Diário do gato de Schrödinger: LPO, powerlifting e umas paradinhas boribildi

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

Fiquei com uma DMT bruta nos traps, delts e lats.

 

Interessante como os hang cleans pra colocar a barra na posição pra fazer FS e OHP fazem um estrago - é como se tivesse feito 6x1.

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

22/02/2016 - Lower

 

A. Agachamento 3x4x70kg - Voltei aos 70kg, mas com apenas 4 reps. Até daria pra fazer as 6, mas achei que a forma começou a degradar na quarta e parei por ali. No geral foi bom.

B. RDL 2x6x80kg 

C. Ab wheel 3x15

 

Treininho bem minimalista. Até tava com disposição pra ir além, mas o tempo jogou contra hoje.

 

Abraços

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

Pensamento do dia (Greg Nuckols):

 

"Getting bigger and stronger is a lot less complicated than most people think it is, but it requires a lot more effort than most people think it does.

 

Substituting mental effort (obsessing over the details) for physical effort (actually putting in the work) rarely gets you very far."

 

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

Novo Treino

 

Hoje encerrou minha anuidade na academia e não sei se vou renovar pelo próximo mês. Por conta disso resolvi fazer um mês de treino em casa na minha humilde homegym. Dada a impossibilidade de supinar pesado, resolvi focar nos movimentos verticais por um mês, utilizando uma estratégia de Greasing the Groove. Isso tem três objetivos: (1) aumentar minha força no militar, que é desproporcional em relação ao supino; (2) recuperar/aumentar a força nas pull-ups, que perdi depois da lesão; e (3) hipertrofiar ombros e dorsais, que são meus pontos fracos - @Trew, seu comentário sobre meus ombros de princesa doeu, cara , preciso mudar isso já!

 

Resolvi então montar um treino utilizando o Russian Pull-up Routine nas pull-ups e no militar. Como complemento a ideia é fazer um upper/lower. Ficará mais ou menos assim:

 

Pra quem não sabe/lembra, o Russian Pull-up Routine tem o seguinte esquema de sets e reps utilizando a 5RM:

Spoiler

 

Day 1:  5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Day 2:  5, 4, 3, 2, 2
Day 3:  5, 4, 3, 3, 2
Day 4:  5, 4, 4, 3, 2
Day 5:  5, 5, 4, 3, 2
Day 6:  Off
Day 7:  6, 5, 4, 3, 2
Day 8:  6, 5, 4, 3, 3
Day 9:  6, 5, 4, 4, 3
Day 10:  6, 5, 5, 4, 3
Day 11:  6, 6, 5, 4, 3
Day 12:  Off
Day 13:  7, 6, 5, 4, 3
Day 14:  7, 6, 5, 4, 4
Day 15:  7, 6, 5, 5, 4
Day 16:  7, 6, 6, 5, 4
Day 17:  7, 7, 6, 5, 4
Day 18:  Off
Day 19:  8, 7, 6, 5, 4
Day 20:  8, 7, 6, 5, 5
Day 21:  8, 7, 6, 6, 5
Day 22:  8, 7, 7, 6, 5
Day 23:  8, 8, 7, 6, 5
Day 24:  Off
Day 25:  9, 8, 7, 6, 5
Day 26:  9, 8, 7, 6, 6
Day 27:  9, 8, 7, 7, 6
Day 28:  9, 8, 8, 7, 6
Day 29:  9, 9, 8, 7, 6
Day 30:  Off

 

 

 

 

 

Treino 1:

A1. Pull-up, conforme o 5RM Russian Pull-up Program

A2. Militar, conforme o 5RM Russian Pull-up Program

B. Agachamento Frontal 4x6

C. RDL 2x6

D. HLR 2x10-15

 

Treino 2:

A1. Militar, conforme o 5RM Russian Pull-up Program

A2. Pull-up, conforme o 5RM Russian Pull-up Program

B1. Paralelas 3x10 (com peso extra)

B2. Serrote 3x10

C. Ab wheel 2x15-20

 

O volume do complemento upper/lower pode ser alterado, caso eu sinta que minhas articulações não estejam aguentando.

 

Deixo aqui os agradecimentos ao @Ricardo Queiroz e ao @R.U.M. pela contribuição na montagem do treino.

 

Eu iniciei hoje com o treino 2. Mais tarde posto como foi.

 

Abraços

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

23/02/2016 - Treino (template 2): dia 1

 

A1. Pull-up (5+4+3+2+1)x(BW+16kg)

A2. Militar (5+4+3+2+1)x50kg

B1. Paralelas 3x10x(BW+10kg) - Começou leve e terminou pesado.

B2. Serrote 3x10x30kg - O peso ficou bom aqui.

C. HLR 2x10 - Como a altura da barra é baixa, fiz com os braços flexionados uns 45° (ou 135°, dependendo do ponto de vista), o que deu uma trabalhada extra.

 

Talvez esse treino castigue muito os cotovelos. Veremos... As paralelas com peso extra estão em fase de testes, pois não gostou muito de fazê-las assim - prefiro livre. 

 

Abraços

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

24/02/2016 - Treino só com a rotina básica: dia 2

 

Como estou cheio de compromissos hoje, fiz só a primeira parte do treino, de manhã cedo.

 

A1. Pull-up (5+4+3+2+2)x(BW+16kg)

A2. Militar (5+4+3+2+2)x50kg

 

O cotovelo incomodou bastante durante o treino. Fiquei receoso pela continuidade do projeto. Como não treinei perna hoje, amanhã vou fazer só pernas e dar um descanso no cotovelo. Foda isso acontecer já no segundo dia de treino. Paciência.

 

Abraços

[R.U.M. 1958]

Pode ter sido que você entrou na rotina sem estar 100%, o que está lhe causando essa dor de cotovelo. Articulação filha da puta, só da pra descansar e esperar que melhore.

 

Mas como o treino hoje foi curto e vai dar um dia off, já vais sentir uma melhora. Abraço!

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

Brad Schoenfeld

6 New Bodybuilding Rules

1. Reps

Old rule: The muscle-growth zone is 8 to 12 reps.
New rule: Mix it up! A combo of low (3 to 5), medium (6 to 14), and high (15-plus) reps is the most effective.

2. Muscles

Old rule: Hitting each body part hard once a week yields the best results.
New rule: Working your muscles at least two times a week leads to greater size gains.

3. Sets

Old rule: Every set should be performed to failure.
New rule: Leaving 1 rep in the tank for most sets still builds you up while preventing overtraining.

4. Cardio

Old rule: Doing cardio on an empty stomach burns significantly more fat. 
New rule: You burn equal fat whether you’re fasted or fed, so fit in your cardio when you can.

5. Nutrition

Old rule: To get ripped, you must eat six or more small meals a day.
New rule: Whether you eat three meals or six, just be sure to nail your protein and calorie goals. 

6. Supplements

Old rule: Load up on every muscle-building supplement.
New rule: Caffeine, beta-alanine, and creatine monohydrate are your best bets for muscle growth.

 

EDIT:

@FabianaF, quer traduzir e criar um tópico? Achei isso aqui tipo os 6 mandamentos do novo testamento do BB.

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 12270]

Vou deixar aqui um material pra depois criar (ou não) um tópico sobre alta ingestão de proteínas. (Basicamente eu acredito que uma alta ingestão de proteína melhora o particionamento de nutrientes).

 

Três reviews extraídos do AARR:

Spoiler

Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial.

Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ, Devries MC, Phillips SM. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Jan 27. pii: ajcn119339. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]

BACKGROUND: A dietary protein intake higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance during an energy deficit helps to preserve lean body mass (LBM), particularly when combined with exercise. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a proof-of-principle trial to test whether manipulation of dietary protein intake during a marked energy deficit in addition to intense exercise training would affect changes in body composition. DESIGN: We used a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group prospective trial. During a 4-wk period, we provided hypoenergetic (∼40% reduction compared with requirements) diets providing 33 ± 1 kcal/kg LBM to young men who were randomly assigned (n = 20/group) to consume either a lower-protein (1.2 g · kg-1 · d-1) control diet (CON) or a higher-protein (2.4 g · kg-1 · d-1) diet (PRO). All subjects performed resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 d/wk. A 4-compartment model assessment of body composition was made pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: As a result of the intervention, LBM increased (P < 0.05) in the PRO group (1.2 ± 1.0 kg) and to a greater extent (P < 0.05) compared with the CON group (0.1 ± 1.0 kg). The PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group (PRO: -4.8 ± 1.6 kg; CON: -3.5 ± 1.4kg; P < 0.05). All measures of exercise performance improved similarly in the PRO and CON groups as a result of the intervention with no effect of protein supplementation. Changes in serum cortisol during the intervention were associated with changes in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01) and LBM (r = -0.34, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that, during a marked energy deficit, consumption of a diet containing 2.4 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 was more effective than consumption of a diet containing 1.2 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 in promoting increases in LBM and losses of fat mass when combined with a high volume of resistance and anaerobic exercise. Changes in serum cortisol were associated with changes in body fat and LBM, but did not explain much variance in either measure. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01776359. SPONSORSHIP: Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Study strengths

This is study was the first to ever compare protein intakes at 1.2 vs 2.4 g/kg. It was also innovative since it included both resistance training and high-intensity interval training (HIT) in the form of sprints. The subjects were provided all of their food and beverage intake. This is a very expensive and uncommon measure of control, but it eliminates the sometimes enormous error involved with self-selected/self-prepared/self-reported intake. Compliance (estimated to be 93%) was enforced via daily contact with research personnel. Serum urea was assessed to measure compliance to the prescribed protein intake. Exercise compliance was estimated to be greater than 96%. Pedometers were used to track non-exercise activity, and subjects were assigned to complete at least 10,000 steps per day (no significant differences in pedometer activity were seen between groups). In

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January 2016 [Back to Contents] Page 6

untrained subjects having robust responses regardless of protocol. Subjects kept 3-day diaries weekly (2 weekdays, 1 weekend day) via online nutritional software. Free protein powder (whey) was provided as an option for the subjects who chose to utilize it to reach their protein intake target. Exercise performance testing was conducted by certified strength & conditioning specialists.

Study limitations

As acknowledged by the authors, self-reported dietary intake is subject to inaccuracy. However, they somewhat disclaimed this potential confounder by pointing out that the simple dietary addition of protein powder to habitual diets minimized the potential for misreporting. they also mentioned that not assessing hydration status could have the potential to confound body composition assessment. A small number of completers (11 subjects) was also acknowledged. A limitation I’d add is that the subjects were not on a standardized resistance training program. Subjects were reported to have “followed their own strength and conditioning program” but kept records of weekly volume load. This may not have been the best design move, since 4 of the 11 subjects could not do the exercise tests due to overuse injuries. This may have been avoided (or at least minimized) with professionally designed programming and supervision throughout the study.

Comment/application

The main finding was an overall lack of significant difference in any of the body composition, performance, and clinical parameters assessed. No adverse side effects were observed with the higher protein intake (3.3 g/kg/day, vs the normal intake of 2.9 g/kg/day). One of the nice and rather uncommon features of this study was the reporting of individual data.

 

The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition - a crossover trial in resistance- trained men.

Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, Vargas L, Peacock C. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2016 Jan 16;13:3. [PubMed]

BACKGROUND: Eight weeks of a high protein diet (>3 g/kg/day) coupled with a periodized heavy resistance training program has been shown to positively affect body composition with no deleterious effects on health. Using a randomized, crossover design, resistance-trained male subjects underwent a 16-week intervention (i.e., two 8-week periods) in which they consumed either their normal (i.e., habitual) or a higher protein diet (>3 g/kg/day). Thus, the purpose of this study was to ascertain if significantly increasing protein intake would affect clinical markers of health (i.e., lipids, kidney function, etc.) as well as performance and body composition in young males with extensive resistance training experience. METHODS: Twelve healthy resistance-trained men volunteered for this study (mean ± SD: age 25.9 ± 3.7 years; height 178.0 ± 8.5 cm; years of resistance training experience 7.6 ± 3.6) with 11 subjects completing most of the assessments. In a randomized crossover trial, subjects were tested at baseline and after two 8-week treatment periods (i.e., habitual [normal] diet and high protein diet) for body composition, measures of health (i.e., blood lipids, comprehensive metabolic panel) and performance. Each subject maintained a food diary for the 16-week treatment period (i.e., 8 weeks on their normal or habitual diet and 8 weeks on a high protein diet). Each subject provided a food diary of two weekdays and one weekend day per week. In addition, subjects kept a diary of their training regimen that was used to calculate total work performed. RESULTS: During the normal and high protein phase of the treatment period, subjects consumed 2.6 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.8 g/kg/day of dietary protein, respectively. The mean protein intake over the 4-month period was 2.9 ± 0.9 g/kg/day. The high protein group consumed significantly more calories and protein (p < 0.05) than the normal protein group. There were no differences in dietary intake between the groups for any other measure. Moreover, there were no significant changes in body composition or markers of health in either group. There were no side effects (i.e., blood lipids, glucose, renal, kidney function etc.) regarding high protein consumption. CONCLUSION: In resistance-trained young men who do not significantly alter their training regimen, consuming a high protein diet (2.6 to 3.3 g/kg/day) over a 4-month period has no effect on blood lipids or markers of renal and hepatic function. Nor were there any changes in performance or body composition. This is the first crossover trial using resistance- trained subjects in which the elevation of protein intake to over four times the recommended dietary allowance has shown no harmful effects. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.

Study strengths

This study breaks ground since it’s the first randomized crossover intervention examining the effects of a genuinely high protein intake (>3 g/kg/day), and it’s also the first to do this while including progressive resistance training as well as assessing a range of clinical parameters (including glucose, lipids, and renal function). The subjects were resistance-trained, which minimizes the confounding potential of novice or

As seen above, although the mean changes (average changes of the groups) were not significant between the normal and high protein condition, it’s interesting to note the individual responses. 2 of the 11 subjects gained fat mass in the high- protein condition (while the rest showed vary degrees of reduction), and 2 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein condition gained fat-free mass in the (while the rest showed pretty flat lines, indicating minimal difference). These relatively deviant responses are common in study samples, and they merely underscore the importance of bearing in mind that the results reported in research represent the group mean, but still may not necessarily apply to the individual. This is where personal trial and error comes into play. Research findings, if applied to practice, are best seen as relatively objective starting points from which to make changes if necessary. Individuals may sometimes be hypo- or hyper-responders rather than fit neatly into the presumptions of the data.

Another interesting and useful aspect of this study was the case- reporting of markers of kidney function in the two subjects with the highest protein intakes (table here). Despite protein intakes of 4.66 and 6.59 g/kg in the high-protein conditions, all renal parameters (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, and ratio of BUN to creatinine) remained within normal reference ranges. In addition to these null findings, no adverse changes were seen in blood lipids, glucose, or hepatic function. These results strongly challenge the age-old lore that protein intakes above the current ‘official’ recommendations are cause for health concern. In this study, protein intakes in the high- protein group averaged approximately 4 times the RDA of 0.8 g/kg.

And now for perhaps the most interesting finding, which was the lack of significant difference in body composition between the normal and high-protein conditions. Here are the reported nutrient intakes:

And here are the body composition results, this time expressed as group means rather than individual data:

A highly intriguing finding is the lack of significant differences in body composition between normal and high-protein conditions despite a significantly higher intake in the high- protein group (by 369 kcal). Adding to this interesting finding is the lower fat mass in the high-protein group compared to baseline, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Once again, we see a case of the “disappearing” protein, as observed in previous research by the same investigators.1,2 On a provocative note, The authors pointed out – as I did earlier – that 9 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein group showed a decrease in fat mass. They speculated that the study may have been underpowered (too few subjects) to detect a statistically significant loss of fat mass in the high-protein group – implying that a type II error (false-negative result) could have occurred. Bear in mind that this occurred in the group that was assigned significantly more calories.

So, how did the protein calories seemingly disappear? The authors propose 4 potential mechanisms: 1) increased thermic effect of exercise (TEE), 2) increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), 3) higher thermic effect of feeding (TEF), and inhibition of lipogenesis in the liver.3 I would add to these speculations that the additional protein consumed in the high-protein condition induced greater satiety,4 thereby driving down the intake of the other macronutrients, and thus reducing total caloric intake. It’s possible that this decrease was unconscious, and thus not reflected in the dietary records. Either that, or the subjects actually over-reported protein intake (purposely or not) in order to appease the demands of the research personnel. Another possibility is that the potential for the high-protein group to have experienced higher fecal energy losses.5

The findings of the present study extend the consistent body of literature showing that increased dietary protein is an effective modality for fat loss and/or the control of fat gain. In addition, it’s apparent that clinical concerns traditionally attributed to high-protein diets (particularly kidney dysfunction) are not likely a concern in folks without pre-existing disease.

 

Interview with Anya Ellerbroek about her upcoming

high-protein study (> 3 g/kg/day).

By Alan Aragon

I had the privilege of interviewing researcher and all-around

cool person Anya Ellerbroek about her recently completed

protein intake study. As of this writing, the poster presentation

was only seen by those who attended the ISSN conference earlier

this month. A full-size image (PDF) of the poster presentation

can be downloaded here. Thanks, Anya!

 

First off, I want to thank you once again for taking the time out of

your rockstar schedule to do this interview. I know that you were

recently involved with another very interesting high‐protein study

(4.4 g/kg vs 1.8 g/kg). What inspired the present investigation?

I'm interested the conceptual process and the planning of its

fundamental design framework.

 

It truly is my pleasure!!

After the 4.4g/kg/d study was published many asked about the

effects on the kidneys and liver. They wondered why we did not

do blood work with that because everyone is concerned with the

high protein effects on the liver and kidney functions. And with

that study we did not control training regimen. So, the idea was

to lower the protein intake to 3.3 g/kg/d (since most highly

trained people already eat that much protein, or at least the ones

we were testing), get the blood work done, and provide them

with a hypertrophy training regimen. All subjects were not

allowed to do cardio. We thought about controlling the carb

intake as well, but decided not to because we were afraid that

subjects would not adhere to all the requirements. Short answer:

The blood work was the key in this one.

The 2.2 g/kg/d was added to compare and see if we can find any

statistical difference with LBM, % fat, and strength.

I didn't get to put this on the poster. Here are the performance

test results in case you find it interesting (larger image here):

 

Very interesting, thanks for the data. With the present study,

what was your hypothesis or expectations prior to testing? Which

results (either body comp and/or blood work) were not surprising

to you, and which ones did you find to be unexpected?

 

Our hypothesis was that we would either find no negative effect

on the liver or kidney function (I know Dr. Antonio was pretty

sure we wouldn't find anything), or maybe a slight negative trend

in the higher protein diet on the liver and kidney functions. But

there was not even a trend in the negative direction. So that was

nice to see. Dr. Antonio hypothesized that if you combined

traditional bodybuilding training with a very high protein diet

that you should experience gains in LBM above baseline (and

better than the lower protein group).

We also didn't think we would see a statistical difference in the

%fat, and LBM, because both are regarded as high protein

intake. So, seeing that it did make a difference was unexpected.

What's surprising is that both groups gained the same amount of

LBM...but the high group actually lost more fat (even though

their kcals were a lot higher).

From the 4.4g/kg/d study, we knew that if the subjects kept their

carb intake the same or lowered it, we would find a greater

difference in the LBM and %fat. Those that increased carb

intake also increased % fat. So, maybe having a higher protein

intake 3.3g would leave them less room to increase the carb

intake and therefore result in lower %fat (I am just adding this as

I am thinking about this).

 

That makes sense. What procedural or methodological aspects

were most challenging about carrying out this particular study?

 

The most challenging procedural aspects were organizing and

planning the subjects testing dates and times. The logistics of it.

We had to factor in their free time to come to the university, the

professors time to help with the body composition testing, the

lab availability (other professors using the lab for other testing),

the coach's time to strength test the subjects in the athletic

training center, and then of course my time (or other people that

helped out with testing).

We had to find subjects that were willing not to do cardio. It's

easier to find guys who are ok with that, but harder to find girls

that are willing not to do cardio for 8 weeks. We couldn't take

any college athletes for this one, because of the cardio aspect.

Having the subjects comply with getting the blood work done,

continuously log their food, and exercise. And many were on

beef protein and did not like that (if that counts as a challenging

aspect)!! The actual Bod Pod and strength testing was the easy

part!!

Here is what I couldn't add to the poster (larger image here):

 

Excellent, thanks for the fine details. What do you feel are the key

limitations to your study, and do you have future plans for

conducting or publishing follow‐up work or similar work you'd be

willing to fill us in on?

PS ‐ is the present study in peer review yet? Just want to get a

remote idea of when it might hit formal publication. Thanks!

 

The key limitation is trusting that the subjects are doing what

they say (or logging) that they are doing. We used MyFitnessPal

for them to track their food intake, because the app is easy to use

and I can see their food logs every day. We have to trust that it is

accurate.

As careful as we are with picking subjects that are reliable and

trustworthy, we have to hope that they are at least doing 80% of

what they are saying that they are doing.

We are currently conducting a 1 year high protein study with 14

highly trained male subjects. They are cycling 2 months on 3.3

gr/kg/d and 2 months on 2.2gr/kg/d. Body composition, strength

testing, and detailed blood work is being done every 2 months

(liver, kidney, and hormonal panel). We are now finishing the

first 2 month testing. Some of the data will come out before the

year is done. This time, we don't have a specific hypertrophy

training program.

The study is going into review in the next 2 months. I believe

Dr. Antonio is finishing writing it up now. He believes that it

will be out by the end of the year.

 

 

 

Tabelinha mostrando recomposição corporal em estudos:

Spoiler

 

Mais tarde posto mais coisas aqui. A ideia é depois organizar essa bagunça.

[Eduardo90 1495]

Em 25/02/2016 at 10:09, Shrödinger disse:

Brad Schoenfeld

6 New Bodybuilding Rules

1. Reps

Old rule: The muscle-growth zone is 8 to 12 reps.
New rule: Mix it up! A combo of low (3 to 5), medium (6 to 14), and high (15-plus) reps is the most effective.

2. Muscles

Old rule: Hitting each body part hard once a week yields the best results.
New rule: Working your muscles at least two times a week leads to greater size gains.

3. Sets

Old rule: Every set should be performed to failure.
New rule: Leaving 1 rep in the tank for most sets still builds you up while preventing overtraining.

4. Cardio

Old rule: Doing cardio on an empty stomach burns significantly more fat. 
New rule: You burn equal fat whether you’re fasted or fed, so fit in your cardio when you can.

5. Nutrition

Old rule: To get ripped, you must eat six or more small meals a day.
New rule: Whether you eat three meals or six, just be sure to nail your protein and calorie goals. 

6. Supplements

Old rule: Load up on every muscle-building supplement.
New rule: Caffeine, beta-alanine, and creatine monohydrate are your best bets for muscle growth.

 

EDIT:

@FabianaF, quer traduzir e criar um tópico? Achei isso aqui tipo os 6 mandamentos do novo testamento do BB.

 

HUEHUEHUEHUE Vai dar uma treta da porra.

 

Mas vendo isso me parece que as "new rules" na verdade eram as mais antigas, depois "inventaram as old rules", e agora estamos voltando pro que era feito antes, só que a gora tem o aporte cientifico.

 

20 horas atrás, Shrödinger disse:

Vou deixar aqui um material pra depois criar (ou não) um tópico sobre alta ingestão de proteínas. (Basicamente eu acredito que uma alta ingestão de proteína melhora o particionamento de nutrientes).

 

Três reviews extraídos do AARR:

  Mostrar conteúdo oculto

 

Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial.

 

Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ, Devries MC, Phillips SM. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Jan 27. pii: ajcn119339. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]

 

BACKGROUND: A dietary protein intake higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance during an energy deficit helps to preserve lean body mass (LBM), particularly when combined with exercise. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a proof-of-principle trial to test whether manipulation of dietary protein intake during a marked energy deficit in addition to intense exercise training would affect changes in body composition. DESIGN: We used a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group prospective trial. During a 4-wk period, we provided hypoenergetic (∼40% reduction compared with requirements) diets providing 33 ± 1 kcal/kg LBM to young men who were randomly assigned (n = 20/group) to consume either a lower-protein (1.2 g · kg-1 · d-1) control diet (CON) or a higher-protein (2.4 g · kg-1 · d-1) diet (PRO). All subjects performed resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 d/wk. A 4-compartment model assessment of body composition was made pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: As a result of the intervention, LBM increased (P < 0.05) in the PRO group (1.2 ± 1.0 kg) and to a greater extent (P < 0.05) compared with the CON group (0.1 ± 1.0 kg). The PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group (PRO: -4.8 ± 1.6 kg; CON: -3.5 ± 1.4kg; P < 0.05). All measures of exercise performance improved similarly in the PRO and CON groups as a result of the intervention with no effect of protein supplementation. Changes in serum cortisol during the intervention were associated with changes in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01) and LBM (r = -0.34, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that, during a marked energy deficit, consumption of a diet containing 2.4 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 was more effective than consumption of a diet containing 1.2 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 in promoting increases in LBM and losses of fat mass when combined with a high volume of resistance and anaerobic exercise. Changes in serum cortisol were associated with changes in body fat and LBM, but did not explain much variance in either measure. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01776359. SPONSORSHIP: Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

 

Study strengths

 

This is study was the first to ever compare protein intakes at 1.2 vs 2.4 g/kg. It was also innovative since it included both resistance training and high-intensity interval training (HIT) in the form of sprints. The subjects were provided all of their food and beverage intake. This is a very expensive and uncommon measure of control, but it eliminates the sometimes enormous error involved with self-selected/self-prepared/self-reported intake. Compliance (estimated to be 93%) was enforced via daily contact with research personnel. Serum urea was assessed to measure compliance to the prescribed protein intake. Exercise compliance was estimated to be greater than 96%. Pedometers were used to track non-exercise activity, and subjects were assigned to complete at least 10,000 steps per day (no significant differences in pedometer activity were seen between groups). In

 

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January 2016 [Back to Contents] Page 6

 

untrained subjects having robust responses regardless of protocol. Subjects kept 3-day diaries weekly (2 weekdays, 1 weekend day) via online nutritional software. Free protein powder (whey) was provided as an option for the subjects who chose to utilize it to reach their protein intake target. Exercise performance testing was conducted by certified strength & conditioning specialists.

 

Study limitations

 

As acknowledged by the authors, self-reported dietary intake is subject to inaccuracy. However, they somewhat disclaimed this potential confounder by pointing out that the simple dietary addition of protein powder to habitual diets minimized the potential for misreporting. they also mentioned that not assessing hydration status could have the potential to confound body composition assessment. A small number of completers (11 subjects) was also acknowledged. A limitation I’d add is that the subjects were not on a standardized resistance training program. Subjects were reported to have “followed their own strength and conditioning program” but kept records of weekly volume load. This may not have been the best design move, since 4 of the 11 subjects could not do the exercise tests due to overuse injuries. This may have been avoided (or at least minimized) with professionally designed programming and supervision throughout the study.

 

Comment/application

 

The main finding was an overall lack of significant difference in any of the body composition, performance, and clinical parameters assessed. No adverse side effects were observed with the higher protein intake (3.3 g/kg/day, vs the normal intake of 2.9 g/kg/day). One of the nice and rather uncommon features of this study was the reporting of individual data.

 

 

 

The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition - a crossover trial in resistance- trained men.

 

Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, Vargas L, Peacock C. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2016 Jan 16;13:3. [PubMed]

 

BACKGROUND: Eight weeks of a high protein diet (>3 g/kg/day) coupled with a periodized heavy resistance training program has been shown to positively affect body composition with no deleterious effects on health. Using a randomized, crossover design, resistance-trained male subjects underwent a 16-week intervention (i.e., two 8-week periods) in which they consumed either their normal (i.e., habitual) or a higher protein diet (>3 g/kg/day). Thus, the purpose of this study was to ascertain if significantly increasing protein intake would affect clinical markers of health (i.e., lipids, kidney function, etc.) as well as performance and body composition in young males with extensive resistance training experience. METHODS: Twelve healthy resistance-trained men volunteered for this study (mean ± SD: age 25.9 ± 3.7 years; height 178.0 ± 8.5 cm; years of resistance training experience 7.6 ± 3.6) with 11 subjects completing most of the assessments. In a randomized crossover trial, subjects were tested at baseline and after two 8-week treatment periods (i.e., habitual [normal] diet and high protein diet) for body composition, measures of health (i.e., blood lipids, comprehensive metabolic panel) and performance. Each subject maintained a food diary for the 16-week treatment period (i.e., 8 weeks on their normal or habitual diet and 8 weeks on a high protein diet). Each subject provided a food diary of two weekdays and one weekend day per week. In addition, subjects kept a diary of their training regimen that was used to calculate total work performed. RESULTS: During the normal and high protein phase of the treatment period, subjects consumed 2.6 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.8 g/kg/day of dietary protein, respectively. The mean protein intake over the 4-month period was 2.9 ± 0.9 g/kg/day. The high protein group consumed significantly more calories and protein (p < 0.05) than the normal protein group. There were no differences in dietary intake between the groups for any other measure. Moreover, there were no significant changes in body composition or markers of health in either group. There were no side effects (i.e., blood lipids, glucose, renal, kidney function etc.) regarding high protein consumption. CONCLUSION: In resistance-trained young men who do not significantly alter their training regimen, consuming a high protein diet (2.6 to 3.3 g/kg/day) over a 4-month period has no effect on blood lipids or markers of renal and hepatic function. Nor were there any changes in performance or body composition. This is the first crossover trial using resistance- trained subjects in which the elevation of protein intake to over four times the recommended dietary allowance has shown no harmful effects. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.

 

Study strengths

 

This study breaks ground since it’s the first randomized crossover intervention examining the effects of a genuinely high protein intake (>3 g/kg/day), and it’s also the first to do this while including progressive resistance training as well as assessing a range of clinical parameters (including glucose, lipids, and renal function). The subjects were resistance-trained, which minimizes the confounding potential of novice or

 

As seen above, although the mean changes (average changes of the groups) were not significant between the normal and high protein condition, it’s interesting to note the individual responses. 2 of the 11 subjects gained fat mass in the high- protein condition (while the rest showed vary degrees of reduction), and 2 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein condition gained fat-free mass in the (while the rest showed pretty flat lines, indicating minimal difference). These relatively deviant responses are common in study samples, and they merely underscore the importance of bearing in mind that the results reported in research represent the group mean, but still may not necessarily apply to the individual. This is where personal trial and error comes into play. Research findings, if applied to practice, are best seen as relatively objective starting points from which to make changes if necessary. Individuals may sometimes be hypo- or hyper-responders rather than fit neatly into the presumptions of the data.

 

Another interesting and useful aspect of this study was the case- reporting of markers of kidney function in the two subjects with the highest protein intakes (table here). Despite protein intakes of 4.66 and 6.59 g/kg in the high-protein conditions, all renal parameters (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, and ratio of BUN to creatinine) remained within normal reference ranges. In addition to these null findings, no adverse changes were seen in blood lipids, glucose, or hepatic function. These results strongly challenge the age-old lore that protein intakes above the current ‘official’ recommendations are cause for health concern. In this study, protein intakes in the high- protein group averaged approximately 4 times the RDA of 0.8 g/kg.

 

And now for perhaps the most interesting finding, which was the lack of significant difference in body composition between the normal and high-protein conditions. Here are the reported nutrient intakes:

 

And here are the body composition results, this time expressed as group means rather than individual data:

 

A highly intriguing finding is the lack of significant differences in body composition between normal and high-protein conditions despite a significantly higher intake in the high- protein group (by 369 kcal). Adding to this interesting finding is the lower fat mass in the high-protein group compared to baseline, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Once again, we see a case of the “disappearing” protein, as observed in previous research by the same investigators.1,2 On a provocative note, The authors pointed out – as I did earlier – that 9 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein group showed a decrease in fat mass. They speculated that the study may have been underpowered (too few subjects) to detect a statistically significant loss of fat mass in the high-protein group – implying that a type II error (false-negative result) could have occurred. Bear in mind that this occurred in the group that was assigned significantly more calories.

 

So, how did the protein calories seemingly disappear? The authors propose 4 potential mechanisms: 1) increased thermic effect of exercise (TEE), 2) increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), 3) higher thermic effect of feeding (TEF), and inhibition of lipogenesis in the liver.3 I would add to these speculations that the additional protein consumed in the high-protein condition induced greater satiety,4 thereby driving down the intake of the other macronutrients, and thus reducing total caloric intake. It’s possible that this decrease was unconscious, and thus not reflected in the dietary records. Either that, or the subjects actually over-reported protein intake (purposely or not) in order to appease the demands of the research personnel. Another possibility is that the potential for the high-protein group to have experienced higher fecal energy losses.5

 

The findings of the present study extend the consistent body of literature showing that increased dietary protein is an effective modality for fat loss and/or the control of fat gain. In addition, it’s apparent that clinical concerns traditionally attributed to high-protein diets (particularly kidney dysfunction) are not likely a concern in folks without pre-existing disease.

 

 

 

Interview with Anya Ellerbroek about her upcoming

 

high-protein study (> 3 g/kg/day).

 

By Alan Aragon

 

I had the privilege of interviewing researcher and all-around

 

cool person Anya Ellerbroek about her recently completed

 

protein intake study. As of this writing, the poster presentation

 

was only seen by those who attended the ISSN conference earlier

 

this month. A full-size image (PDF) of the poster presentation

 

can be downloaded here. Thanks, Anya!

 

 

 

First off, I want to thank you once again for taking the time out of

 

your rockstar schedule to do this interview. I know that you were

 

recently involved with another very interesting high‐protein study

 

(4.4 g/kg vs 1.8 g/kg). What inspired the present investigation?

 

I'm interested the conceptual process and the planning of its

 

fundamental design framework.

 

 

 

It truly is my pleasure!!

 

After the 4.4g/kg/d study was published many asked about the

 

effects on the kidneys and liver. They wondered why we did not

 

do blood work with that because everyone is concerned with the

 

high protein effects on the liver and kidney functions. And with

 

that study we did not control training regimen. So, the idea was

 

to lower the protein intake to 3.3 g/kg/d (since most highly

 

trained people already eat that much protein, or at least the ones

 

we were testing), get the blood work done, and provide them

 

with a hypertrophy training regimen. All subjects were not

 

allowed to do cardio. We thought about controlling the carb

 

intake as well, but decided not to because we were afraid that

 

subjects would not adhere to all the requirements. Short answer:

 

The blood work was the key in this one.

 

The 2.2 g/kg/d was added to compare and see if we can find any

 

statistical difference with LBM, % fat, and strength.

 

I didn't get to put this on the poster. Here are the performance

 

test results in case you find it interesting (larger image here):

 

 

 

Very interesting, thanks for the data. With the present study,

 

what was your hypothesis or expectations prior to testing? Which

 

results (either body comp and/or blood work) were not surprising

 

to you, and which ones did you find to be unexpected?

 

 

 

Our hypothesis was that we would either find no negative effect

 

on the liver or kidney function (I know Dr. Antonio was pretty

 

sure we wouldn't find anything), or maybe a slight negative trend

 

in the higher protein diet on the liver and kidney functions. But

 

there was not even a trend in the negative direction. So that was

 

nice to see. Dr. Antonio hypothesized that if you combined

 

traditional bodybuilding training with a very high protein diet

 

that you should experience gains in LBM above baseline (and

 

better than the lower protein group).

 

We also didn't think we would see a statistical difference in the

 

%fat, and LBM, because both are regarded as high protein

 

intake. So, seeing that it did make a difference was unexpected.

 

What's surprising is that both groups gained the same amount of

 

LBM...but the high group actually lost more fat (even though

 

their kcals were a lot higher).

 

From the 4.4g/kg/d study, we knew that if the subjects kept their

 

carb intake the same or lowered it, we would find a greater

 

difference in the LBM and %fat. Those that increased carb

 

intake also increased % fat. So, maybe having a higher protein

 

intake 3.3g would leave them less room to increase the carb

 

intake and therefore result in lower %fat (I am just adding this as

 

I am thinking about this).

 

 

 

That makes sense. What procedural or methodological aspects

 

were most challenging about carrying out this particular study?

 

 

 

The most challenging procedural aspects were organizing and

 

planning the subjects testing dates and times. The logistics of it.

 

We had to factor in their free time to come to the university, the

 

professors time to help with the body composition testing, the

 

lab availability (other professors using the lab for other testing),

 

the coach's time to strength test the subjects in the athletic

 

training center, and then of course my time (or other people that

 

helped out with testing).

 

We had to find subjects that were willing not to do cardio. It's

 

easier to find guys who are ok with that, but harder to find girls

 

that are willing not to do cardio for 8 weeks. We couldn't take

 

any college athletes for this one, because of the cardio aspect.

 

Having the subjects comply with getting the blood work done,

 

continuously log their food, and exercise. And many were on

 

beef protein and did not like that (if that counts as a challenging

 

aspect)!! The actual Bod Pod and strength testing was the easy

 

part!!

 

Here is what I couldn't add to the poster (larger image here):

 

 

 

Excellent, thanks for the fine details. What do you feel are the key

 

limitations to your study, and do you have future plans for

 

conducting or publishing follow‐up work or similar work you'd be

 

willing to fill us in on?

 

PS ‐ is the present study in peer review yet? Just want to get a

 

remote idea of when it might hit formal publication. Thanks!

 

 

 

The key limitation is trusting that the subjects are doing what

 

they say (or logging) that they are doing. We used MyFitnessPal

 

for them to track their food intake, because the app is easy to use

 

and I can see their food logs every day. We have to trust that it is

 

accurate.

 

As careful as we are with picking subjects that are reliable and

 

trustworthy, we have to hope that they are at least doing 80% of

 

what they are saying that they are doing.

 

We are currently conducting a 1 year high protein study with 14

 

highly trained male subjects. They are cycling 2 months on 3.3

 

gr/kg/d and 2 months on 2.2gr/kg/d. Body composition, strength

 

testing, and detailed blood work is being done every 2 months

 

(liver, kidney, and hormonal panel). We are now finishing the

 

first 2 month testing. Some of the data will come out before the

 

year is done. This time, we don't have a specific hypertrophy

 

training program.

 

The study is going into review in the next 2 months. I believe

 

Dr. Antonio is finishing writing it up now. He believes that it

 

will be out by the end of the year.

 

 

 

Tabelinha mostrando recomposição corporal em estudos:

  Mostrar conteúdo oculto

 

Mais tarde posto mais coisas aqui. A ideia é depois organizar essa bagunça.

 

 

Midira, posta o shape

 

Duas Dúvidas Lucas 

 

No primeiro estudo a dieta foi controlada o que garantiu a alta ingestão de proteína, mas eram dietas hipocalóricas certo ? Já achou algo em relação a dietas hipercalóricas ?

 

E no segundo é em relação a saúde, mas não encontrei se a dieta foi controlada. De qualquer forma esse mito da proteínas trazer complicações tem caído rapidamente 

 

De qualquer forma, seria interessante o tópico, acabaram meus likes, mas excelente conteúdo mais uma vez 

 

Abraços