2009 Studies & Research Blog

With so many advances in the supplement industry, one could argue that there now exists a greater opportunity to be in optimal health than ever before.  With antioxidants, precision-designed meal replacement shakes and bars, and an overall cultural focus on fitness, our society seems to have everything it needs to achieve high levels of athletic performance and great health.  Of course, there is a slight drawback in the focus on newer, cutting edge supplements - forgetting about old, reliable ones.

While no one is going to argue against the importance of something like protein in a strength athlete’s goals, concentrating on all of the ‘extras’ may overshadow the basics, such as a multivitamin.  What people don’t realize, though, is that even with all of their other supplements, multivitamins are still needed; these seemingly simple pills form the foundation for overall health.

But with (supposedly) healthier food, including organic vegetables and free-range meat, can’t people just get all of the nutrients they need from their diet?  You might like to think so, but that’s not the case.  What many people don’t realize is that cooking actually leeches nutrients from food, reducing their vitamin and mineral content significantly.  And the extent of the damage may be surprising - one study found that after boiling, spinach retained just 49 percent of its folate content, while broccoli retained just 44 percent (1).  These statistics are even more discouraging when one considers boiling is considered to be one of the lowest-risk cooking methods in terms of nutrient loss, due to the lack of extreme heat or long cooking times.

Of course, it’s always easier to obtain nutrients from your diet if you’re on a bulk, as you’ve got a large calorie budget in which to include healthy foods.  But for those who are cutting, downing a few bananas and potatoes each day really isn’t an option.  In these cases, a calorie-free multivitamin is a veritable lifesaver, as B vitamins can provide much needed energy and a mineral such as chromium can aid in the metabolism of foods.

So while multivitamins may not be as flashy as other supplements, they are every bit as important, and perhaps moreso.  In addition, multivitamins can actually help consumers save money by freeing them from the need to purchase a truckfull of produce each day.

SOURCE:

1. McKillop, Derek J., et al. The effect of different cooking methods on folate retention in various foods that are amongst the major contributors to folate intake in the UK diet. British Journal of Nutrition, 2002; 88:681-688

If you’ve spent enough time in the fitness world, you’re well aware that everything is not always as it seems.  Exercise routines, diets and guarantees that work for one person may not work for another.  It’s important to remember that every body is different, and the reaction to various stimuli will therefore not always be identical.  For this reason, it’s important not to be sucked in by clever marketing campaigns and glitzy advertisements that promise results based upon the success of a few, or even just one, individual.  There’s a reason that most ads are marked with the disclaimer, "results not typical" - because more often than not, the statistics and selling points that are being used are the result of one exceptional person doing a combination of all the right things.

And while this is true of recommendations pertaining to nutrition plans and exercise selections or programs, the "one size doesn’t fit all" scenario emerges quite often when it comes to supplements as well.  While a friend or family member may experience dramatic effects while using a certain supplement, you shouldn’t expect to directly emulate that success.  Of course, one should be aware of the differences in effects even for those supplements that don’t promise amazing transformations or significant improvements in strength, muscle mass or body composition.  Even supplements making more modest claims can fail to deliver the expected health benefits.  And worse, some of these supplements can actually be detrimental to your health.  Luckily, scientists continue to investigate the effects of these products to warn consumers of potential risks.

One possible threat from a seemingly safe supplement came to light in the latest edition of the Journal of Nutrition.  The supplement in question is one that has risen in popularity recently and is now nearly ubiquitous, available in supplement stores, online and even in grocery stores and pharmacies.  The culprit? Coenzyme Q10.  The enzyme has been promoted for benefits such as slowing the aging process, preventing against oxidative stress, and stimulate energy production in cells.  CoQ10 has also been promoted as a weight loss solution as it can stimulate the metabolism and aid in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

While this all sounds very promising, there are some warnings that must be noted. The new Nutrition study analyzed the effects of CoQ10 through 25 months of supplementation.  Unfortunately, the results were not beneficial.  Moderate amounts of CoQ10 did nothing to prevent age-related losses in muscular strength, coordination, balance, learning and memory.  To make matters worse, a higher dose decreased acuity of responses to auditory and physical stimuli, and actually impaired spacial learning and memory.  As the researchers concluded, the results indicated that CoQ10 did not enhance fitness or provide anti-aging properties (1).

The lesson here is that even the most seemingly innocuous recommendations must be regarded with skepticism and researched appropriately.  Based on the data from this study, the risks of CoQ1 may seem to outweigh the possible rewards for some people.  It’s important to gather as much information as you can on all of your supplements so you can make an informed decision on what to use.

SOURCE:

1. Sumien, Nathalie, et al. Prolonged Intake of Coenzyme Q10 Impairs Cognitive Functions in Mice. Journal of Nutrition, 2009; 139(10): 1926-1932

It’s no secret that obesity is something to be avoided - after all, if it weren’t a problem, the steady rise in overweight individuals wouldn’t be referred to as the "obesity epidemic," but rather the "obesity achievement" or the "portly party."  However, carrying more than a few extra pounds around isn’t something to be pleased about. In addition to driving away members of the opposite sex, love handles or a beer gut can mean that you have to buy an extra airplane ticket or worse, lead to the development of a number of adverse medical conditions.  One of the most common complications associated with obesity is Type 2, or "Adult Onset" Diabetes, which results from insulin resistance.  Additionally, obesity can lead to cardiovascular disease and a higher risk of stroke.

But these conditions aren’t the only incentive to keep off the extra pounds.  Recent research indicates that obesity can not only have unwanted effects on your body, but on your brain as well.  This research was based upon years of efforts, with individuals classified into three groups: normal weight, overweight and obese.  Normal weighted subjects were defined as those with Body Mass Indexes (BMI) of 18.5-25; overweight subjects had BMIs of 25-30; and obese subjects had BMIs of 30 and above.

And while one might expect that obesity’s negative effects are merely limited to physicality, the results found clear differences in the brain scans of each of the groups.  As the BMI of subjects increased, the concentrations of both Grey and White Matter in the brain decreased, suggesting that obesity led to atrophy in the brain tissue.  Most of the tissue reduction occurred in the frontal lobe, which is involved in higher mental functions such as decision making and assessing consequences; the hippocampus, which plays a role in spatial navigation and memory; the anterior cingulate gyrus, which is involved in emotion and regulation of blood pressure and heart rate; and the thalamus, which regulates periods of sleep and wakefulness and relays and processes sensory information.

As the researches noted, obesity and the adverse conditions associated with it " increase risk for cognitive decline and dementia."  And the degree of damage in the brain associated with obesity was not small; overweight subjects had four percent less brain tissue than normal weight individuals, while obese subjects had eight percent less brain tissue.

While some of the consequences of obesity have been long established by science, this research indicates that an unhealthy lifestyle can have many more significant adverse effects than most people comprehend.

SOURCE:

1. Raji, Cyrus A., et al. Brain Structure and Obesity. Human Brain Mapping, 2009.

In the supplement world, where protein is considered, whey is the undoubted king. While protein blends, egg protein, and casein protein are all widely available, whey seems to be regarded as the best all-purpose protein, and nearly every company involved in supplement production has their version of it. Even retail stores carry their own house brands, and whey comes in nearly every flavor imaginable, from Apple Pie to Mochaccino. Despite all of the attention, though, whey may not be the best choice in a number of circumstances.

For example, whey protein has a very quick rate of absorption. While this can be an advantage at some points of the day, particularly post-workout, it can be a problem that limits the effectiveness of whey at other points, such as at night or in between meals, when a slower absorption rate and gradual release of amino acids is preferred. In addition, whey is a dairy product, meaning that those with lactose intolerance may have difficulty digesting certain types, particularly whey concentrate. And though some wheys are fortified with digestive enzymes, not all are, which can lead to discomfort and illness.

Thankfully, there is a low-cost, convenient and easily digested alternative - soy protein. Due to our increasingly health-aware society, soy is available in many forms at many retailers - whether it is soy milk, soy imitation meats, or soy isolate powder. In addition to providing a convenient way to add a little extra protein to one’s diet, soy protein has a number of benefits.

Research published in the September 2009 edition of the journal Nutrition points to one very impressive advantage - reducing cholesterol. As cholesterol is related to cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States (accounting for one out of every 2.8 deaths), this is a very significant finding (1). The study was double-blinded, randomized and placebo controlled to ensure accuracy. For a period of 57 days, researchers supplied participants with either 40 grams of soy protein isolate or 40 grams of milk protein. At the conclusion of the study, the researchers found that the soy protein group had significantly lower levels of LDL (the "bad" cholesterol), as well as a lower ratio of LDL to HDL cholesterol when compared to the milk protein group (2). And the dosage of the soy was relatively small when compared with most athlete’s existing supplement regimens; the standard size scoop for most whey protein products is around 32 grams, meaning that it would take only one and one-third of an average whey serving to match the dosage in the study.

But that’s not the only study indicating that soy protein has advantages over milk-based proteins; one group of researchers found that those receiving a daily soy protein shake achieved a 14.7 sq. cm reduction in abdominal fat, while those taking an identical dose of casein protein saw a 22.9 sq. cm increase over the course of just three months (3).

So whether you’re lactose intolerant or not, soy protein has many benefits that dairy-based proteins such as whey and casein cannot provide.

SOURCES:

1. Cardiovascular Disease Statistics. American Heart Association.

2. Pipe, E.A., et al. Soy Protein Reduces Serum LDL Cholesterol and the LDL Cholesterol:HDL Cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B:Apolipoprotein A-I Ratios in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. Nutrition, 2009; 139: 1700-1706

3. Sites, C.K., et al. Effect of a daily supplement of soy protein on body composition and insulin secretion in postmenopausal women. Fertility and Sterility, 2007; 88(6): 1609-1617.

If there’s something all dieters thought they knew for certain, it was that carbohydrates are their sworn enemy during the attempt to shed excess weight. Whether the dieting approach is a Ketogenic Diet, an Atkins Diet, or even the Fish and Ricecakes diet, one thing tends to stay the same with most fat-loss approaches - carbohydrate consumption is kept at a minimum. The charge is that carbohydrate intake creates a large insulin response, eventually leading to fat storage. Additionally, many experts have suggested that certain carbohydrates trigger hunger rather than satisfy it, leading to snacking or overeating later on. Because of these beliefs, eschewing carbohydrates in favor of healthy fats and protein has become a very popular option.

But what if everything you thought you knew about carbohydrate intake and its relationship to fat gain was wrong? Could it be possible that a high-carbohydrate approach might actually be better for staying in shape? A recent study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association suggests that this may be the case.

The study, conducted with participants 18 and older, was quite comprehensive, compiling dietary data on 4,451 participants. In addition to compiling data on BMI and food intake, the researchers adjusted the data for total energy intake, age, leisure time energy expenditure, sex, smoking, education, and income adequacy.

Despite the popular dogma involving carbohydrate intake and obesity, the results showed that those with higher carbohydrate intakes - with carbohydrates composing between 47 percent and 64 percent of total calories - had the lowest risk of obesity. If this was not surprising enough of a finding, the research also indicated that those consuming the lowest carbohydrate-containing diets were significantly more likely to be obese. It seemed that even with higher carbohydrate intake, the higher-carb groups consumed fewer calories, while the group consuming the fewest carbohydrates still managed to consume more calories than they expended.

The researchers addressed the low-carb diet craze, noting that while "low-carbohydrate diets are more effective at inducing weight loss in the short-term (6 months) than high-carbohydrate diets, but there is no difference in their efficacy at the end of 1 year."

The study also delved into a few of the specific food choices made by the participants, and found that the higher-carbohydrate group ate more fiber, fruit and vegetables. Additionally, this group consumed less saturated fat and also exercised more than those consuming a lower amount of carbohydrates.

The most important factor in a diet, though, is whether it is doable for you. No matter what any study says, the nutritional plan that fits your lifestyle is the one that makes the most sense and will be most conducive to success, whatever your goals may be.

SOURCE:

Merchant, Anwar T., et al. Carbohydrate Intake and Overweight and Obesity among Healthy Adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2009; 109(7): 451-459.

It’s a common thought in the health and fitness world that those who are engaging in regular physical exercise have significantly higher BMR’s because of it.  For this reason, many people who are exercising feel they can eat a higher calorie diet because ‘they workout’.

If you find yourself in this mindset and eating more food because you believe you’re experiencing an increase in metabolic rate from working out, you may want to rethink that.

Recently a study was conducted by the clinical Epidemiology Program that assessed the effect of exercise training on resting metabolic rate in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

The study was designed to so that 103 participants (both male and female from 39-70 years of age) were divided up into four different groups.  Group one participated in aerobic training, group two was assigned to a resistance training protocol, group three was to perform combined aerobic training with resistance training, and group four was the control group who did not perform any exercise at all.

The subjects followed their specific exercise protocol for a period of 22 weeks during which RMR was measured by indirect calorimetry, 30 minutes after an overnight fast and body composition was assessed by bioelectrical impedance.

These measurements were taken when the study first started, at the 3 month mark, and then again after 6 months time had passed.  The results of the study demonstrated that the RMR did not change significantly over any of the groups even though there was improvements seen in peak oxygen consumption and muscular strength in those individuals who were doing the exercise program.

This study then demonstrates that while you may see good physical gains after participating in an exercise program, this does not necessarily mean your BMR (basal metabolic rate – the number of calories you burn during the day at rest) has increased by a significant amount.

Individuals who perform regular physical activities will have larger daily calorie needs and expenditures but this is mostly due to the calorie expenditure of the actual exercise session – not because of the exercise session.

So just don’t go adding a bunch more calories to your diet because you believe you’re boosting your metabolic rate or you could eventually find your body fat levels starting to go up.

Reference:
Alberga, A. et al. (2009). The Effect of Exercise Training on Resting Metabolic Rate in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Jun 30.

It’s often said that when following a fat loss diet, you’re going to be far better off focusing your carbohydrate sources around those that are rated low on the glycemic index.  These sources of carbs such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables tend to produce less of a blood-sugar-insulin response on the body therefore won’t cause rebound hunger as much and should leave you feeling fuller and more satisfied.

But how accurate is that advice?  This is what researchers recently wanted to assess to get a clearer picture on how large of an influence the glycemic index had on weight loss.

The study was designed so that the two diets were eaten for a period of 12 months total, the first six where the diets were provide and in the last six were the subjects self-administered the plans.  One was rated as having a high glycemic load and the other was a low glycemic load with both plans being a 30% calorie restriction.  

The recorded measurements used for the study were body weight and percentage of body fat, resting metabolic rate, hunger, and satiety.

After the twelve month period was up, it was demonstrated that both groups exhibited very similar changes in energy intake, body weight, and body fat, and that the resting metabolic rate did not differ significantly between the two groups.

The percentage of weight change at the twelve month period was 8.04 +/- 4.1% in the high glycemic load diet group and 7.81 +/- 5.0% in the low glycemic load group.

In addition to this, the subjects did not report a difference in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction in terms of the type and amount of food provided during the calorie restriction period.

This study demonstrates the fact that when it comes to fat loss, of primary importance will be total calorie intake.  After that has been accounted for, it appears as though the glycemic load of the carbohydrates eaten will not have that large of an effect meaning that if you do so choose to include higher glycemic carbs in your diet, it shouldn’t have a negative influence provided you are making sure the total calorie count stays in balance.

ReferenceBhapkar, MV. et al. (2007). Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-year randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.  Apr;85(4):1023-30.

Chances are, if you walk into any gym and ask ten people what they think the most important supplement in their arsenal is, nine will probably offer the same response - whey protein. At some point, whey was crowned the king of protein supplements, most likely due to its high bioavailability and low fat and carbohydrate content. As a result, most strength athletes make it a staple supplement, without even thinking why - and that’s a problem.

Despite what Joe Bro and most of the supplement industry will tell you, whey protein is not the best source of protein. Alarming, I know. And the grand irony of the entire situation is that the very feature that is touted as whey’s best aspect is actually the reason it is ineffective. This characteristic is whey’s rapid absorption. While speed has its advantages in some cases, whey protein is just a bit too quick. In fact, almost 60% of it can be oxidized by your liver for glucogenesis, meaning it never reaches your muscles (1). Simply put, the speedy absorption of whey makes it ineffective at battling catabolism (muscle breakdown).

The only way that scientists were able to make whey effective at preventing catabolism was to administer two grams of it every 20 minutes for seven hours; this slow delivery proved to be more than three times better at fueling muscles than a single dose (2). Unfortunately, that’s not a realistic option. So what’s the solution? A protein blend, preferably one with micellar casein, egg albumin, and other sustained-release proteins.

Studies have shown there is a "synergistic effect between solubleproteins and caseins," meaning that a combination of protein sources is superior. Combining a slow-digesting protein source such as casein with whey provides a steady stream of amino acids for utilization by the muscles; one group of researchers specifically noted that whey’s "too-rapid dietary amino acid delivery cannot support the anabolic requirement" in the post-workout period (3).

By contrast, the sustained delivery of a protein blend yields much better results. One study found that using a blended protein supplement in conjunction with exercise resulted in twice the drop in body fat percentage, twice the gains in lean mass, and twice the gains in strength compared to whey and exercise (4). Given this information, the choice is clear - you can either work twice as hard with whey, or ditch the broscience and let a blend do the work for you.

SOURCES:

1. Jungas RL, et al. Physiological Review, 1992: 72: 419-448.

2. Biorie Y, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1997: 94 (26): 14930-5.

3. Lacroix, Magali, et al. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006: 84(5): 1070-1079.

4. Demling, Robert H., and DeSanti, Leslie. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2000: 44:21-29.

With so much attention given to protein and protein supplements, it can be easy to overlook the fact that carbohydrates and fats are also essential components to a healthy diet and the promotion of optimal performance.  In fact, insufficient intake of carbohydrates and fats will effectively render all of your protein supplements useless, as you won’t have the proper nutrition needed to exercise, recover and grow.  And just as there are protein supplements to make hitting protein goals more convenient, there are carbohydrate and fat supplements as well.

One of the most popular carbohydrate supplements is Waxy Maize Starch (WMS).  Waxy Maize Starch is a relative newcomer to the supplement market, and has been widely hailed for its rapid digestion and lack of taste, making it easy to mix in with other foods and beverages you may already be taking.  Additionally, WMS has the unique ability to bypass the stomach, allowing it to be absorbed directly into muscles, shuttling nutrients without the bloating sometimes associated with dextrose or maltodextrin.

While all this sounds great, there is one thing that really matters - does it work?  Despite the relatively short time in the spotlight, numerous studies have investigated the benefits of WMS.  When supplemented before exercise, WMS resulted in an increase of carbohydrate oxidation.  In addition to this, researchers noted that WMS had an ergogenic effect, with athletes showing an ability to perform more work during a performance exercise (1).

But pre-workout isn’t the only time when Waxy Maize Starch has proven effective as an alternative to other, more traditional carbohydrate sources.  As one might expect, the post-workout period, where many place an emphasis on the quickness of nutrient delivery to potentially depleted muscles, is a great window of opportunity for the advantages of WMS.  In one study, researchers compared a variety of types of carbohydrates on their abilities to provide glycogen resynthesis after exercise.  Even when pitted against classic bodybuilding favorites such as maltodextrin and resistant starch, Waxy Maize Starch stole the show.  WMS outperformed both of those alternatives, providing nearly double the muscle gylogen concentration of resistant starch (2).

And thanks to the lack of fat and sugars, Waxy Maize Starch delivers everything you want and nothing you don’t, ensuring that you can create your ideal post-workout recovery nutrition.

SOURCES:

1. Goodpaster, BH, et al. The effects of pre-exercise starch ingestion on endurance performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1996; 17(5):366-72.
2. Jozsi, AC, et al. The influence of starch structure on glycogen resynthesis and subsequent cycling performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 1996; 17(5):373-378

Many people are opting to use low carb diets in effort to help them reach their weight loss goals.  With this though, one issue that often sets in that they have to deal with is an increased level of fatigue.

This is normal as the body progresses on using the lower carb diet muscle glycogen levels will become more depleted (assuming exercise is also taking place), which then increases the fatigue experienced during any given workload.

But, one thing that many people think about with relation to fatigue while on their diet is sleep quality.  Sleep is going to play a very large role in how you feel overall while on the diet. If you aren’t getting optimal sleep, this will influence recovery rates, hunger levels, and workout performance as well.

Recently researchers wanted to assess the sleep indices of those who were utilizing a very low carbohydrate diet and those who are utilizing a mixed diet over the short term.

They had two groups divided into groups – one that consumed a very low calorie diet (38% protein, 61% fat, and less than 1% carbs) or else a mixed diet containing 15% protein 12.5% fat, and 72% carbohydrates).  Both groups took in 2400 calories each day so the only difference was the macronutrient make-up.

Urine Ketone levels were measured along with blood glucose levels before the evening meals as well as at bed time. Hunger and fullness were also assessed immediately after the meal until bed-time using Likert scales.

The results of the study indicated that the proportion of REM sleep (rapid eye movement where the body is in the dreaming stage of sleep) was significantly decreased for those who were following the low carb diets compared to those who weren’t. Instead, they spent a greater total portion of the evening in the slow wave sleep stage where the body is in deep sleep however tends to feel drowsy and groggy if waken up from.

The influence of these types of diets on the stages of sleep the individual spent most of the night in could help explain why some people really feel tired while utilizing the low carb diet approach.

Reference:
A***hi, A, et al. (2008). Acute effects of the very low carbohydrate diet on sleep indices.  Nutr Neurosci. Aug; 11(4):146-54.

Step into any supplement shop and head on over to the protein section, and you’ll likely be faced with the same thing no matter where you are - a wall of whey. Whey protein seems to have cornered the market as far as bodybuilders are concerned, prized for its high bioavailability, rapid absorption, and convenient, powdered form. However, whey isn’t the only way to go - there are plenty of other powdered protein sources, such as egg and soy, the latter of which may, according to recent research, be preferable to whey, despite what supplement store shelves might indicate.

One reason whey protein is a favorite of athletes is its low cost. When purchased in bulk, such as 10lb containers, whey can cost as little as $.40 per serving. But even this cost isn’t preferable to soy protein, which often costs as little as $.36 per serving in 2lb containers. Even without the bulk discount, soy protein can be just as reasonably priced, if not more so, than whey (1,2).

Whey is also prized for its array of amino acids and easy digestibility, an area in which soy protein also ranks highly. While overlooked by many, "Soy protein is a complete protein that ranks right up there with the best in the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). Soy protein is generally very low in or free of fat, cholesterol, and lactose" (2). Additionally, soy may be preferable for those who are lactose intolerant, because unlike whey, it is not a dairy product. However, many whey protein products are lactose-free or have very low levels of lactose, so this may not be a very big concern.

The most common complaint against the use of soy protein is the fact that soy protein may raise estrogen levels. However, it should be noted that studies have shown that soy protein consumption may actually reduce estrogen levels - one group of researchers found that "estrone (a type of estrogen) levels were about 15 percent lower among women who consumed the highest amounts of soy protein" (3). Also noteworthy is that soy contains a number of "physiologically active compounds with cholesterol-lowering properties" (4).

In order to test the merit of soy protein in the realm of bodybuilding, researchers also pitted soy supplementation versus whey in a study of men undergoing a resistance training regimen. After 12 weeks of training, the group receiving soy protein and the group receiving whey protein displayed nearly identical improvements in body composition, with both experiencing increases in lean mass and reductions in body fat. Additionally, the two groups had very similar increases in strength over the course of the 12 weeks. As a result, the researchers concluded that "soy based protein supplements appear to be as effective as animal-based protein to support strength gains," and that prior research indicated "regular soy consumption improves lipid profiles and the insulin-to-glucagon ratio and lowers oxidative stress" (4).

Considering this strong body of research, it would seem that whey is not the only way - soy is a perfectly suitable alternative.

SOURCES:
1. Whey Protein Information and Product Listing, Bodybuilding.com: http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/wheyper.html
2. Soy Protein Information and Product Listing, Bodybuilding.com: http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/soy.html
3. Diet Rich in Soy Protein Lowers Estrogen: http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/dietricinsoy.html
4. DeNysschen, Carol A., et al. Resistance Training with Soy vs. Whey Protein Supplements in Hyperlipidemic Males. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2009; 6(8)

For those wishing to maximize the results of their efforts in the gym, the idea that fitness is a science as well as a sport is a familiar one.  Countless scientific journals, text books, and college courses continue to be developed regarding proper exercise technique and nutrition.  While the former has more universally accepted tenets, nutrition is a subject in which heated debates continue to rage.  One of the reasons the body of knowledge regarding sports nutrition is constantly expanding and evolving is due to the influence of supplement companies, who fund studies in an attempt to back the claims of their products.  But there are also studies that disprove their claims, leading to a cycle of scientific arguments back and forth.

Recently, a study was published that affected perhaps the most contested element of nutrition, at least in the bodybuilding world - what to consume post-workout for optimal recovery.  Countless products claim to be the best at this, despite the wide range of macronutrient profiles and ingredient lists.  Companies such as Cytosport argue that Muscle Milk is the best, with a blend of medium-chain triglycerides, protein and complex carbohydrates.  On the other end of the spectrum, the manufacturers of Gatorade claim that carbohydrates - specifically the simple sugars found in their product - are they key to recovery.  These claims were partly supported by a study published in the latest issue of the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, but suggested an even better recovery aid - cereal and milk.

It turns out that the staple American breakfast may in fact be the most important meal of your day, even if you’re not having it first thing in the morning.  The study pitted the ingestion of cereal and non-fat milk versus a carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage in the post-workout period, and measured plasma insulin, plasma lactate and glycogen and muscle protein levels.  After the exercise trials, the participants were fed either the cereal or the beverage, with measurements taken 15, 30, and 60 minutes afterward (1).

The results of the study indicated that cereal and milk was as good as, if not better than, the carbohydrate beverage in terms of muscle recovery.  Plasma insulin levels were significantly higher with the cereal, and levels of plasma lactate were lower with the cereal, indicating that it would be the better choice for delivering nutrients to muscles and reducing levels of lactic acid buildup (1).

Also worth noting is the higher levels of mTor phosphorylation in the cereal-consuming groups - this is the addition of a phosphate group to a protein, which is an important part in a number of bodily functions.  And due to the lower cost of cereal and milk than sports beverages and the superior supply of amino acids, the researchers concluded that the classic breakfast combination would be a preferable post-workout option (1).

SOURCES:

1. Kammer, Lynne, at al.  Cereal and Nonfat Milk Support Muscle Recovery Following Exercise.  Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2009; 6(11)