Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
[Back to Contents]
Page 1
[Back to Contents]
Page 2
2.
3.
4.
[Back to Contents]
Page 3
Study limitations
The authors acknowledged several limitations. The trial duration
was relatively short (8 weeks), dietary tracking and reporting
was absent (this is a common logistical limitation with training
studies). A renovation of the university gym during the trial and
resultant use of alternate machines with a different mode of
action (and thus different load schemes) prevented an accurate
assessment of volume load. A final limitation the authors
acknowledged was that muscle thickness assessed via ultrasound
was taken at the midpoint of the muscle, which does not rule out
possible undetected changes at the proximal and distal regions of
the muscle.
Comment/application
Page 4
Study strengths
This is the first study to ever examine the whole-body, net
anabolic response (protein synthesis, protein breakdown, and net
balance) of a moderate (40 g) dose of protein vs. a large (70 g)
dose within a mixed meal with and without prior resistance
exercise. Protein kinetics at the muscle level as well as the
whole-body level were assessed. Subjects underwent a 3-day
dietary normalization period prior to testing, where food was
provided via the metabolic kitchen. A dietitian assessed nutrient
intake and compliance via pictures of the meals (taken by the
subjects). A minimum of 80% compliance was required for
subjects to undergo the metabolic study.
Study limitations
This study was very well controlled and executed, but its
inevitably limited by its acute (short-term) nature. Acute
responses to protein feeding do not necessarily reflect
adaptations that occur in the long-term. Another possible
limitation was that the results might only apply to the specific
food sources used for the test meals (beef patties, other
Alan Aragons Research Review November 2015
[Back to Contents]
Page 5
Study strengths
This study is conceptually strong, as it adds to an interesting but
scant body of research showing the effectiveness of probiotic
supplementation for fat loss.14,15 Diets were planned via software
by a registered dietitian who created 7-day rotating menus.
Breakfast was prepared daily by research staff, and subjects
consumed it under their supervision (breakfast contained the
1000 kcal surplus-yielding milkshake that housed either the
placebo or the probiotic supplement). A cooler containing the
remainder of the days food was provided to take home. Body
composition was assessed via dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
[Back to Contents]
Study limitations
Page 6
Comment/application
Postexercise glycogen recovery and exercise
performance is not significantly different between fast
food and sport supplements.
Cramer MJ, Dumke CL, Hailes WS, Cuddy JS, Ruby BC. Int J
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2015 Oct;25(5):448-55. [PubMed]
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: A variety of dietary choices are
marketed to enhance glycogen recovery after physical activity. Past
research informs recommendations regarding the timing, dose, and
nutrient compositions to facilitate glycogen recovery. This study
examined the effects of isoenergetic sport supplements (SS) vs. fast
food (FF) on glycogen recovery and exercise performance.
METHODS: Eleven males completed two experimental trials in a
randomized, counterbalanced order. Each trial included a 90-min
glycogen depletion ride followed by a 4-hr recovery period.
Absolute amounts of macronutrients (1.54 0.27 gkg-1
carbohydrate, 0.24 0.04 gkg fat-1, and 0.18 0.03gkg protein-1)
as either SS or FF were provided at 0 and 2 hr. Muscle biopsies
were collected from the vastus lateralis at 0 and 4 hr post exercise.
Blood samples were analyzed at 0, 30, 60, 120, 150, 180, and 240
min post exercise for insulin and glucose, with blood lipids analyzed
at 0 and 240 min. A 20k time-trial (TT) was completed following
the final muscle biopsy. RESULTS: There were no differences in
the blood glucose and insulin responses. Similarly, rates of glycogen
recovery were not different across the diets (6.9 1.7 and 7.9 2.4
mmolkg wet weight- 1hr-1 for SS and FF, respectively). There
was also no difference across the diets for TT performance (34.1
1.8 and 34.3 1.7 min for SS and FF, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that short-term food options
to initiate glycogen resynthesis can include dietary options not
typically marketed as sports nutrition products such as fast food
menu items. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study strengths
This study examines a practical question for athletes who do not
have a preference for, cannot afford, or cannot readily access
engineered sports products. In addition to assessing the rate of
glycogen resynthesis, a time trial (TT) was done in order to
compare the practical/performance effects of each protocol. A
crossover design enabled all the subjects to undergo both
treatments, which minimizes confounding from inter-individual
differences, and also alleviates the compromised statistical
power of a small sample size (11 subjects).
Study limitations
The authors acknowledged three limitations: 1) The lifestyle of
subjects between trials cannot be controlled, so this opens up the
possibility of confounding variation in physical activity and
resting glycogen levels. 2) Despite training and calibration,
human error can occur with the use of instrumentation. 3)
Participants were recruited by convenience, not randomly
sampled. However, random ordering of treatments was utilized
in a cross-over design. Id add that the results might be limited to
the subject profile (young, recreationally active males).
Questions remain about effects in advanced competitors with
less time available for recovery between events. In addition, the
results might be limited to the dietary agents compared. Its
possible that differences might have been detected in a
comparison using different foods & products.
[Back to Contents]
Page 7
1.
13. Arciero PJ, Ormsbee MJ, Gentile CL, Nindl BC, Brestoff
JR, Ruby M. Increased protein intake and meal frequency
reduces abdominal fat during energy balance and energy
deficit. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 Jul;21(7):1357-66.
[PubMed]
14. Kadooka Y, Sato M, Imaizumi K, et al. Regulation of
abdominal adiposity by probiotics (Lactobacillus gasseri
SBT2055) in adults with obese tendencies in a randomized
controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010;64:636-643. [PubMed]
15. Sanchez M, Darimont C, Drapeau V, et al. Effect of
Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC1.3724 supplementation
on weight loss and maintenance in obese men and women.
Br J Nutr 2014;111:1507-1519. [PubMed]
16. Yadav H, Lee JH, Lloyd J, Walter P, Rane SG. Beneficial
metabolic effects of a probiotic via butyrate-induced GLP-1
hormone secretion. J Biol Chem. 2013 Aug
30;288(35):25088-97. [PubMed]
17. Aronsson L1, Huang Y, Parini P, Korach-Andr M,
Hkansson J, Gustafsson J, Pettersson S, Arulampalam V,
Rafter J. Decreased fat storage by Lactobacillus paracasei is
associated with increased levels of angiopoietin-like 4
protein (ANGPTL4). LoS One. 2010 Sep 30;5(9). pii:
e13087. [PubMed]
18. Tanida M1, Shen J2, Maeda K2, Horii Y2, Yamano T2,
Fukushima Y2, Nagai K2 High-fat diet-induced obesity is
attenuated by probiotic strain Lactobacillus paracasei ST11
(NCC2461) in rats. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2008 Sep;2(3):I-II.
[PubMed]
[Back to Contents]
Page 8
Background
Soylent is a meal replacement product formulated in early 2013
by software engineer Rob Rhinehart, who since has inexplicably
raised over 3 million dollars to support the venture via crowd
funding. This is the largest sum of publicly donated money ever
generated for a food product. It was released into the market in
early 2014. What makes Soylent different from other meal
replacement drinks? Mainly its marketing and lack of flavor. It
doesnt have a singular focus on weight loss. Rather, the
campaign is directed towards eliminating the productivitykilling, time-robbing inconvenience of going out and fetching
or worse yet, preparingreal food. Furthermore, strong appeals
are made to consumers disdain for expending any kind of effort,
yet equally strong appeals are made to consumers desire for
good health. Another potent marketing tactic is the promise of
saving the environment by not being wasteful. In short, Soylent
hits consumers in the deep feels, not just the superficial stuff.
Quoting the website:
Soylent frees you from the time and money spent shopping,
cooking and cleaning, puts you in excellent health, and vastly
reduces your environmental impact by eliminating much of the
waste and harm coming from agriculture, livestock, and foodrelated trash.
Suboptimal ingredients
Soylent claims to be nutritionally complete, to the degree of
covering all human macro- and miconutritional requirements.
Rhinehart apparently is no dummy, so he wisely employed Dr.
F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, a professor of medicine at Columbia
University, as their advisor in developing the product. I have
known of Pi-Sunyer for at least a decade. He wrote an excellent
peer-reviewed critique of the glycemic index in 2002,1 and its
still one of my favorite papers. The extent of Pi-Sunyers
[Back to Contents]
Page 9
[Back to Contents]
The IOMs fiber guidelines are not met either. Fiber content is
3g in both the powder serving and the bottled drink. The IOMs
recommended intake for total daily fiber for adults 50 years and
younger is 38 g for men and 25 g for women.6 For those over 50,
this is reduced to 30 & 21 g, respectively, due to decreased food
consumption. This means that if youre not over 50, youd have
to consume approximately 8-12 servings of Soylent in order to
hit the recommended fiber intake. Thats 3200-4800 kcals
worth of the drink, and 4000-6000 kcal of powder. Alternatively,
you can eat whole- & less-refined foods, and meet your fiber
requirements in a lot less calories (you can also experience the
joy of chewing).
Suboptimal micros
1.
Page 10
I called foul, pointing out that the studies were not dieting
studies because a caloric deficit was not enforced. I also
emphasized that out of the 12 cohorts of subjects represented in
the 5 studies, 7 cohorts gained weight, 2 cohorts maintained
weight, and the remaining 3 lost only 100-300 grams of body
Now to give you my thoughts, first this is a group mean not what
necessarily occured in every subject in this group, but most
likely fat loss and lean mass gains did occur during a slight
surplus in enough of the subjects or the mean would likely look
different. Second, obviously the magnitude of fat loss here is
incredibly small. 200g of fat lost in 8 weeks is nothing you
would even notice. Thirdly, 1.9kg of lean body mass is not as
[Back to Contents]
Page 11
That was sharp of you to break down just how small the
absolute changes were. Quoting you: "200g of fat lost in 8
weeks is nothing you would even notice." Agreed. In imperial
terms, 200 g is less than half a pound in 8 weeks. Yup, that's a
[Back to Contents]
Page 12
[Back to Contents]
Page 13
[Back to Contents]
Page 14
[Back to Contents]
Page 15