Cold water immersion (a.k.a., “ice baths”) has become a popular method amongst exercise enthusiasts and athletes to enhance recovery after an intense training bout. The strategy involves exposing either the trained limb or the whole body to very cold liquid temperatures. According to p...
Brad Schoenfeld, Ph.D, C.S.C.S., is an internationally renowned fitness expert and widely regarded as one of the leading authorities on body composition training (muscle development and fat loss). He is a lifetime drug-free bodybuilder, and has won numerous natural bodybuilding titles.
In case you don’t know, Alan Aragon is a popular expert on nutrition in general, and sports nutrition, in particular. I’ve seen several of Alan’s articles over the years on various internet sites (including one I mentioned in a recent post on How Many Meals A Day Should You Eat) and have always been impressed with his evidence-based approach. Recently I became aware that he publishes a monthly e-zine called, not surprisingly, Alan Aragon’s Research Review (AARR). I subsequently received a copy of the latest issue of AARR, for reasons which I will describe shortly. After reading through the publication, I thought I would share my views on it.
According to Alan’s website, AARR is “is an unbiased monthly critical analysis and application of the latest research pertaining to nutrition, exercise, and supplementation. This journal is designed to help the reader develop a solid understanding of important topics in fitness that are widely misunderstood. Overall, the goal is to provide a unique science & practice-based, multi-topic, bias-free, commercial-free, in-depth, ongoing resource of information.” Pretty lofty goals. Question is, does it deliver as promised?
Each issue of AARR apparently follows a similar format. It begins with an “Editors Cut.” Here Alan dissects a recently published peer-reviewed article. It is an in depth critical analysis where the respective article’s strengths and weaknesses are discussed at length (spanning several pages). The segment concludes with Alan providing his opinion of the article’s validity as well as commenting on any relevant practical applications. Alan is frank in his analysis; he says what he feels.
Of note, the subject of “Editors Cut” in the issue I received was actually an article of mine, recently published in the Strength and Conditioning Journal. He was nice enough to send along a copy so I could see his commentary on my article. He invited me to submit a rebuttal to his criticisms, if I so desired. I did. The gesture was appreciated.
Next up are several shorter reviews of published articles (usually one page in length). These reviews are segmented into three categories: Nutrition and Exercise, Supplementation, and a “Less Recent Gem” which, as the name implies, looks at an article published in the distant past. Although Alan does not go into the detail that he does in the “Editors Cut” section, the reviews are nevertheless quite detailed. He delves into the strengths and weaknesses of each study and makes practical applications where relevant.
The last article in AARR is called “In the Lay Press.” This segment evaluates a non-refereed consumer-oriented article with the same scrutiny afforded peer-reviewed publications. This is especially apt given the pomp and hype surrounding so many articles appearing on the web and in the muscle rags. Given the lack of peer-review in these articles, there is a lot more for Alan to pick apart…and he does so without pulling any punches.
What is my overall impression of AARR? Plain and simple, it’s one of the most definitive resources on nutrition that I’ve seen. Alan is extremely knowledgeable about the subject and obviously keeps up with current research (which sadly is rare, even amongst many nutritional professors). What’s more, Alan understands how to critically evaluate research studies with respect to internal and external validity, providing appropriate recommendations on their relevance. Just as importantly, he provides information in a completely unbiased manner without allegiances to any food or supplement industry companies (as is the case with many so-called “experts in the field). The content is good, the writing is good, and the recommendations are solid. It’s a winning combination.
As for my article, his review was very balanced and fair. He actually pointed out several things that, in retrospect, I should have clarified to a greater extent. It would have strengthened the article. I could have quibbled over a few of his criticisms, but these would have debatable points. Most importantly, I learned from the experience, which is what science is all about.
In conclusion, I would highly recommend AARR for anyone who wants the straight facts about nutrition, particularly as it relates to those involved in exercise programs. You can view a sample copy here and see for yourself if it is worth the investment.
Stay Fit!
Brad
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with AARR and, as is my policy, receive no compensation of any kind from its sale or proceeds.
Check out the T-Nation article I wrote with my good friend and colleague Bret Contreras titled, Why Bodybuilders are More Jacked Than Powerlifters. We really worked hard to provide an evidence-based evaluation of the topic. Hope you enjoy it!
Fructose is a simple sugar (a monosaccharide, in technical terms) that has been the subject of a great deal of recent nutritional controversy. Alarmist websites, Youtube videos, and even some peer-reviewed research papers have railed against the consumption of fructose, linking it with obesity and the onset of disease. A popular “health guru” has gone as far to call it the “worst of the worst,” and has suggested that fruit intake be severely curtailed (fructose is found in fruit). Are these claims warranted?
To help clear up the confusion, I consulted with nutrition expert James Krieger. I’ve known James for about a decade, and have found him to be one of the most astute fitness pros around (you might remember that I wrote a post overviewing his meta-analysis about Single vs. Multiple Sets). Here he sets the record straight on what is often a misunderstood topic. I’m sure you’ll find his comments of great interest.
BJS: Thanks for agreeing to do this interview, James. Let’s first start off by telling us about your background.
JK: I am the founder of Weightology, LLC, a website dedicated to providing honest, accurate, evidence-based information on weight management. I have a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Florida, and a second Master’s degree in Exercise Science from Washington State University. I am the former research director for a corporate weight management program that treated over 400 people per year, with an average weight loss of 40 pounds in 3 months. My research papers have been published in journals such as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Journal of Applied Physiology. I am also the editor of Journal of Pure Power, an online magazine that delivers scientific information on training and nutrition to athletes and coaches.
BJS: Fructose consumption is a controversial subject these days. How does fructose differ from other simple sugars?
JK: Fructose is much sweeter than other sugars. There are also differences in the way your body metabolizes fructose compared to other sugars. Fructose doesn’t go straight to your bloodstream; instead, it is metabolized by the liver first. The liver can take the fructose, convert it to glucose, and then release that glucose into the blood. It can also take that fructose and store it as glycogen. Finally, it can convert the fructose to fat. It is this conversion to fat that causes a lot of confusion and alarmism.
BJS: There are studies showing that fructose can have a detrimental effect on various markers of health. What’s your take on this?
JK: There certainly are studies showing that fructose can have this detrimental effect. However, these studies have used extremely high doses of fructose. Unfortunately, people have taken this information to the extreme and have concluded that, since high amounts of fructose can be a problem, then any fructose must be a problem. This is simply not the case.
Do we consume too much fructose in our society? Certainly, but we consume too much of everything else too. It is a mistake to try to point the finger at one thing. Anything consumed in excess can be problematic.
BJS: What about the theory that fructose has a greater propensity to be converted into body fat?
JK: This theory unfortunately takes fructose metabolism out of context, and fails to address the bigger picture. People think this because fructose bypasses an important enzyme in the liver, and thus think it is easier to convert the fructose to fat. The problem with this line of thinking is that it fails to address the fact that fructose metabolism changes depending upon the energy state of the body. If you are in an energy deficit, the fructose will not have a greater propensity to be converted to body fat. Rather, it will be directed towards storage as glycogen, or conversion to glucose for energy.
The other problem with this line of thinking is people confuse triglycerides with body fat. If fructose is converted to fat in the liver, it doesn’t mean the fat ends up as body fat. In fact, there is some evidence that fructose is less likely to be converted to body fat. We also have to remember that any fat formed from fructose in the liver can be burned and used for energy. Again, we have to look at the big picture.
BJS: Fruits contain fructose. Should people limit their intake of fruits if they want to lose weight?
JK: As long as you are in an energy deficit, you will lose weight. It doesn’t matter how much fructose you consume. There is no valid scientific reason to limit intake of fruit. Fruit can actually be very beneficial for weight loss because of its fiber content, which makes you feel fuller. It is also low in energy density, and there is a lot of research showing that eating foods that are low in energy density helps promote weight loss.
In the weight management program that I did research for, our clients started the program on high protein shakes sweetened with fructose, and mixed with berries. Our clients were getting a lot of fructose in the diet from the combination of shakes and berries. Yet, they lost tremendous amounts of weight.
BJS: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used in many food products. Is HFCS worse for you than sugar?
JK: There is little difference in the composition of sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Both contain similar amounts of fructose. The only reason manufacturers choose HFCS over regular sugar is because HFCS is cheaper.
When you look at all of the studies that compare sucrose (table sugar) metabolism to HFCS metabolism, they are identical as far as your body is concerned.
BJS: How do you explain the studies showing that obesity rates skyrocketed after the introduction of HFCS?
JK: This research suffers from a fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Just because event B happens after event A, doesn’t mean event A caused event B. Obesity also skyrocketed after the introduction of microwave ovens and VCR’s, but that doesn’t mean microwave ovens and VCR’s cause obesity!
BJS: What about the fact that HFCS isn’t “natural.” Should this matter?
JK: There is no evidence that products that are “natural” are any healthier or safer than products that are not “natural.” For example, there are many natural substances out there that are poisonous or carcinogenic to the human body. Calamus oil, which was a natural food additive before it was banned in 1968, is a carcinogen.
In fact, I often ask people to define what they mean by “natural” and they struggle to do so. If you think about it, there is really no clear cut way to determine what is natural or artificial. For example, aspartame is actually made up of natural ingredients (aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol). So why would we call aspartame artificial? Also, we call Stevia natural, but that doesn’t make sense because it requires human intervention to extract it from the stevia herb.
BJS: Anything else you’d like to add on the topic?
JK: I would say that people do not need to worry about moderate fructose consumption. Basically, the idea of “everything in moderation” applies to fructose just like anything else. Thanks for the opportunity to interview!
I recently wrote about the lack of scientific support for the theory that you should reduce carbs at night . In the same spirit (and by popular request), I thought I’d take the time to tackle another common nutritional theory. Namely, the claim that eating small, frequent meals stokes your metabolism.
I’m sure you’ve heard this one before. Bodybuilders and nutritionists have long preached that spacing out food consumption over five to six small meals a day is optimal for losing body fat. For years I too adhered to this belief. A wealth of emerging research, however, changed my viewpoint.
The strategy to eat small, frequent meals is based on the belief that when you go without eating for more than a few hours, your body senses deprivation and shifts into a “starvation mode.” Part of the starvation response is to decrease resting energy expenditure. In effect, the body slows down its metabolic rate to conserve energy. It’s a logical theory but alas it doesn’t seem to translate into practice, at least in the short-term (i.e. over about a 24 hour period or so). As such, the vast majority of studies examining metabolic rate have failed to show a clear advantage for increasing meal frequency.
On a similar note, the thought that frequent eating enhances the thermic effect of food (TEF)–a measure of the energy expended during digestion–is also flawed. A simple example should make this readily apparent. Let’s say you eat an 1800 calorie diet that averages a 10% TEF. If you space out meals equally so that you eat six times a day, the TEF would look like this:
Meal 1: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 2: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 3: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 4: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 5: 300 x .10 = 30
Meal 6: 300 x .10 = 30
Add up the numbers and total expenditure through the TEF will be 180 calories. Now let’s look at the same scenario except eating three times a day rather than six:
Meal 1: 600 x .10 = 60
Meal 2: 600 x .10 = 60
Meal 3: 600 x .10 = 60
Do the math and you’ll see it’s the same 180 calories expended through the TEF. This holds true regardless of how many times a day you eat.
Okay, so perhaps you want to focus on the benefits of more frequent meals on appetite. This is supposedly related to the effect of eating frequency on hormones. For one, it is claimed that large meals cause insulin spikes, which switch on various mechanisms that increase fat storage. The spikes then lead to a crash, where there is a tendency toward hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Hunger pangs ensue and you invariably end up binging out. For another, an absence of frequent food is thought to increase the secretion of a gut hormone called ghrelin. Ghrelin is referred to as the “hunger hormone.” It exerts its effects by slowing down fat utilization and increasing appetite. Without consistent food consumption, ghrelin levels supposedly remain elevated for extended periods of time, increasing the urge to eat.
Frequent meals are purported to counteract these negative effects on hormones. Blood sugar is supposedly better regulated and, because there is an almost constant flow of food into the stomach, the hunger-inducing effects of ghrelin are suppressed, reducing the urge to binge out. Sounds logical, right? Sorry, another instance where logic and reality don’t mesh. Recent studies by Leidy et al. (1, 2) found no difference in appetite in those who consume six meals compared to three. Interesting, the researchers actually showed an increased satiety when the three-meal-a-day group followed a higher protein diet! On the other hand, consuming fewer than three meals a day does seem to have a negative effect on appetite (3), suggesting that this may be the minimum number of daily meals that need to be consumed from an appetite-control standpoint.
But what about body fat? Surely eating more frequently has to increase fat loss by some mechanism. Not! Provided calories are controlled, fat loss is similar between three-meals-a-day versus six-meals-a-day (4) A recent review paper (5) actually found that intermittent fasting–where people abstain from eating for upwards of 24 hours at a time–was equally as effective as caloric restriction in promoting weight loss. Read this again. The fasted subjects didn’t eat for an entire day at a time and still lost weight to a similar degree as those who ate daily meals. Apparently the starvation response is a lot more complex than some will have you believe.
A recent position statement by the International Society of Sports Nutrition covered the subject of meal frequency in detail. I’d highly recommend that you check out Alan Aragon’s critique of this paper for an in depth analysis.
In sum, current evidence doesn’t support the contention that eating more frequently enhances fat loss. Provided you eat a minimum of three meals a day, there does not seem to be any difference if frequency is increased beyond this number. Now this doesn’t mean that eating more frequent meals is a bad thing. I actually prefer a “grazing” schedule and have found it to be an effective eating strategy for my lifestyle. This is a personal choice that works for me. Others might find eating three times a day to be more appropriate.
The most important important factor here seems to be maintaining a regimented eating program–those who keep to a schedule see better results than those who don’t. It also should be pointed out that the majority of research studies have evaluated overweight subjects. Might more frequent meals help to strip away that last pound or two of body fat in otherwise lean individuals? As they say, further research is needed…
Stay Fit!
Brad
1) Leidy HJ, Tang M, Armstrong CL, Martin CB, Campbell WW. The effects of consuming frequent, higher protein meals on appetite and satiety during weight loss in overweight/obese men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Apr;19(4):818-24. PMID:
2) Leidy HJ, Armstrong CL, Tang M, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. The influence of higher protein intake and greater eating frequency on appetite control in overweight and obese men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Sep;18(9):1725-32.
3) Leidy HJ, Campbell WW. The effect of eating frequency on appetite control and food intake: brief synopsis of controlled feeding studies. J Nutr. 2011 Jan;141(1):154-7.
4) Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E. Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101.
5) Varady KA. Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss? Obes Rev. 2011 Mar 17.
Here’s one of my favorite single-joint movements to target the quadriceps. It’s called the sissy squat but it’s definitely not for sissies! You can add resistance by holding a weighted plate or dumbbell against your chest. Alternatively, try supersetting the movement with a multi-joint movement such as a squat, lunge, or leg press. Very effective quad builder!
Injuries to the oblique muscles are becoming increasingly more common in baseball. In just the first few weeks of the season, more than a dozen players have experienced oblique strains!
In case you don’t know, the obliques are the “waist” muscles that reside on the sides of your midsection. Given that a primary function of the obliques is to twist the torso to the right or left, an injury will obviously put a crimp in your ability to hit or throw a baseball.
A recent article in the New York Daily News suggested that the dietary supplement creatine may be linked to the current oblique injury epidemic. According to Lewis Maharam, a sports physician and former president of the New York chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine, creatine “adds water molecules to muscle fibers, which causes the fibers to separate. This makes for easier muscle tears and slows the repair process, leaving them on injured reserve longer.”
These are some bold claims. However, with all due respect to Dr. Maharam, I could not locate one peer-reviewed study that even suggests such a cause-effect relationship. Sure, creatine increases intracellular hydration, but this shouldn’t pose any negative effect on muscle tissue. In fact, studies show that increasing water content in a cell has a positive impact on cellular integrity. Hydration-induced cell swelling causes both an increase in protein synthesis and a decrease in protein breakdown, which ultimately strengthens the cell’s ultrastructure (1). If Dr. Maharam or anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I would certainly like to see it.
Even more outlandish are the comments in the article by Migdoel Miranda, a personal trainer who apparently works with professional baseball players. Miranda states that “players should limit their use of creatine because it taxes bodies that are already stressed by long baseball seasons.” He then goes on to say that he’s “…not a fan of creatine unless we’re in the offseason. I think creatine should be banned by the team during the season.” Huh? Creatine is simply a high energy compound comprised of amino acids that is stored in muscles and assists in high-intensity exercise bouts. How can such a compound possibly “overtax” an athlete’s body? Again, the statement is completely unsupported by research. Since creatine helps athletes train harder, a case can be made that it may actually reduce the prospect of injury.
There are a couple of take-home messages here. First, just because someone has “credentials” doesn’t necessarily mean that they know what they’re talking about on a given subject. I’ve heard some pretty smart people say some pretty wild things that have no basis in reality–this serves as yet another prime example. Second, newspapers do nothing to check facts. At the very least, you’d have figured that the writer of the article would seek out other sources for confirmation of these claims. Not! The only thing that matters is selling papers. If this can be accomplished by splashing a headline that blames a supplement for sporting injuries, so be it.
Bottom line: There is no evidence I could locate that links creatine to an increased incidence of any type of musculoskeletal injury. The only published side-effects associated with creatine supplementation I’m aware of are some anecdotal reports of cramping, and these claims have recently been refuted (2). If anything, research indicates that creatine may in fact have a protective effect on muscle. It’s difficult to say what’s causing so many oblique injuries in professional baseball, but evidence suggests that creatine is not the culprit.
Stay Fit!
Brad
1) Schliess, F., Häussinger, D. (2002) The cellular hydration state: a critical determinant for cell death and survival. Biol. Chem. 383: 577J583.
2) Dalbo VJ, Roberts MD, Stout JR, Kerksick CM. Putting to rest the myth of creatine supplementation leading to muscle cramps and dehydration Br J Sports Med 2008;42:567-73
A website called dietspotlight.com posted a video review of my book, 28-Day Body Shapeover. I’ve never heard of the site before, but appreciate the positive sentiments!
I recently did an interview with my friend and colleague, Nick Tumminello about the pros and cons of the leg extension. On several Facebook pages, the article ruffled the feathers of some who maintain that leg extensions are completely non-functional, dangerous, and an all-around useless exercise. The discussion was interesting, to say the least, and stimulated lots of good info.
Bodybuilding lore has long preached that you should reduce carb intake in the evening. This is based on the theory that starches are more readily transformed to fat when eaten before bedtime. The reason goes something like this: The primary function of carbohydrates is to supply short-term energy for your daily activities. If carbs are not used immediately for fuel, they have two possible fates; they either are stored as glycogen in your liver and muscles or are indirectly (or in some cases directly) converted into fatty acids and stored in adipose tissue as body fat . Since activity levels usually are lowest during the evening hours, there is a diminished use of carbs for fuel. This would seem to set up an environment where the body is more inclined to convert carbs into fat. Sounds logical, right?
In the past, I had given the theory some credence based on the diurnal nature of insulin sensitivity. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning (1, 2). Hypothetically, this means your body is better able to assimilate carbs at this time, thereby keeping blood sugar levels stable. As the day wears on, insulin sensitivity gradually diminishes and, by evening, it’s at its nadir. Hence, carbs eaten at night would evoke a greater insulin response, fueling the processes that facilitate fat storage and suppress fat burning.
In addition, there is some research showing that consuming starches at night has a carry over effect to the next day. Specifically, eating a carbohydrate-rich dinner was found to increase the insulin response of the following morning’s meal (3). So not only are insulin levels elevated after dinner, but they apparently remain that way through breakfast if carbs are consumed in the evening.
While all this makes theoretical sense, it doesn’t seem to translate into practice. There is scant evidence that reducing carb intake in the evening has any negative effect on body composition. In fact, a recent study (4) suggests that evening carb intake may even have a beneficial impact! The study evaluated 78 obese police officers randomly assigning them to either an experimental diet where carbs were eaten mostly at dinner or a control group where carbs were spread out over the day. The study lasted 6 months–a good length of time to determine nutrition-related changes. The results? The subjects who ate most of their carbs at night displayed a greater weight loss, reduced abdominal circumference, and lower body fat compared to controls. The carbs-at-night group also had better satiety (as determined by lower hunger scores) and showed greater improvements in a variety of other metabolic parameters. The authors went on to conclude that “a simple dietary manipulation of carbohydrate distribution appears to have additional benefits when compared to a conventional weight loss diet in individuals suffering from obesity.” Whether these results will apply to leaner individuals who want to diet down to very low body fat levels isn’t clear, but it at least raises the possibility of a potential benefit.
Take home message: Theory doesn’t necessarily translate into practice. Just because something seems to make intuitive sense doesn’t mean it will work in the real world. It’s yet another reason to make sure you stay abreast of current research and use it to shape your approach to fitness.
Stay Fit!
Brad
1) Lee A, et al, Diurnal variation in glucose tolerance. Cyclic suppression of insulin action and insulin secretion in normal-weight, but not obese, subjects. Diabetes. 1992 Jun;41(6):742-9.
2) Morgan LM, et al, Diurnal variations in peripheral insulin resistance and plasma non-esterified fatty acid concentrations: a possible link? Ann Clin Biochem. 1999 Jul;36 ( Pt 4):447-50.
3) Wolever TM , et al, Second-meal effect: low-glycemic-index foods eaten at dinner improve subsequent breakfast glycemic response. Am J Clin Nutr 1988 Oct;48(4):1041-7
4) Sofer S, Eliraz A, Kaplan S, Voet H, Fink G, Kima T, Madar Z. Greater Weight Loss and Hormonal Changes After 6 Months Diet With Carbohydrates Eaten Mostly at Dinner. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Apr 7. [Epub ahead of print]
Mark Young is a up and coming fitness pro who is noted for his researched-based approach to fitness. I’ve known Mark Young for some time now, and have enjoyed discussing and debating the application of current research on a variety of fitness topics. Mark has recently released a new audio series that deals with how to read fitness research. It’s a great product, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to share his knowledge about some of the issues involved in interpreting and extrapolating the results of peer-reviewed studies to everyday life. I think you’ll find it an interesting read.
BJS: Thanks for consenting to this interview, Mark. Let’s begin by having you tell us a little about your background.
Mark Young:: Basically I am just a strength coach with a fascination (read: obsession) with research. I’ve spent the last 11 years training people to look great naked and my my writing has been featured on T-Nation.com, StrengthCoach.com, WannaBeBig.com, and in magazines like Muscle & Fitness, and Experience Life. I’ve also had the opportunity to do some research myself in one of the leading muscle protein metabolism labs in the world and hope to be defending my Masters in the fall.
BJS: You’ve recently come out with a new product called, “How to Read Fitness Research.” What motivated you to create this product?
Mark Young:: To be totally honest, I’ve been thinking about creating this product for a long time but a lot of my good friends have discouraged me from doing because they feel that it won’t be a big seller (it isn’t as sexy as losing 20 pounds of fat in 46 seconds) and it might offend some other big names in the fitness world (the ones selling the aforementioned products) as it will shine a great big spotlight on the BS that they’re selling.
Of course, I’ve never been one for sticking to the rules and, quite frankly, I really don’t care whether I make a great deal of money off of this product or not. As a result I decided to finally pull this product together to give fitness professionals and serious exercise enthusiasts the power to cut through the marketing hype and widespread misinformation to create the very best fat loss, muscle gain, and sports performance programs for themselves.
BJS: You mention that there is a lot of misinformation out there about fitness. Can you give some examples?
Mark Young:: I could probably go on about this all day, but I think one of the best examples is the widespread use of the Tabata protocol for fat loss. While they are certainly challenging, the studies from which these workouts were derived were not intended to measure fat loss at all! In fact, there is no evidence to date that the Tabata protocol is any better than any other exercise program for fat loss.
And up until recently, there was a very popular theory that eating more frequently was associated with a higher metabolic rate and that not eating would force the body to go into “starvation mode” which we now know is totally bogus.
There are probably hundreds of examples I could give, but the point is that they are EVERYWHERE and it is easy to get swept away in the excitement and follow the herd if you’re not careful.
BJS: Why shouldn’t a person simply rely on their favorite fitness expert for interpreting research on exercise and nutrition?
Mark Young:: Honestly, I’m all for listening to what other bright minds have to say. I even subscribe to a couple research review services myself. However, I think it is important to know that when you listen to someone else’s interpretation it is subject to their biases, experiences, and understanding of that particular area of research.
I often chat with others and later review the research for myself only to come up with a totally different conclusion (based on my own biases, of course). This process breeds more discussion and ultimately I’m more able to create better fat loss, muscle gain, and performance programs because of it.
BJS: Why can’t a person just read an abstract of a research paper and get the main points?
Mark Young:: Great question! The abstract is basically a summary of a whole paper and the results of the study. Or more correctly, the abstract is a summary of the paper and the author’s interpretation of the results of the study. As a result, you have no idea what methods the author used to complete the study and whether the results actually say what the author believes they do.
For example, an author could put people on two different diets and say in the abstract that the fat loss associated with one diet is greater than the other. If you didn’t read the methods within the paper you might have missed that the author only recorded changes in body weight to measure the effectiveness of the two diets. In this case, making a leap from weight loss to fat loss isn’t warranted as there was no way in the study to determine if the weight actually lost was muscle or fat. If you only read the abstract, you wouldn’t know any of this.
BJS: Why does it matter if a study is funded by a particular company?
Mark Young:: I have to admit that the lab that I had experience with did a really good job at dissociating itself from any funding agencies. However, when studies are funded by supplement companies, you have to watch for potential bias of the researchers as companies can sometimes lean on them to publish positive results. Of course, I’m not saying that this is always the case, but you certainly have to keep your eyes out for this. Authors have to declare their sources of funding at the end of the paper (which is yet another reason to read the whole thing).
I recently read a meta-analysis (a study of studies so to speak) of the research on glucosamine and it turned out that the bulk of the studies showing a positive effect on joint pain were those funded by companies selling a glucosamine product. Those not funded by a glucosamine selling company were less likely to show the product was useful.
So again…you have to have your eyes open. I think a lot of people are using glucosamine that might not otherwise be if these results were well known.
BJS: Does it make a difference what journal a study is published in?
Mark Young:: Well…If you see a study published in the Journal of Hyooge Musclez then you can pretty much disregard anything written there.
Journals are very different in their criteria for acceptance and the best articles will only make it into the most stringent journals. Journals like Nature and Science are probably two of the hardest to get a publication in. Some people use something called Impact Factor to determine the value of a journal which is something I don’t do, but you have to know the good from the bad.
In my product I’ve included a list of over 20 journals worth looking at. Just sayin’.
BJS: You have a couple of bonuses included with the product. Can you tell us a little about what they are?
Mark Young:: One of the bonuses is an interview with my Masters thesis advisor Dr. Stuart Phillips who talks extensively about anabolic signalling, protein synthesis, and hypertrophy. If you’re into understanding how research on muscle growth is done, you can’t do much better than interviewing someone from one of the best labs in the world for doing exactly that. I’ve done a ton of interviews in my day…and I think this is one of the best.
Another bonus I’ve included is a short video tour through the online research search tool called PubMed. I talk extensively about how to use search keywords, limits, and different properties of the site to find exactly what you want when it comes to training and nutrition research.
And finally, since podcasts are very popular these days (and because a lot of people love to listen while driving) I’ve included the MP3s of all of the seminars in the product so people can listen on the go.
BJS: Any final thoughts, Mark?
Mark Young:: Ultimately, I guess the take home point of this whole interview is that you can either put your faith in someone else’s opinion or form your own. With all of the misinformation out there (and personal biases of those reading the good information) I think that the best way to have power over your situation is to read the information yourself.
Thanks a ton for doing the interview Brad! I really appreciate it!
Entries (RSS)
