fiber sources, such as fruits and vegetables.
The low-glycemic diet focused on carb sources that wouldn’t produce a rapid release of glucose in the body, such as vegetables, fruits and legumes. It minimized grains, which do trigger a higher glucose release.
The results showed that the lowfat diet, the most frequently recommended diet for weight loss, produced the lowest energy expenditure of the three. The low-glycemic diet produced greater rates of both resting and total energy expenditure; however, the low-carb plan produced the highest rates of both types. Specifically, the low-carb diet burned 67 more calories a day at rest than the lowfat plan, but the difference in total energy was a whopping 300 calories a day between the two diets. That wasn’t a thyroid effect, either, since the subjects showed slightly depressed thyroid output when on the low-carb plan compared to the other two diets. Thyroid, of course, controls the resting metabolic rate. Various other studies have shown that thyroid output is lower when subjects are on a very low-carb diet, but it obviously didn’t affect the energy expenditure in this study.
The subjects showed the greatest leptin sensitivity when they were on the low-carb diet, and that may have affected the energy expenditure. The low-carb diet also produced the greatest effect on high-density lipoprotein, which is considered highly beneficial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Another cardiac risk factor lowered during the low-carb diet was blood triglycerides.
On the negative side, the 24-hour urinary cortisol measure was highest on the low-carb diet. That’s indicative of stress. Previous studies have also shown higher cortisol for subjects who were on a very low-carb diet but not a moderate-carb diet. While higher cortisol is associated with increased fat deposition in the trunk of the body, insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease, I suggest that the cortisol was elevated because one of its the lesser known functions is to mobilize fat for energy. I believe that the low-carb diet triggered a much greater use of fat for energy, which may explain the higher cortisol. Cortisol is also the body’s major catabolic hormone, but its activity in that regard is offset by the greater protein intake, which is a feature of low-carb diets.
The low-carb diet also produced more C-reactive protein, a nonspecific measure of inflammation. Here, too, I think the reason is that the subjects were not engaged in intense exercise, and the high fat content of the low-carb diet (60 percent) likely produced the higher C-reactive protein. Had the subjects engaged in exercise, the CRP would not be an issue, I believe, but the major explanation for the higher CRP seen with the low-carb plan was lack of fiber. While the subjects did take a supplemental three grams of fiber per meal, their total daily intake was only 11.2 grams. Compare that to the average intake of 30.3 grams on the lowfat diet and 32.8 grams on the low-glycemic diet. The suggested daily intake for fiber is 30 to 50 grams, and lack of fiber is known to boost C-reactive protein and inflammation in the body.
The authors suggest that based on their initial findings, the often suggested lowfat, high-carb diet is the most likely to result in a rapid regain of weight due to changes in energy expenditure and a negative effect on leptin activity. Although the low-carb diet produced the best effects in terms of healthful changes in the body as well as energy use, they think it may be problematic because of the adverse effects on cortisol metabolism and CRP. They suggest that the best way to go for maintaining lost weight is the low-glycemic-index diet.
For bodybuilding purposes it would need to be modified, since it contains only 20 percent protein. A better plan might be to lower the fat from 40 to 30 percent with an emphasis on “good fats,” such as omega-3 and monounsaturated sources, and an increase in protein from 20 to 30 percent to foster lean-mass maintenance and counter any cortisol effects.
Editor’s note: Have you been ripped off by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.
1 Ebbeling, CB, et al. (2012). Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. JAMA. 307:2627-2634.
©,2015 Jerry Brainum. Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited
Oprah Winfrey is a notable example. Years ago Oprah went on a special liquid-protein diet that resulted in her losing 67 pounds of fat, which she proudly wheeled out in a wheelbarrow on her TV show (not her real fat, just 67 pounds of animal fat). Alas, her svelte figure turned out to be painfully ephemeral, as Oprah soon gained all the weight back and then some.
More recent examples include most participants in the popular TV show “The Biggest Loser”—although the high recidivism rate there isn’t surprising, as the program involves a crash diet with a lot of exercise. That’s a stress on the body’s reserves that cannot be sustained, and as a result, the weight soon returns.
In fact, only one out of every six dieters is able to maintain a 10 percent weight loss after a year, and studies suggest that as many as 97 percent of those who lose bodyfat from dieting alone will gain it all back, often within a year. Why is that figure so high?
When you lose weight, your body adapts to the reduced calories through a process called adaptive thermogenesis, which is a fancy way of saying that, because of the reduced mass, it burns fewer calories than it did prior to the weight loss. Unless you can continue to eat fewer calories, your weight-loss efforts are doomed.
What’s more, other studies show that your body works against you. Research done years ago suggests that there’s an “appestat” in the brain, likely in the appetite center of the hypothalamus, that must be reset to adjust to a new calorie level. The problem is that it takes years to occur—some have suggested up to five years for the brain to adjust to a chronic lower caloric intake. In the meantime you will be extremely hungry most of the time, which doesn’t bode well for long-term weight loss.
Does the type of diet you eat make a difference? Indeed, some hormonal factors are affected by diet type, which could play a major role in your weight-loss success. Leptin, a protein released from fat cells that signals to the brain that the cells are full, is one, as are insulin and thyroid hormones.
More recent research shows that the key diet factors that determine appetite control—and weight-loss success—are carbohydrate and to a lesser extent protein. Specifically, eating greater amounts of unprocessed and low-glycemic-index carbs helps control appetite and prevent fat gain by modulating the activity of insulin.
Protein is important because the body burns more calories to process it and also because it directly affects appetite. For example, several studies have clearly shown that concentrated protein supplements, such as whey, provide a satiating effect on appetite—which, of course, makes dieting a bit easier and aids your efforts.
Recently, French researchers delineated precisely how that works. After you take in a high-protein food source, small protein residues called oligo-peptides interact with certain opiate receptors in the gut, sending a message to the brain. The brain responds with a message back to the gut via the nervous system. That triggers the release of glucose in the intestine, which sends another signal to the brain that results in appetite suppression.
A major reason that the weight returns after a diet is energy expenditure. The body has two types of energy expenditure: resting, which is the energy expended to keep the body alive—heart function, brain function and so on—and total energy expenditure, which includes both resting energy and that burned in activity. You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that lowered energy expenditure after a diet is over would tend to favor a return of lost weight, especially if you also can’t maintain the calorie reduction. So what types of diets favor greater resting and total energy use?
That was the focus of a widely reported study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.1 Twenty-one overweight men and women, aged 18 to 40, followed one of three diets, all of which contained the same number of total calories but different macronutrient contents. This was a crossover-designed study, in which the subjects followed all three diets at different times.
Before they started, however, they went on another diet and achieved a 10 to 15 percent weight loss. So the study focused on maintenance diets, designed to keep the lost weight off:
1) Lowfat diet: 60 percent carb, 20 percent fat, 20 percent protein—the diet most commonly recommended for weight loss and health.
2) Low-glycemic-index diet: 40 percent carb, 40 percent fat, 20 percent protein.
3) Very low-carb diet: 10 percent carb, 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein—similar to the popular Atkins low-carb plan. It’s also similar to the way many bodybuilders eat when trying to lose excess bodyfat, although bodybuilders would have less fat and more protein.
The subjects stayed on each diet for four weeks. Those on the low-carb diet also got a fiber supplement that supplied three grams with each meal. That’s important, as constipation is a frequent side effect of low-carb diets that eliminate dietary fiber sources, such as fruits and vegetables.
The low-glycemic diet focused on carb sources that wouldn’t produce a rapid release of glucose in the body, such as vegetables, fruits and legumes. It minimized grains, which do trigger a higher glucose release.
The results showed that the lowfat diet, the most frequently recommended diet for weight loss, produced the lowest energy expenditure of the three. The low-glycemic diet produced greater rates of both resting and total energy expenditure; however, the low-carb plan produced the highest rates of both types. Specifically, the low-carb diet burned 67 more calories a day at rest than the lowfat plan, but the difference in total energy was a whopping 300 calories a day between the two diets. That wasn’t a thyroid effect, either, since the subjects showed slightly depressed thyroid output when on the low-carb plan compared to the other two diets. Thyroid, of course, controls the resting metabolic rate. Various other studies have shown that thyroid output is lower when subjects are on a very low-carb diet, but it obviously didn’t affect the energy expenditure in this study.
The subjects showed the greatest leptin sensitivity when they were on the low-carb diet, and that may have affected the energy expenditure. The low-carb diet also produced the greatest effect on high-density lipoprotein, which is considered highly beneficial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Another cardiac risk factor lowered during the low-carb diet was blood triglycerides.
On the negative side, the 24-hour urinary cortisol measure was highest on the low-carb diet. That’s indicative of stress. Previous studies have also shown higher cortisol for subjects who were on a very low-carb diet but not a moderate-carb diet. While higher cortisol is associated with increased fat deposition in the trunk of the body, insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease, I suggest that the cortisol was elevated because one of its the lesser known functions is to mobilize fat for energy. I believe that the low-carb diet triggered a much greater use of fat for energy, which may explain the higher cortisol. Cortisol is also the body’s major catabolic hormone, but its activity in that regard is offset by the greater protein intake, which is a feature of low-carb diets.
The low-carb diet also produced more C-reactive protein, a nonspecific measure of inflammation. Here, too, I think the reason is that the subjects were not engaged in intense exercise, and the high fat content of the low-carb diet (60 percent) likely produced the higher C-reactive protein. Had the subjects engaged in exercise, the CRP would not be an issue, I believe, but the major explanation for the higher CRP seen with the low-carb plan was lack of fiber. While the subjects did take a supplemental three grams of fiber per meal, their total daily intake was only 11.2 grams. Compare that to the average intake of 30.3 grams on the lowfat diet and 32.8 grams on the low-glycemic diet. The suggested daily intake for fiber is 30 to 50 grams, and lack of fiber is known to boost C-reactive protein and inflammation in the body.
The authors suggest that based on their initial findings, the often suggested lowfat, high-carb diet is the most likely to result in a rapid regain of weight due to changes in energy expenditure and a negative effect on leptin activity. Although the low-carb diet produced the best effects in terms of healthful changes in the body as well as energy use, they think it may be problematic because of the adverse effects on cortisol metabolism and CRP. They suggest that the best way to go for maintaining lost weight is the low-glycemic-index diet.
For bodybuilding purposes it would need to be modified, since it contains only 20 percent protein. A better plan might be to lower the fat from 40 to 30 percent with an emphasis on “good fats,” such as omega-3 and monounsaturated sources, and an increase in protein from 20 to 30 percent to foster lean-mass maintenance and counter any cortisol effects.
Editor’s note: Have you been ripped off by supplement makers whose products don’t work as advertised? Want to know the truth about them? Check out Natural Anabolics, available at JerryBrainum.com.
1 Ebbeling, CB, et al. (2012). Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. JAMA. 307:2627-2634.
©,2015 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)