The Latest on Sodium Bicarbonate: Serial Loading Almost as Effective as Acute Loading and Free of Gastrointestinal Side Effects. Plus: Can You Use Potassium Bicarbonate Instead?

NaHCO3 loading has been most successful in events lasting from 1 to 7 minutes (Linderman. 1994) - so either track sprints or volume training

Do you remember my last post on sodium bicarbonate and what I said about the SuppVersity being the place, where you would read about the latest studies on the wonders of baking soda, first? Well, at least I have not seen today's SuppVersity news being covered anywhere else, so I guess for the vast majority I am about to deliver on yet another promise, when I briefly summarizing the latest findings on the "effects of serial and actue NaHCO3 loading in well-trained cyclists" from University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Institute of Sport in Lanceston, Australia (Driller. 2013; study will be published in the October issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research).

Why don't we just "load" on NaHCO3 over a longer timespan?

Interestingly, Matthew W. Driller, John R. Gregory, Andrew D. Williams and James W. Fell must have asked themselves a very similar question as I did a couple of weeks ago:  

How come, that there is "limited research describing the use of serial NaHCO3 loading?"

Or put simply: Wouldn't it be likely that we would see similar, in the long haul even superior, results from the chronic ingestion / slow loading of NaHCO3 with less side effects compared to the standard practice of downing 30-50g at once?

Figure 1: The doses on day 1-3 were taken with breakfast, lunch and dinner, the 5 doses on the day of the test (day 5) within 90min before the test; placebo capsules contained microcrystalline cellulose

To answer this question Driller et al. came up with a double-blind placebo controlled, randomized design in which each cyclist underwent 3 experimental trials over a 3-week timeframe:

• AL - acute NaHCO3 loading
• SL - serial NaHCO3 loading 
• P - placebo loading condition 

You can see the "exact" protocol in figure 1 to the right. The main performance variable was a 4-minute cycling test (TT), a choice the scientists explain by referring to it as an approximation (at least duration-wise) of a "complete a 4,000-m individual pursuit in track cycling" and refer to previous research by Lindermann & Gosselink from 1994, which confirms that "NaHCO3 loading has been most successful in events lasting from 1 to 7 minutes" (Driller. 2013).

If you do the math on the figures, you'll see that the respective absolute amounts, i.e. P = 0mg, AL = 0.3mg/kg and SL = 0.9mg/kg were not identical.

You could also argue that the SL group should at least have stuck do their regular protocol on the day of the test, but (1) the higher total dosage in the serial loading trial seems reasonable - after all, your body uses the NaHCO3 also, when you don't work out so you got to build an even greater buffer, and (2) it would have been hard to distinguish the "chronic" from the acute effects if the SL protocol had involved supplementation on the day of the test.

The exercise protocol: A time trial simulates a 4k race

Can I use potassium bicarbonate instead? NO! You can combine both, but from a physiological standpoint it does not makes sense to increase your serum potassium levels before a workout, because especially strength training will leech potassium from the cells into the blood anyways. Moreover your body conserves potassium pretty well during a workout, while you lose a comparably large amount of sodium in your sweat. In other words, you risk offsetting the peculiar balance of the extra-cellular sodium ions and the intracellular potassium ions. While weakness or skeletal muscle hyperexcitability would be rather harmless, but certainly ergolytic consequences, this can - in the worst case - lead to bradycardia (=abnormally slow heartbeats), arrhythmias and even sudden cardiac arrest as it was observed in the two "salt-phobic" bodybuilders in the case report I already cited in the comments on the "Sodium Bicarbonate for High Volume Strength Training" post (cf. John. 2011; there were probably confounding factors at play, here, but still, the risk of developing hyperkalemia is nothing you can totally exclude, if you ingest tons of potassium within a couple of minutes).

If you feel that you don't get enough potassium in your diet, anyway, I'd suggest you mix them at a 3:1 ratio as you usually see it for "normal" sodium and potassium in electrolyte products.

A pros pos "day of the test", on the latter, the participants, 8 well-trained male cyclists (age = 28y; height = 181cm; mass = 73.5 +/- 8.5 kg; VO2peak =66.8 +/- 8.4ml/ kg/min), who were all cyclists currently competing at the state or national level and in their on-season, ingested the placebo or bicarbonate capsules with a tightly controlled amount of water (10 ml /kg body mass) 90 minutes before they hopped onto an air-braked cycling ergometer to perform their time-trial test.

"All the cyclists performed a standardized warm-up before the test, which was replicated before each TT. The warm-up consisted of 3 set intensities relative to the cyclists’ body mass, each lasting 4 minutes. [...] During the exercise test, each cyclist was encouraged to give a maximal effort during the TT. The investigators providing the encouragement were blinded to the trial each cyclist was undertaking. The VO2peak was taken as the highest VO2 value recorded over a 30-second period during the TT." (Driller. 2013)

After the test the cyclists were provided with a modified gastrointestinal side-effects questionnaire which allowed them to quantify the side effects on 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "none" to 10 = "unbearable".

The results: Serial loading with accute effects, but less side effects

Blood samples were taken before and after the trials, the subjects performed in a rested and hydrated state after fasting for at least 2h. They also filled 3-day food and training diaries for the days before the experiment. Since the scientists don't mention those in the FT to the study, I assume there were no significant intrapersonal differences between the trials), so that the results I summarized in figure 2 are not distorted by 3-days of overtraining or 3-days of McDonalds dieting ;-)

Figure 2: Relative power (W/kg), peak blood lactate (mmol/l), HCO3 post loading and post test (mmol/l), pH post loading and post test, VO2 peak (l/min); p < 0.05 for all but the HCO3 post test value - the figures above the bars indicate the percentage of participants which did see practically relevant improvements in the respective parameter (vs. those with improvements that were trivial or even negative; based on Dreher. 2013)

As you can see both the acute, as well as the alternative serial loading protocol yielded the desired improvements in exercise performance. On average, the alkalizing effects, as well as the increases in VO2max were yet more pronounced in the acute compared to the serial loading test... but let's be honest: What's that worth if you get the runs during a race or workout? To be fair, in the study at hand no athlete developed diarrhea, but three felt bloated after the AL protocol, whereas not a single study participant experienced any side effects from the serial loading.

Why not simply stay "on" sodium bicarbonate?

In view of what I have said before about the experimental necessity of not providing any NaHCO3 to the study participants on day 4 of the SL trial, the logical next step in the "evolution of bicarbonate science" would be to probe my previous suggestion to administer the baking soda chronically and keep the study participants "on" NaHCO3 for a week or two during their regular training, without dropping the dose (alternatively even escalating it) on the day of the exercise test / training days.

Figure 3: Latent acidoses can set you up to become obese and prevent your hamper your fat loss (Berkemeyer. 2009)

I would speculate that this would also allow them to exploit the previously cited plethora metabolic benefits of being in a more or less alkaline state (see figure 3 and "How Bicarbonate Could Help You Lose Fat & Build Muscle") and would thus turn something as "profane" as an ergogenic aid into a weight loss and health supplement. This appears even more likely in view of the fact that the study at hand clearly shows that it does not matter whether you use a bicarbonate buffer before your workout, or not, when you're done with it, your HCO3 levels will be rock bottom (assuming that you have trained with maximal intensity). That being said, it appears only prudent not to restrict the use of the buffer to the pre workout window, only, but to use it to re-alkalize your body immediately post workout, as well.

And while I doubt that we will see that study being done in the near future, you know that there is no better place to check for the latest news on sodium bicarbonate, aka baking soda or NaHCO3 than right here, at the SuppVersity ;-)

Update => Dr. Andro's Bicarbonate Protein Pudding: Since Spencer asked me on Facebook how / when I use baking soda and I already betrayed my "secret protein pudding recipe" *lol* I thought I'd post it here, as well.

How it's done: You take some quark (this is a German dairy product you US guys usually know as curd cheese; depending on how hungry you are you use ~100-300g), add water maybe 100ml and stir it, you will soon notice that it does not become a smooth pudding, no matter what you do. So, next you add a scoop of casein or protein powder for the flavor you like best, e.g. chocolate, (casein works best, because it also adds to the creaminess). Mix the protein with the white "soup" and then add 1-2 teaspoons of sodium bicarbonate. You will soon realize that what happens now verifies the term "baking soda": your pudding-to-be is going to start raising like dough, keep the water and some stevia at hand and add water + stevia until the stuff has the consistency and sweetness you like best.  

Voila! Dr. Andro's Quark Based Protein Laden Alkalizing Bicarbonate Pudding is Ready! Makes an excellent last meal of the day, as well... but watch out it is really filling ;-)

References:

• Berkemeyer S. Acid-base balance and weight gain: are there crucial links via protein and organic acids in understanding obesity? Med Hypotheses. 2009 Sep;73(3):347-56. 
• Driller MW, Gregory JR, Williams AD, Fell JW. The Effects of Serial and Acute NaHCO3 Loading in Well-Trained Cyclists. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct;26(10):2791-7.
• John SK, Rangan Y, Block CA, Koff MD. Life-threatening hyperkalemia from nutritional supplements: uncommon or undiagnosed? Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;29(9):1237.e1-2.
• Linderman, JK,Gosselink, KL. The effects of sodium bicarbonate ingestion on exercise performance. Sports Med 18: 75, 1994.

Pre Workout Protein Supplementation 101: Slow or Fast, Bolus or Pulse? Protein Synthetic Response is Identical!

Should she drink her protein shake all at once or in 33ml gulps every 15min, if she has it before her workout? And wait, wouldn't it be better to have the shake afterwards, anyway? A recent study provides some answers.

I don't know if you notices, but it has been a while since the last study from the Exercise Metabolism Research Group at the Department of Kinesiology of the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, hit the SuppVersity news. Allegedly, I mentioned Stuart Phillips only a couple of days ago, when I referenced the West study on "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength" (West. 2013), in the context of the questionable significance of post-exercise increases in testosterone levels, as far as muscle and strength gains are concerned - for those who missed that, it was  in the "Anabolic Workouts Revisited" post from last Monday. That was however about it as far as the news of the last weeks are concerned. So I was already wondering, when the first of you would be showing initial signs of "acute protein synthesis in response to protein ingestion study withdrawal symptoms", when I hit onto the latest study Phillips' group at McMasters participated in. The lead author of the study is however Louise M. Burke who's currently working at the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, Australia.

What happens if you ingest your post-workout protein before the workout ;-) ?

The aim of the study, of which the authors explicitly state that it is a quasi-followup to previous results which have conclusively identified fast acting protein sources (mostly whey, in some instances EAAs) as superior triggers, or I should say, promoters of post-exercise protein synthesis, was

"[...] to investigate the effects of manipulating patterns of aminoacidemia from protein sources consumed before a bout of resistance exercise bout." (Burke. 2013)

To this end, Burke et al. simulated the ingestion of slow or fast protein sources by bolus vs. pulse feeding of a leucine-enriched (+5g) whey protein drink (Nestec by Nestlé, sponsor of the study; the reason for the enrichment was to make sure that there would be a decent amount of leucine in each pulse serving).

• Bolus (B) - 1 x 500ml w/ 25g whey + 5g leucine drink, 14 x 33ml placebo every 15 min
• Pulse (P) - 1 x 500ml placebo drink,  14 x 33ml w/ 1.79g whey + 0.36g leucine each
• Placebo - 1 x 500ml placebo drink, 14 x 33ml placebo drink

The subjects, 12 resistance-trained men (age: 27y; body mass: 94.3kg; 1 RM single leg ext.: 42.8kg) with greater than 2 yr of experience of regular (at least twice per week) strength training, who had followed a standardized diet before each of the testing sessions (energy content of 80kcal/kg BM; 45%/34%/21% of the energy from carbs/fats/protein), started consuming their large 500ml beverage and the subsequent 14 small 33ml servings (every 15 min) 45min before they performed a standardized leg training session:

"This bout consisted of a  standardized warm-up, followed by 10 sets of 8–10 repetitions of leg extension at a workload equivalent to 80% of the specific leg 1 RM with 2-min recovery between sets. The leg that performed exercise was alternated for each trial. The duration of the resistance bout was approximately 45 min." (Burke. 2013)

Before during and after the exercise bout blood samples were collected. Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis of the exercised leg were taken 45min before, as well as after 1 h and 5 h of recovery.

Figure 1: Serum leucine and insulin levels after bolus and pulse ingestion, expressed relative to placebo group (left) and fractional protein synthesis rate (in %/h) during the 5h following the rest period after the workout (right; based on Burke. 2013)

As you can see in figure 1 the results basically confirmed the scientists expectation that the provision of protein before a workout would work just as well, because - more than anything else - it is the availability (or should I say abundance?) of amino acids in the blood stream that is the main determined of post the actual fractional protein synthesis rate (FSR) after moderate  volume workout like the one the participants conducted in the study at hand. In addition it did, at least as far as the protein synthetic response goes, neither make a significant difference, whether the subjects had all their protion at once before the workout or consumed it in 15min intervals before and during the workout.

Bolus or pulse = fast or slow? Pulsed whey does not equal casein (imho)

What I am personally not happy with, though, is the way Burke et al. equate the "pulse" protocol to the ingestion of a "slow" protein source, such as a micellar casein protein, for example. While they put that into perspective in the discussion of the results (see below) and despite the fact that do see the rationale of Burke et al. not to use a real slow digesting protein like casein in order to have absolutely identical amino acid compositions and to exclude other confounding factors, it is at least in my humble opinion somewhat confusing for the "average" reader. And while it is likely that the results for a "real" slow digesting protein would be similar, this would warrant direct experimental evidence. A fact the authors only hint at indirectly towards the end of the discussion of their results, when they state:

"[...] A specific issue in interpreting the finding of these previous studies and in increasing the utility of the concept of ‘‘fast’’ and ‘‘slow’’ dietary proteins is the difficulty of determining the individual and interactive contributions of the different AA composition of protein-rich foods and the digestibility of proteins or protein-rich meals to the pattern of delivery of these AAs. Our protocol, in which the same (fast) protein was consumed to achieve its traditional AA profile or as a series of small divided feed-ings to replicate the plasma leucine response associated with a slow protein, provides an opportunity to differ-entiate these effects." (Burke. 2013)

But hey, who knows, maybe that's going to be the research question of the next paper... and in the mean time it will spare you to buy two or even more different protein powders ;-)

"So what's better Dr. Andro? Pre- or post-workout protein supplementation?"

I guess most of you won't care anyways, as there is another question that's now preying on your minds... but to be honest, I can't provide you with a definite answer to it (see headline). What I can do, however is compare the study by West et al. (West. 2011) which used 25g of whey protein post workout to the one at hand (Burke. 2013).

Figure 2: Fractional protein synthesis (FSR in %/h) after the workout with post workout protein ingestion (West. 2011) and pre workout protein ingestion (Burke. 2013) on the left; relative increase in FSR in the two trials (compared to fasted for West. 2011 vs. Placebo for Burke. 2013) on the right (please mind that this is by no means a scientifically valid comparison, it's more of a "food for thought illustration"!)

I've done just that for you in figure 2, and what this comparison tells you is that it does not make a difference, whether you ingest all your protein as a bolus after a workout or start "pulse ingesting" (mind my words in the previous paragraph wrt to "slow != pulse") your protein 45min before the workout - at least, if you take the relative increase in fractional protein synthesis as a measure (figure 2, right). 

Unfortunately, both the composition of the protein supplement (25g whey in West. 2011 vs. 25g whey + 5g leucine in Burke. 2013), as well as the exact outcome variables that were measured (1-3h and 3-5h FSR in West. 2011 vs. 5h post workout FSR in Burke. 2013) were different, so that the comparison of the relative increases in protein synthesis I plotted on the right hand side of figure 2 is actually not 100% valid.

Moreover, and this is something I know a couple of you will now be thinking of, this comparison does by no means allow for any quantitative predictions with respect to the question of ...

What would happen, when you do both: Pulse ingest before and bolus ingest afterwards?

If  you don't remember or - even worse ! - have not read the previous SuppVersity post "Protein Synthesis Beyond the '20g Limit': Study Shows Exercise Facilitates 32% Greater Increases in Fractional Protein Synthesis With 40g Instead of 20g of Whey PWO" click on the image and (re-)read it ;-)

In view of the fact that the existence of a "threshold level" of protein intake, where the addition of even more protein won't yield any further benefits appears to be self-evident, the exact amount of this limit has yet still to be determined. At least after a workout, it seems that this threshold would be higher than the 25g and 20g of protein the subjects ingested in the Burke and West studies, respectively (please read my previous post "Protein Synthesis Beyond the 20g Limit" for a more detailed discussion of this topic).

That being said, it is reasonable to assume, but would likewise warrant experimental verification, that the combination of both protocols could increase the fractional protein synthesis even further. Yet while I am 100% sure that they won't simply add up, I would hesitate to bet money that the difference would actually reach statistical significant... at least with a low volume leg extension workout as it was used in the studies at hand.

References:

• Burke LM, Hawley JA, Ross ML, Moore DR, Phillips SM, Slater GR, Stellingwerff T, Tipton KD, Garnham AP, Coffey VG. Preexercise aminoacidemia and muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Oct;44(10):1968-77.
• West DW, Burd NA, Coffey VG, et al. Rapid aminoacidemia enhances protein synthesis and anabolic intramuscular signal-ling responses after resistance exercise. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011; 94:795–803. 
• West DW, Phillips SM. Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Jul;112(7):2693-702.  

Are We Whey-sting Money? Study says: No Increase in Size or Strength Gains With Peri-Workout Protein Supplements. Plus: Pegylated Whey & Leucine - Worth the Extra Bucks?

Protein, sugar or plain water - what if it would not even matter what was in his bottle, as long as he is still young, works out hard and gets his 1.2g+ protein per kg body weight from whole foods?

If this is not the first time you're here at the SuppVersity you are unquestionably aware that the effect size of the tried and proven peri-workout supplementation is totally overrated. Notwithstanding, a protein supplement and especially a fast digesting whey protein is one of the SuppVersity Suggested Staple Supplements; one of those supplements of which even I claim that 99% of the trainees can benefit. So what do we do with the results of a recently published paper by Ashley A. Walter and her colleagues from the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Kansas, the California State University-San Bernardino, the University of North-Carolina-Chapel Hill and the University of Central Florida?

Have we been doing it wrong, all the time?

Do we simply ignore their data, which indicates that 8 weeks of resistance training (three times per week, chest + legs) does increase muscle performance and size similarly among all groups "regardless of supplementation" (Walter. 2013). Why no? I mean let's wrap this up and simply say, the study must be flawed. No wonder, actually, after all the idea to investigate the differential effects of different forms of protein (regular vs. "bioenhanced" = pegylated* whey), different workout volumes 3 vs. 5 sets and a placebo vs. a "no supplement at all" control group looks like one of the classic mistakes science greenhorns ake. A mistake I know only all to well fro the real world university (not the SuppVersity), where overeager students of mine who try to write the "Jack of All Traits" Bachelor or Master thesis in 99% of the cases produces a garbled mess with little or no scientific value.

What is pegylation? Pegylation refers to the process of binding a molecule, like a small peptide or amino acid to polyethylene glycol in order to increase its bioavailability. It's common practice with pharmaceuticals and has already shown some promise in previous studies with pegylated creatine (e.g. Camic. 2010). Especially in the case of PEG creatine, it is however questionable, whether the higher bioavailability, which does nothing, but reduce the dosage requirements (Herda. 2008), would be worth the additional costs. My personal answer to that question clearly is "no" and the fact that these expensive products actually never had a breakthrough on the market would confirm that the marginal utility is zero (or negative ;-)

On the other hand, there is no debating that the study at hand, with its 106 healthy active male volunteers (mean age 21 years, body fat 10-25%; ~60% with aerobic training, ~40 percent with resistance training experience or both, as well as 60% performing other recreational sports regularly) and thus ~20 subjects per group is not underpowered, as you would expect and should thus in fact be able to spot differences between the 5 arms of the 8-week randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial:

• bio-enhanced whey* protein with low volume training (BWP LV , n=22)
• bio-enhanced whey protein with moderate volume training (BWP MV, n=20)

• standard whey protein with moderate volume training (SWPMV, n=22), 

• placebo with moderate volume training (PLA, n=21), 
• control (=no suppleent) with moderate volume training (CON, n=21).

The supplement itself was chocolate-flavored and ingested on both workout days and off days: one before, one after the workout or a single shake at a self-chosen timepoint on the off day. The main difference between the "bio-enhanced" and the regular whey was the addition of 5g of polyethylene glycosylated (PEG) leucine to the baseline amount of 20g of whey. The placebo contained pure maltodextrin and the control group did not receive any drink whatsoever... actually this is something I have not seen before - a neat way to answer the question: How much of the efficacy of a tried and proven staple supplement lke Whey is actually in your head, only?

Enough of the presquabble let's take a look at the results

Looking at the plots in figure 1 certainly does not look like there would not be any differences to begin with, but once you realize the "differences" are almost exclusively negligible and well within the standard deviations of the respective parameters.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition (left), strength and strength endurance (right; Walter. 2013)

There are just two things that stick out, #1 is the statistically non-significant but still obvious fat loss advantage of not supplementing at all (marked by an arrow) and the other one is the lean and total mass disadvantage of the ...

• Note: Both programs involved training chest and legs thrice a week, which should obviously be enough of a growth stimulus. If you doubt that or believe that it may even be too much, take a look at the success of the guys in the control groups.
  low volume training program , which involved an onramp up to 3 sets of 6 reps with 80% 1-RM on the bench and the leg press,compared to the

• high volume program, in the course of which the subjects performed 5 sets of 6 reps with 80% 1-RM on the bench and the leg press

This observation does in fact fit pretty well with rationale the scientists use to explain the non existence of any measurable differences between the 5 arms. "[A]midst the anabolic stimulus of resistance training." (Camic. 2013), the additional growth stimulus any amount of protein could add to the already high basal level of workout induced MPS in young men would simply be negligible (cf. Volpi. 2001; Yarasheski. 2002).

"This may partially explain why this study showed no significant effects of protein supplementation beyond the resistance training during the 8- week study period, regardless of treatment group.[...] Our primary outcome variable was muscular strength changes. While the present study indicated strength changes in all groups, the importance of a lack of additional change in the groups with protein supplementation." (Walter. 2013)

What is yet interesting is tthat not just the protein supplementation but also the ~40-45% higher volume in the "-MV"-groups (medium volume training) vs. the "-LV"-group (low volume training) did bring about significant changes in 55-59% of the resistance training volume elucidated significant differences in strength or size gain.

Suggested read "Greater & Steadier Strength Gains w/ 8 Sets of Squats." (Article I) and "Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs,  Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps." (Article II)

Unfortunately, it cannot be said if the protein supplementation did in this case create an equal playing field or not, although the researchers' statement that 

"[...] these findings suggest that when a moderate- or high-volume of resistance training is not possible, consuming protein and amino acids in conjunction with a low-volume resistance training program may be sufficient for achieving equivalent results" (Walter. 2013).

 appears to suggest just that: The fallicious believe that you can "out-supplement" suboptimal training routines. This does not necessarily mean that you got to to 5 sets of every of the X exercises you do, but if you stick to only one, you better make sure to have at least five sets esp. for legs and other large muscle groups (check out the suggested reads on the right for more information: Article I, Article II)

Apropos level playing field 

A brief glance at the data in figure 1 shows that (a) the protocol did work out as it is supposed to be and only the guys in the protein supplement groups did actually exhibit a significant increase in protein intake, and (b) that the overall protein intake on a per kg of body weight base was - quelle suprise (!) - exactly where the many ofthe latest reviews say it has to be, in order to support optimal protein synthesis in young men: in the +1.2g  range (e.g. Coleman. 2013).

Figure 2: Protein intake before (pre, no supp) and during the study period in the different arms of the study (left) and respective protein intakes relative do body weight in the different groups (right)

Without significant differences in any other of the established nutritional parameters - first and foremost the overall energy intake, the only argument left would be that consuming even more protein on a daily basis may make the difference.

The lack of MPS data is a definitive, but by no means rare downside of the study

Figure 3: Fractional  protein synthesis (FSR) in the Moore study (young participants leg curls + leg extension medium intensity, red), in which a ceiling effect occurred and the Yang study (old participants rel. light workout, blue), where the latter was absent (originally published on February 11, 2013)

If we did yet follow this rational we would have to discard 90% of the muscular protein synthesis (MPS) data from previous studies we have become so fond of. After all, 90% of the pertinent and heavily cited data is based on trials using only 20-30g of whey after a workout. And if taking the protein before and after the workout would be a problem this would only compromise the body recompositioning effect, superior strength and size gains should yet still be visible. And taking more? Well, the 40g of whey (20g pre and 20g post) used in this do actually already approach the "ceiling level" after which the marginal utility of additional protein approaches zero - at least in young trainees and after a reasonably intense workout (read up on my previous comparison and elaborations on the data from young and old individuals from studies by Moore et al. and Yang et al.; cf. figure 3).

In the end, comparisons like the former involving MPS / FSR studies like the ones by Moor et el. with the study at hand would yet require the presence of respective data for the early mid- and end-phase of the Walter study. Since this data is not present and in view of the fact that we do actually have to be as skeptic about the prognostic value of MPS data measured in the immediate vicinity of a workout as we are about the heavily scrutinized "anabolic" response to a workout (cf. yesterday's post and the suggested reads), the overall significance of the study at hand remains questionable.

As questionable, by the way, as the researchers discussion of the "practical implications". After stating for the fifth time that supplementation clearly did nothing to augment the exercise induced increase in size and strength, the researchers suddenly don't dare to speak out the only logical consequence, i.e. "there is no use in protein supplementation" and walk the eggshells instead when they state:

Acutually you could also argue that using stevia as a sweetener may benefit older trainees and people on low volume routines. I've written about its potential effect on satellite cell recruitment over a year ago, already (learn more)

"Furthermore, athletes could benefit from a  low-volume regimen in conjunction with protein supplementation while recovering from injury and completing their prescribed rehabilitation program. This may potentially speed up the recovery  process and decrease the event of post-injury complications. As active adults age, they are encouraged to maintain or increase activity. However, less is known about how older adults may respond to whey protein and leucine supplementation in conjunction with chronic resistance exercise. A lower-volume of resistance exercise plus supplementation can potentially benefit untrained or detrained individuals, similar to moderate-volume without protein supplementation.

It is also possible that older adults and elderly patients may have a higher aptitude to respond to  the anabolic effects of protein supplementation and resistance exercise. Additionally, it is possible that PEG may be more beneficial for the absorption of the amino acids in those with  difficulties digesting nutrients, rather than healthy young men that already have a high basal MPS rate." (Walter. 2013; my emphases of the conditionals and speculations)

I don't know about you, but in my mind the best term to describe aftertaste that remains after reading this "conclusion" is  "Much Ado About Nothing" ;-)

---

Bottom line: Since the above "practical implications" are probably of little use to you, let me give you mine. Forget about everything but the fact that protein synthesis may not be the best indicator of long(er) term real world strength and size gains and stick to the tried and proven. Mix 20-30g of whey (plus 10-20g casein, optional) after your workout add 1-2 bananas / or some instant oats (amount depends on whether you are trying to build muscle or cut body fat), head home, have a full meal within the next hour or so (don't freak out if it takes 61 or even 90min until you get something to eat) and - last but not least - make sure that each of your whole food meals has at least 20-30g of EAA rich whole protein in it. That's it! Easy, right?

Hydrolysates have clear advantage over EAAs (learn more). Plus, w/ the isoleucine-dipeptides they may even outperform regular whey. The study to prove that in a realistic scenario has yet to be conducted, though.

What? Oh yeah, you want to know if you should buy PEG whey? Well, I guess the results of this study speak for themselves, don't they? So even if the claims I've found in a patent by someone who goes by the telling surname "Guru" and reports a 5x higher amino acid accumulation from micronized PEG enriched whey compared to its conventional counterpart were not just the result of non-peer-reviewed   "experiments" (Ramanathan. 2010), which have been conducted for only one purpose, i.e. making the patented product shine, you probably don't have to worry that you could be missing out on this one.

If you insist on trying something different, I would rather suggest you take a look at the readily available and as of now no longer that expensive protein hydrolysates. No, not for their fast absorption, but rather for their unique small peptide structure (suggested reads: Isoleucine-dipeptides and  GLUT-4, hydrolysate vs. EAA)

References:

• Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ. Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window? J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2013 Jan 29;10(1):5.
• Camic CL, Hendrix CR, Housh TJ, Zuniga JM, Mielke M, Johnson GO, Schmidt RJ, Housh DJ. The effects of polyethylene glycosylated creatine supplementation on muscular strength and power. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Dec;24(12):3343-51.
• Coleman, E. Protein Requirements for Athletes. Clinical Nutrition INSIGHT: September 2013; 38(9):1–3.
• Herda TJ, Beck TW, Ryan ED, Smith AE, Walter AA, Hartman MJ, Stout JR, Cramer JT. Effects of creatine monohydrate and polyethylene glycosylated creatine supplementation on muscular strength, endurance, and power output. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 May;23(3):818-26.
• Moore DR, Robinson MJ, Fry JL, Tang JE, Glover EI, Wilkinson SB, Prior T, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
• Ramanathan, Guru. Dietary Ingredient With Enhanced Bioavailability. United States Patent Application. Pub. No. US2010/0209558A1. August, 2010.
• Volpi E, Sheffield-Moore M, Rasmussen BB, Wolfe RR. Basal muscle amino acid kinetics and protein synthesis in healthy young and older men. 2001; JAMA 286:1206-1212.
• Walter AA, Herda TJ, Costa PB, Ryan ED, Stout JR, Cramer JT. Muscle Performance, Size, And Safety Responses After Eight Weeks Of Resistance Training And Protein Supplementation: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Feb 25.
• Yang Y, Breen L, Burd NA, Hector AJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Josse AR, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Resistance exercise enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis with graded intakes of whey protein in older men. Br J Nutr. 2013 Nov 28;108(10):1780-8.
• Yarasheski KE, Welle S, Nair KS. Muscle protein synthesis in younger and older
  586 men. JAMA. 2002; 287:317-318.

Post-Workout Glycogen Repletion - The Role of Protein, Leucine, Phenylalanine and Insulin. Plus: Protein & Carbs How Much do You Actually Need After a Workout?

Pascal Behrenbruch, German decathlete and one of those athletes whose performance during a meet will certainly depend on "optimal" glycogen repletion between the different sports.

Within the past couple of weeks I have often talked (on the Science Round-Up) and written (here at the SuppVersity) about the importance of glycogen repletion to maintain optimal exercise performance and stave off the metabolic downregulation that's a characteristic of the nasty combination of overtraining and undereating. The recent post on the anti-plateau effect of sucrose should actually have made it quite clear: Even when you are "just" dieting, you should make it a priority to satisfy your body's desire to have an adequate reserve of glucose in the muscle and more importantly the liver.

But what does that mean? Do you really have to guzzle gallons of sugar water (aka weight gainers) after a workout? Certainly not.

The notion that you need to flood your skeletal muscle tissue with sugar right after the workout and that even showering before you do so would compromise your training success and put you at danger of losing muscle is simply hilarious.

That being said, the results of the latest study from the Institute of Sport at the Carnegie Faculty of the Leeds Metropolitan University in the UK is probably of greater importance to professional athletes like triathletes, decathletes, cyclists, etc. After all, they are the ones for whom immediate glycogen repletion can make the difference between victory and defeat. On the other hand, this does not mean that there wasn't something to be learned from the data Detko et al. gathered by the means of 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy - after all, they took a different approach to the problem and did - instead of modifying the carbohydrate source - try to elucidate how the addition of protein would influence the restoration of muscle and liver glycogen in the immediate vicinity of a workout (Detko. 2013).

Is there even such a thing as an "optimal PWO glycogen replenisher"?

The quest for the optimal PWO carbohydrate source has long been a quest for the highest GI carbohydrate. Until the low carb craze hit home, the mainstay paradigm of figure, bodybuilding and performance athletes was "the higher the GI, the faster the uptake, the greater the gylcogen (re-)synthesis, the better the results". From a scientific perspective, it has has yet long been refuted that the GI and thus the insulin response a given carbohydrate would elicit was the only determinant of its practical value as a muscle (let alone liver) glycogen replenisher.

Did you know that there is a catalytic dose of ~40g of fructose per day (=6 normal size bananas) that will improve your glucose metabolism? (learn more)

One of my favorite and in fact comparably recent studies that demonstrates the fallacy of using the glycemic index as a gauge for post-workout glycogen replenishment is the 2008 study by Wallis et al. In a well-controlled experiment, the researchers were able to show that a post-workout drink that contained 2:1 glucose to fructose ratio was on par with pure glucose in its ability to replenish the depleted muscle and liver glycogen, when it was consumed right after a standardized glycogen depleting exercise bout (Wallis. 2008). Obviously, this result stands in stark conflict with the "glycemic index (GI) hypothesis". After all, the falsely dreaded fructose, the demon of Dr. Lustig's worst nightmares, has a GI of <20 and thus the lowest glycemic index of all natural sugars.

If the "GI hypothesis" was accurate, fructose should therefore be by far the worst choice for an athlete who wants to replete his / her glycogen stores as fast as possible. That this is not the case, goes to show you that things are - once again - much more complex, than the widely accepted, but overtly simplistic "rules of thumb" would suggest.

Why is the glycemic index a bad avisor, when it comes to PWO glycogen replenishment?

Before we head on to the new data the Detko study has to offer, let's briefly take a look at why the glycemic index does not qualify as a compass to guide us on our quest for the perfect post-workout carbohdydrate source. Don't worry, I am trying to cut myself short, just listing the four most important caveats:

• 

  Table 1: It's rarely talked about, but especially endurance athletes will also benefit from increased intramuscular lipid stores. Therefore the overview of the intramuscular glycogen and lipid storage rates from a 2003 paper by Jacques Décombaz could come especially handy to the marathoners among the SuppVersity readers (Décombaz. 2003)

  Non-insulin-dependent glucose uptake: In the first 30-60min after a workout, for example the GI, i.e. the ability of a given carbohydrate source to trigger an insulin release is negligible, simply because the non-insulin dependent uptake of glucose into the muscle is already maxed out.

• Organ specificity: Contrary to the skeletal muscle tissue, the liver has a is downright dotty about fructose; and the more fructose it takes up, processes it and turns it into glycogen (see pathway, here), the more glucose will remain for your muscles to feast on.

• Ceiling effects: The amount of glycogen your muscles can synthesize is limited to approximately 9–10mmol/kg wet weight (WW). This rate can be sustained by the intake of 1.2g of carbohydrates per kg of body weight - more cannot end up in your muscle, regardless what kind of useless nutrient partitioner the company rep in disguise on your favorite bulletin board may have persuaded you to buy.

• 

  Figure 1: Muscle glycogen content 2h into the recovery period (left) and rise and fall of glucose concentrations after the ingestion of a low and high molecular weight starch immediately after a standardized glycogen depleting exercise bout (Gunnar. 2013)

  Molecular weight and absorption dynamics: While it is obvious that the latter should have a major effect they should (a) interact with the glycemic index (faster appearance in the blood = greater insulin response in healthy individuals) and (b) warrant the use of carbohydrate blends (after all, you don't want to run out, after the intitial spike, right). From my use of the conditional in the previous paragraph you may however already have realized that this assumption is not unambiguously supported by the currently available literature which does support the faster transit times, but not necessarily the purported downstream effects on the repletion of the glycogen stores in exercised muscles.
  In his 2013 thesis, Frances Gunnar from the University of Nottingham, for example, demonstrated that the much praised high molecular weight starch Vitargo(TM) did not yield produce greater increases in post-workout glycogen resynthesis than a low molecular weight counterpart (Gunnar. 2013). On the other hand, we have seminal papers such as the Y2k paper by Piehl et al. that are usually cited in this context (Piehl. 2000) and in which solutions with high molecular carbohydrate sources yielded greater rates of skeletal muscle re-synthesis.

I guess these were more than enough, "on the other hands" as Carl Lenore likes to call these lengthy departures of mine on the weekly SuppVersity Science Round-Up on the Super Human Radio Network from time to time. So let's now finally get to the study at hand.

Protein and galactose? What's that got to do with PWO glycogen repletion?

As I already hinted at in the introduction, the experiment Detko et al. conducted was not designed to compare carbohydrate solution A with carbohydrate solution B. The idea was rather to elucidate whether and by which mechanisms the addition of protein to the a standardized post-workout carbohydrate solution could accelerate the PWO glycogen repletion even further. Accordingly the test solutions the scientists prepared from commercially available raw materials contained either

• maltodextrin + galactose - 0.9 g/kg body mass (BM) maltodextrin + 0.3g/kg BM galactose, or
• maltodextrin + glactose + protein + leicine + phenylalanine - 0.5g/kg maltodectrine, 0.3g/kg galactose, 0.2g/kg whey and 0.1g/kg of each leucine and phenylalanine

As subjects, the scientists selected a total of seven recreationally, yet highly trained male cyclists who had been training for least 10h per week over the least 5 years (mean age: 33y, body weight: 79kg, VO2Max: 58 ml/kg per min).

It would have been more promising to use isoleucine instead of leucine and phenylalanine as "additives" to boost glucose uptake (click here to learn why)

Why would the scientists use galactose, leucine and phenylalanine? According to previous research the combination of maltodextrin + galactose has a slight, but significant advantage over the glucose + fructose combination mentioned earlier in this article. Practically it's unlikely that it will make a significant difference, anyways. After all, the important thing here is that fructose and galactose are preferred glycogen sources of the liver, which is thus not going to "steal" the glucose from the maltodextrin which is supposed to end up in the glycogen stores of the musculature - not the live (Decombaz. 2011).

The addition of leucine and phenylalanine, on the other hand, was supposed to increase the insulin response and thus help to shuttle the glucose into the cells. Needless to say that this is not necessarily a good idea and actually based on the same fallacious notion that insulin would be the main determinant of the rate of glucose replenishment after a workout, right?

In order to prevent differences in the baseline diet to interfere with the study outcome, the participants were not only asked to reproduce their nutrient intake in the days prior to the two testing sessions, they were also provided with standardized meals. which containing 150 g CHO, 67 g PRO and 22 g fat  and had to be consumed on the evening before the tests which consisted of

• 45min of steady state cycling at 70% VO2max,
• 6x1min sprints at 120% of the VO2max (2min recovery at 50% VO2max) and 
• 45min of steady state cycling at 70% VO2max

The steady 2nd state part of the intervention was meant to "further promote [the] depletion of glycogen in type I fibres" and to elicit a "reduction of plasma lactate concentrations at the end of the glycogen-depleting exercise".

"Ok, I got it, what about the supps and the results?"

During the trial the subjects were free to consume as much water as they wanted. Blood samples were drawn at the start, 45min after the intervention and every 30min during the 4h recovery period. The crucial part of the study, the supplementation, took place immediately after the first vastus lateralis scan. The drinks were ingested in a single 400ml bolus and 6 smaller 150ml portions every 30 min (see figure 2, left - small bottles).

Figure 2: Outline of the experimental design (left) and glycogen repletion rates - calculated based on averages for all subjects over the full course of the 4h post-workout window (Detko. 2013)

As you can see in figure 2, the averaged glucose repletion rates were virtually identical with a non-significant, but visible advantage for the muscular glycogen with higher carbohydrate and no protein intake. The result clearly refutes the researchers initial hypothesis that

"[...] the post-exercise ingestion of MD and GAL with PRO and AA would enhance liver and muscle glycogen repletion compared with an isoenergetic MD–GAL formulation." (Detko. 2013)

What's particularly intriguing about this result is that it manifested despite the fact that the large spike in insulin, the researchers had expected in response to the addition of whey and the pro-insulinogenic amino acids leucine and phenylalanine to the mix (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Blood glucose and insulin levels in the post-workout period (my markups in Detko. 2013)

In conjunction with the data about the glucose concentration, which did not crash in response to the insulin spike (this should happen if the equation "more insulin = more glucose uptake = faster glycogen replenishment held) this just confirms that the effects of the carbohydrate, protein and amino acid induced insulin spikes have little to no effect on the rate post-workout glycogen re-synthesis. While previous research suggests that a threshold limit must be maintained to keep the influx of glucose constant after the initial ~30min, this threshold is so low that any special "tactics" to increase the insulinogenic effect of post workout-nutrition appears to be a waste of time.

---

Bottom line: If we follow the Taubsian mantra that insulin is the root cause of all disease, the necessary conclusion we'd have to take away from the results of this study is that you better avoid having protein in your post-workout nutrition and rather resort to carbohydrates alone... just kiddin' ;-) We obviously all know about the benefits the ingestion of a fast digesting protein in the vicinity of workout has on protein synthesis. Simply skipping on the protein fraction of your post-workout shake is therefore not really an option. After all, the transient increase in insulin, as useless as it may be, is probably not going to kill you.

That being said, this is study #2 within no more than a week that questions the usefulness of adding leucine as a free-form amino acid to your supplement stash (compare "Leucine Supplementation Exemplifies Potential Downsides of Non-Specific Insulin Sensitizers"). With ~30g of whey you should have enough readily available amino acids (including leucine!) to kickstart protein synthesis, anywa - plus: contrary to the average study participant in this and similar experiments, you are not going to fast for the next 4h, so that the protein from your next full meal is going to help you keep the plasma amino acid levels steady (Tip: If you cannot have a full meal, afterwards add 20g of casein to the shake).

What happens if you eat 194 bananas in 3 weeks? You will get fit and sick, right? No, false. What actually happens is a reduction in body fat (read more)

With your protein needs taken care of, the only other thing you'll need are some carbohydrates to satisfy your bodies desire to refill its glyocogen stores. Preferably, those carbs come at a ratio of 2g of muscle substrate (=glucose or precursors) to 1g of liver substrate (=fructose or galactose). A banana, a food I have previously recommended as a post workout carbohydrate source, would provide you with 5g of free glucose and 5g of free fructose (per 100g). It does however also contain 5g of starch, 2g of sucrose and 2.5g of fiber, so that you would end up with a 2:1 ratio of glucose (+starch) to fructose and thus "right in the zone" (if you really need to replete your glycogen levels as fast as possible, you will have to resort to non-whole food sources, though).

With 32g of carbs a single large banana (~140g) would get you up to a 1:1 ratio of protein and carbs and thus to the lower end of what I would consider a rational post-workout nutrient mix. If you (a) don't follow that up with a real meal, when you are back from the gym, it is probably smart to double the amount of minimal carbs. While this would be the bare minimum, your diet (low or high carb), the respective carbohydrate allowance (limited to X g of carbs per day), your current goals (cutting or bulking, perfromance of body composition changes) and obviously your individual "carb tolerance" (rule of thumb: the leaner the better) dictate how much you can our rather should add to that to see optimal results. And as the results of the study actually underline, only very few of the SuppVersity readers will have to go past the 1g/kg body weight margin, as long as this is not their only carbohydrate containing meal of the day.

References:

• Décombaz J. Nutrition and recovery of muscle energy stores after exercise. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin und Sporttraumatologie. 2003; 51 (1): 31–38.
• Décombaz J, Jentjens R, Ith M, Scheurer E, Buehler T, Jeukendrup A, Boesch C. Fructose and galactose enhance postexercise human liver glycogen synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Oct;43(10):1964-71.
• Detko E, O'Hara JP, Thelwall PE, Smith FE, Jakovljevic DG, King RF, Trenell MI. Liver and muscle glycogen repletion using 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy following ingestion of maltodextrin, galactose, protein and amino acids. Br J Nutr. 2013 Feb 6:1-8.
• Gunnar, F. The effects of a high molecular weight glucose polymer on muscle metabolism and exercise performance in humans. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham. July 2013. 
• Piehl Aulin K, Söderlund K, Hultman E. Muscle glycogen resynthesis rate in humans after supplementation of drinks containing carbohydrates with low and high molecular masses. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Mar;81(4):346-51.
• Wallis GA, Hulston CJ, Mann CH, Roper HP, Tipton KD, Jeukendrup AE. Postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis with combined glucose and fructose ingestion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Oct;40(10):1789-94.

Science Round-Up Seconds: The Latest Data on Periworkout Nutrition - Protein, Carbs, HMB & More: Is it Possible You Have Done It All Wrong?

Honestly, even if they had available back in the day, I am not sure if Arnold would have preferred a virtually carb-free whey protein isolate over his mixture of two cups of milk, 1/2 cup of dry, nonfat milk solids (the old-school version of protein powders ;-), one egg and 1/2 cup of flavored ice cream.

I must confess that after going >30min over time on yesterday's installment of the SupppVersity Science Round-Up (click here to download and listen to the podcast if you missed the live show) I have run out of "Seconds". Since the SuppVersity buttery ... ah, I mean archive, is well stocked, this is yet not real problem. I just have to go down into the basement and pick some fresh ingredients for today's installment of the Seconds.

For my liking yesterday's show was a bit "healthitarian", meaning the topics centered mostly around health issues. Now, don't get me wrong. The show was outstanding and topics such as the "egg / chicken prostate cancer connection" or the "omega-6 for heart health study", of which you would actually have to say in retrospect that it bordered murder by negligence are obviously highly relevant, but I am a fan of diversity and well aware that there may be some topics many of you may not be that interested in. So what would be more obvious than switching things up completely and preparing an "erogogenitarian" menu today?

Now, tell me: What are everyone's favorite ergogenic? Right! Those are protein powders and amino acids ranging from BCAAs and EAAs, to creatine, glutamine and more exotic but still interesting stuff like HMB. Luckily, two groups of researchers from Iran, and the UK, Australia and Spain who have submitted their papers to the Journal of Exercise Physiology and the European Journal of Experimental Biology a couple of weeks ago must obviously feel the same. And since both articles made it into the February issues of the respective journals, they are still fresh and thus qualify as ingredients for today's installment of the SuppVersity Science Round Up. So, bon appetit, then ;-)

Are carbohydrates, not protein the most important part of "anabolic" peri-workout nutrtion

(Kazemzadeh. 2013) -- I guess this will be a shocker for some of you, but the headline is not entirely provocative only. In their most recent paper, Yazer Kazemzadeh and his colleagues from the Islamic Azad University and the Hamedan University of Medical Sciences in Teheran, Iran, are actually suggesting that the

"[...] ingestion of carbohydrate during resistance exercise may be [more potent in] inhibiting the catabolic hormone (cortisol), increasing the anabolic hormone (insulin) and creating a hormonal milieu for anabolism [than] whey protein." (Kazemzadeh. 2013)

They do yet also point out that "other anabolic markers need greater investigation" (Kazemzadeh. 2013) and we all know that these "other anabolic markers" that are related to the protein-exclusive increase in protein synthesis are what makes the largest contribution to your muscle gains in the long term... at least as you provide yourself with the fuel you need to train and this is where the hormonal effects of the ~750 ml 6% CHO beverage ten out of the 20 untrained young men (age:22.3±3 y, bodymass: 74±5 kg) in the study consumed during the sets of a 75%RM strength training regimen that consisted of

• 4 exercises for lower body, which were leg presses, leg curls, leg extensions and calf raises, and
• 4 exercises for upper body, namely lat pull downs, bench presses, barbell biceps curls and supine triceps extensions

All exercises were performed for three sets of 8-10 reps to failure. With one minute rest between sets and two minute rest between the individual exercises, the total duration of the workouts was <60min and the workouts were performed in the late afternoon 16:00-18:00h to minimize the influence of natural diurnal variations of cortisol, testosterone and GH.

Figure 1: Cortisol, insulin, growth hormone and total testosterone levels before and after the workout with carbohydrate (CARB) or protein (PRO) drinks being ingested between the sets (Kazemzadeh. 2013)

As you can see from the plots in figure 1 the carbohydrate beverage, which contained a 10ml/kg of a 6% mix (=6g of carbs per 10kg body weight) of fast and slow digesting carbs from glucose (fast) and Quaker oats (slow) did a pretty decent job in establishing an allegedly optimal anabolic hormonal milieu by cranking up the GH, insulin and total testosterone levels and blunting the cortisol response.

Insulin up, cortisol down - how important is that?

The total amount of carbohydrates the CARB group in the study at hand consumed during their workouts does actually come pretty close to the 130-150g of carbs even the most sedentary slob can easily stash away in the glycogen stores of muscle and liver on a daily basis. If you want to learn more about the reaoning behind these figures, I suggest you go back to my previous post on "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land" (read the whole article).

With insulin and cortisol being the only parameters that responded significantly more favorable to the glucose load, the picture that emerges is unquestionable more conducive to protein anabolism. Based on dozens of previous studies, I can however guarantee that the actual protein synthesis rates, which were not measured in the study at hand, were higher in the whey protein arm of the study (2g protein per kg body weight).

That being said, the addition of carbs could still have had a beneficial effect on exercise recovery and ultimately  - probably only after weeks of training and in an otherwise low carb scenario - yield significantly greater increases in strength and lean muscle tissue. With the total amount of carbs well within in the <150g range and the maintenance of the GH response, of which many people claim it would be blunted by the ingestion of nutrients, in particular carbs, during or after a workout probably even without compromising your body composition (assuming that you compensate for the additional kcal in the subsequent meals).

The latter hypothesis of mine does actually make an excellent segue into the next study, so just keep on reading, if you want more ;-)

Performance enhancing supplement Cyclone first and foremost "fat enhancing"

(Cooper. 2013) -- I promised you that in the last sentence of the previous "course" of this installment of the SuppVersity Science Round-Up Seconds and here it is: Certainly somewhat surprising scientific evidence that 56g of carbs alone won't, but an isocaloric serving of the commercially available carbs + protein + creatine Cyclone will make you you fat.

Figure 2: Nutrient content of supplement and placebo (Cooper. 2013)

Now that I have got your full attention, let's take a look at the context in which these counterintuitive effects occurred. You can see the macro and, in the case of the commercial protein + mineral + amino acid combo, also the micronutrient composition of the supplements in figure 2 on the right hand side. As already mentioned, the amount of calories in the products was identical. Any differences in strength and mass gains, as well as changes in the body composition that arose in the course of the 12-week training regimen would therefore have to be attributed to differences in the macro / micronutrient composition.

If you follow your gut feeling, I guess you'd say that using a supplement full of more or less proven ergogenics while you train four times a week, following an

• upper body = bench press; bent over row; shoulder press, bicep curls, and triceps extension,
• lower body = squat, stiff leg deadlift, lunges, and dynamic upright row

split (training days: Mo, Tue, Thurs, Fri), in the course of which you perform 4 sets per exercise with 6 to 12 repetition at 65 to 80% of your one-repetition max  (2 min rest between sets) should actually produce measurably superior results to the ingestion of the meager amount of 56g of maltodextrin, right?

Figure 3: Changes in strength and body composition after 12 weeks on a upper-body, lower body split trained 2x per week on Mo & Tue, as well as Thurs & Friday (Cooper. 2013)

Right! At least that's what I had expected, as well. The results I plotted for you in figure 3 do yet speak a very different language. Ok, the overall lean mass increase of the 13 healthy already resistant trained men (23.5 ± 2.7 yrs old, body mass (BM) = 80 ± 13 kg, height = 179 ± 6 cm, body fat % ~11-18%)  was higher in the group that used the "professional" multi-component supplement. If your goal is "lean mass", however, the allegedly fattening carbohydrate drink which produced a small, but significant increase in lean mass without any accompanying fat gains, does yet suddenly look unexpectedly attractive, doesn't it (see figure 3, right)?

As far as the strength gains go, things actually don't look much different. Due to the small sample size, none of the he intergroup differences reached statistical significance and the scientists way of resorting to effect sizes instead of group averages, based on which they argue that "the lack of significance due to CYC supplementation does not mean the supplement was ineffective" (Cooper. 2013) Tells me that they were similarly surprised as I am about the outcome of this 12-week trial.

"That's impossible, so where is the design flaw, here?"

I know the above is what you are thinking now, so let's check the usual and not so usual suspects.

• 

  There are three things you need to succeed in your efforts to achieve optimal health, a decent physique and a long and active live: A plan, the guts to stick to it and change / tweak it, whenever that's necessary and - often overlooked - the right tools to measure your progress. And I can tell you a scale "body fat or not" is not among those tools (read more about goal setting, planning and stock taking).

  Diet? The subjects were "instructed to maintain the recommended dietary habits throughout the duration of the study" when necessary, specific tweaks were applied to make sure that they would hit the 1.5-2g of protein, 5-6 g of carbs and a fat intake of ~25%-30% of their daily total caloric intake. So, if we simply assume that any deviations from that regimen were similar in the two groups this cannot explain the differences.
• Body fat scales? Not a problem, because the body composition was assessed by whole body densitometry using air displacement in a Bod Pod® - whether that may have skewed the results due creatine induced water retention is yet not 100% certain. On the other hand, lower fat gains would imply even greater lean mass gains and that's not realistic given the fact that the subject's strength levels did hardly improve.
• Missing training sessions or not training with adequate intensity? Since the scientists don't mention that the training sessions were supervised, this could have been an issue. On the other hand, why would that happen only in the CARB, but not in the Cyclone group?
• Misreporting by the scientists: Actually I have now checked three times, whether it may be possible that the researchers simply messed up with the data in the tables and put the results for the CARB group in the Cyclone row and vice versa. Based on the discussion at the end of the paper this does yet not appear to be the case.

So, if all these don't apply what's left then?

• 

  The "anabolic window" turns out to be more of a barn door, which is unlocked by the key of exercise and nutrition science (learn more)

  Following the manufacturers advice instead of common practice: This is actually one the scientists came up with in their discussion. In the majority of previous studies with similar supps, the products and placebo were consumed before and after the workout. In the study at hand, they were consumed as prescribed by the manufacturer after breakfast and after the workout. Not likely that this is the reason? Well, honestly, I would agree. 
• Having way too small group sizes: This is certainly an important fact to consider. If you don't test training vs. not training having 7 subjects in the active and 6 in the placebo arm is not very likely to produce significant differences. On the other hand, this does not explain that the non-significant differences are more or less opposed to what you may have expected.

Now, even if this was all I could come up with, I would still not  suggest you give up on protein powder, creatine and your preferred carb source and switch to maltodextrin, only, as your post workout nutrition of choice! God forbid! After all I do still have an ace up my sleeve, which is

• 

  Don't worry, the 10g+ of EAA with every meal (20-30g+ of quality protein) rule of thumb to get lean and stay lean does still apply (read more). A single study won't change that overnight. And while the current carb-scare is hilarious and misplaced, carbs alone, just like protein only, don't build magnificent, athletic and healthy physiques.

  Not starting on a level playing field: If you take a brief look at the baseline body composition data there is one thing that shoul leap out. The initial body fat levels! While the Cyclone group started out with a six-pack and 11% body fat, the guys in the placebo group were running around with 18% on average and - this is even more important - a standard deviation of 10%! In other words, it's not unlikely that two or even three of the guys in the CARB group actually lost body fat, over the 12-week training period. This would nullify any fat gains in the rest of the group and yield a net increase of less than 0.1% body fat for the CARB group. Some of the guys in the cyclone group, however were in that peculiar <10% range (the standard deviation here was +/- 5.4%), where it's really hard to shed additional body fat and actually pretty easy to bounce back into your bodies comfort zone.

If that does not soothe your concerns that you could have done all wrong over the years, just take my word for it: This study is one of those highly educative outliers which are mostly SuppVersity newsworthy, because they offer a chance to practice your critical thinking skills and remind you of the value of single scientific paper.

References:

• Cooper R, Naclerio F, Larumbe-Zabala E, Chassin L, Allgrove J, Jimenez A. Effects of a Carbohydrate-Protein-Creatine Supplement on Strength Performance and Body Composition in Recreationally Trained Young Men. JEPonline 2013;16(1):72-85.  
• Kazemzadeh Y, Zafari A, Bananaeifar A, Moghadam RH, Abasrashid N, Shafabakhsh F. Comparison of whey protein and carbohydrate consumption on hormonal response after resistance exercise. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 2013; 3(1):10-15 .