Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
blues.
By Alan Aragon
[Back to Contents]
Page 1
Page 2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Baron KG, Reid KJ, Kern AS, Zee PC. Role of sleep timing
in caloric intake and BMI. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011
Jul;19(7):1374-81. [PubMed]
Berg C, Lappas G, Wolk A, Strandhagen E, Torn K,
Rosengren A, Thelle D, Lissner L. Eating patterns and
portion size associated with obesity in a Swedish
population. Appetite. 2009 Feb;52(1):21-6. [PubMed]
Berkhan M. Is late night eating better for fat loss and
health? June 16, 2011. [Leangains]
Keim NL, Van Loan MD, Horn WF, Barbieri TF, Mayclin
PL. Weight loss is greater with consumption of large
morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with large
evening meals in women on a controlled weight reduction
regimen. J Nutr. 1997 Jan;127(1):75-82. [PubMed]
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 Oct;19(10):2006-14.
[PubMed]
Sofer S, Eliraz A, Kaplan S, Voet H, Fink G, Kima T,
Madar Z. Changes in daily leptin, ghrelin and adiponectin
profiles following a diet with carbohydrates eaten at dinner
in obese subjects. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2012 Aug 14.
[Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
Campbell B, Kreider RB, Ziegenfuss T, La Bounty P,
Roberts M, Burke D, Landis J, Lopez H, Antonio J.
International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand:
protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
[PubMed]
Wilson J, Wilson GJ. Contemporary issues in protein
requirements and consumption for resistance trained
athletes. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006 Jun 5;3:7-27. [PubMed]
8.
[Back to Contents]
Page 3
Study strengths
This paper is relatively ground-breaking since its the first
systematic review/meta-analysis to compare the effects of the
main different diet types on glycemic control, weight loss, and
blood lipids in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The question of how diet
composition might affect these parameters is of utmost
importance due to the increasing prevalence of the disease
worldwide. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria had to be
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were at least 6 months
long, carried out on adults. In order to be included, the trials had
to meet quality standards specified in the Cochrane handbook for
systematic reviews. This helped minimize confounders such as
selection bias, attrition (drop-out) bias, and detection bias. 20
studies were included, containing final analyses in 3073
subjects.
[Back to Contents]
Study limitations
Page 4
Study limitations
As I mentioned in the discussion on the previous page, metaanalyses and systematic reviews are observational in nature, and
thus are incapable of demonstrating causation. Another
limitation was that despite the use of trained subjects, none of
the studies that met the inclusion criteria used subjects with a
mean VO2max that would classify them as elite endurance
athletes at a high international level (~70-80 mL/kg/min). Also,
with the exception of one study containing both sexes, all of the
eligible studies had only male subjects. It should be noted that
the results of this study are not necessarily applicable to
strength/power/hypertrophy-focused training.
Comment/application
The main findings of this systematic review were as follows:
Performance was not significantly different with the
following interventions: carb-loading, only mouth-rinse,
only running mode, only cycling TT carbohydrate vs. water
intervention up to 60 min, and one of the two cycling TT
carbohydrate vs. water interventions between 61 to 90 min.
In contrast, a significantly better TT performance was
reported with all three cycling TT carbohydrate vs. water
interventions lasting 12 minutes or more. For all cycling
submaximal + TT carbohydrate vs. water interventions
combined, four interventions were not significantly
different, whereas six interventions showed a 3% to 13%
performance improvement.
Across all interventions (TT and S+TT), no significant
performance differences compared to placebo were seen
with 11 trials, while with the remaining 11 trials showed a
significant performance improvement ranging between 1%
and 13%.
Overall, no significant performance benefit was seen with
most of the bouts lasting less than 70 minutes, while only 10
of the 17 studies showed significant improvement.
Carbohydrate dosing per hour of training ranged from 25 to
110 g, with the majority of studies examining the effect of
roughly 45-60 g/hr.
[Back to Contents]
Study strengths
This is first systematic review to ever examine the effect of
carbohydrate ingestion near training in subjects who were not in
a fasted state. It also is the first to combine this criterion with the
exclusion of studies using a time-to-exhaustion testing model
instead of a fixed time or fixed distance time trial (TT), which is
more reflective of real-world race conditions. Heres an excerpt
worth quoting since it rings true in my observations with
competitive athletic clientele across a wide range of sports:
Page 5
[Back to Contents]
Page 6
[Back to Contents]
Page 7
Comment/application
Study strengths
This was the first & only study to directly compare carb-protein
(CHO/PRO) versus carb-only (CHO) high-calorie nutritional
supplement in subjects placed on a structured, progressive
resistance training program. A non-supplemented, training-only
control group was a nice touch to cover all the bases for
comparison. The primary investigators and training supervisors
were blinded as to which group was receiving which treatment.
Hydrodensitometry was used to assess body composition
changes. Strength testing was done in addition to body
composition assessment.
Study limitations
[Back to Contents]
Page 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
[Back to Contents]
Page 9
References
1.
[Back to Contents]
2.
100 kcal every 2-3 hours).4 Total energy intake ranged 12001500 kcal per day. Despite significant reductions in BMI, no
between-group differences were seen. Unsurprisingly, no
differences in total energy intake were seen. The grazing group
averaged 5.8 meals per day, and reported a significant reduction
in hunger from 0 to 6 months. In contrast, no such hunger
reduction was reported in the lower-frequency group averaging
3.2 meals per day.
In the most recent study to-date, Ohkawara et al compared the
24-hour effect of 3 versus 6 meals on 24-hour fat oxidation
(using whole-room calorimetry) and subjective appetite ratings.5
No significant differences were seen in fat oxidation. There were
no differences in ratings of fullness, but greater hunger was
reported in the 6-meal condition.
Summary & application
To re-cap, one 8-week study reported no difference in appetite
control,1 one 11-hour study reported lower fullness in the 6-meal
condition,2 one 12-week study (whose final 5 weeks compared
frequency effects) found greater hunger control in the 3-meal
pattern when higher protein was consumed,3 one 6-month study
reported hunger reduction with 6 meals but not with 3 meals,4
and finally, one 24-hour study reported greater hunger in the 6meal condition.5 As the evidence stands, it cannot correctly be
claimed that 3 meals per day is consistently superior to 6 meals a
day for hunger control. The data is highly equivocal, with no
clear winner. To me this is good news, since meal frequency for
controlling appetite can be optimized according to personal
preference and individual response. This sort of flexibility is
contrary to the philosophy of a single-best way which is a
common theme in a wide range of nutritional topics. However,
there is a downside to these findings. The elusiveness of a
singularly supreme approach to meal frequency is not good for
building marketing hype.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
[Back to Contents]
Page 11
Here is a clip featuring Phil Heath, the current Mr. Olympia for
the second consecutive year. Hes being interviewed by some
unknown/funny/skinny dude, and the result will bring a smile to
your face. How can anyone not be a Heath fan?
[Back to Contents]
Page 12