Copyright © March 2nd, 2008 by Alan Aragon

Home: www.alanaragon.com/researchreview
Correspondence: aarrsupport@gmail.com

2 Nutrient timing, part 3: postexercise carbohydrate

& protein.

10 Physiogenomic comparison of human fat loss in

response to diets restrictive of carbohydrate or fat.
Seip RL, et al. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2008 Feb 6;5(1):4.
[Medline]
11 Moderate exercise, postprandial energy
expenditure, and substrate use in varying meals in
lean and obese men.
Stiegler P, et al. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2008
Feb;18(1):66-78. [Medline]

12 Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplement timing

on acute exercise-induced muscle damage.
White JP, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Feb 19;5(1):5.
[Medline]
13 The effects of creatine pyruvate and creatine citrate
on performance during high intensity exercise.
Jager R, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Feb 13;5(1):4.
[Medline]

14 Combined effects of caloric restriction and

branched-chain amino acid supplementation on
body composition and exercise performance in elite
wrestlers.
Mourier A, et al. Int J Sports Med. 1997 Jan;18(1):47-55.
[Medline]

15 Master Amino Acid Pattern (MAP) provides a sure way

to rebuild energy – fitness – life! [BodyHealth]
(Part 2 of 2)
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 1 

Nutrient Timing, Part 3:
Postexercise Carbohydrate & Protein
By Alan Aragon
HIERARCHY OF IMPORTANCE (FINAL REITERATION)
When speaking of nutrition for improving body composition
or athletic performance, it’s crucial to realize there’s an
underlying hierarchy of importance. At the top of the
hierarchy of effects is total amount of the macronutrients by
the end of the day. Below that – and I mean distantly below
that – is the precise timing of those nutrients. With very few
exceptions (i.e., the intermittent fasting crowd), athletes and
active individuals eat multiple times per day, to the tune of
at least four meals. Thus, the majority of their day is spent in
the postprandial (fed) rather than a post-absorptive (fasted)
state. The vast majority of nutrient timing studies have been
done on overnight-fasted subjects, which obviously limits
the applicability of the studies’ conclusions. Pre-exercise
(and/or during-exercise) nutrient intake often has a lingering
carry-over effect into the during- and postexercise period.
Throughout the day, there’s a constant overlap of meal
absorption. For this reason, nutrient timing is not a strategy
that’s only effective if done with chronometer-like
precision.
INTRODUCTION
Last month we dug into the theory and practice of pre- and
during-training carbohydrate and protein. In this issue, we’ll take
a look at postexercise protein and carbohydrate. This topic is
particularly interesting to me because there’s a ton of
misunderstanding and misapplication surrounding it. The crux of
the confusion lies in not differentiating the sport or activity in
question (not to mention the impact of the fed versus fasted
state). Postexercise nutrition varies depending on the duration,
intensity, and frequency of the activity. Therefore, I’ll discuss
the recommendations in terms of both endurance training and
strength/power training.
Definitions
Consistent with a pervasive theme in sports nutrition, almost all
of the postexercise nutrition recommendations are based on
endurance sports. The problem is, despite this being a
(relatively) specific set of activities, its recommendations are
applied universally with no logical justification. It’s given that a
number of definitions can be assigned to endurance training, but
for the purposes of this article, we’ll define it as any prolonged
exercise – either continuous or intermittent – that depletes
glycogen. As a frame of reference, quadriceps glycogen-
depleting protocols in endurance research have involved 90-120
minutes of steady-state work at 65-75% VO2max.1,2 This is
followed by either a series of all-out ‘sprints’ to volitional
fatigue, or an attempt to maintain a certain level of work output,
such as a pedaling frequency in the vicinity of 75-90 rpm. When
the subject gives up after a designated minimum number of
repeated sprints or is no longer able to sustain the prescribed
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 2
level of ‘finishing’ work, glycogen has been brought to
depletion. Strength/power training is another broadly
encompassing classification, but for simplicity, we’ll consider it
anything that’s done with barbells, dumbbells, or stacks of iron
and other such heavy objects. Think in terms of external load
within the moderate to short-term energy systems. In the
literature, exercise is often labelled as either endurance training
or resistance training. It’s the latter that we’ll designate as
“strength/power” training, with the understanding that this is
done out of convenience. Not to mention, everything is
resistance training as long as gravity is present.
Objectives
In the post-trained state, muscles are highly receptive to
incoming calories and nutrients. This is why much ado about the
postworkout ‘window of opportunity’ has been made in sports
and fitness circles. As a result of exercise, skeletal muscle is
particularly insulin-sensitive. This means that less insulin is
required to drive nutrients into tissues. In fact, recent research
has shown that after glycogen-depleting exercise, a high-
carbohydrate meal (144g carb, 30g prot, 24g fat) ingested
immediately post-workout did not interfere with the insulin-
sensitizing effects of exercise. In fact, the meal actually
enhanced the effect of exercise in insulin sensitivity.3 Among the
known mechanisms for this phenomenon are an increased
presence of GLUT-4 (the primary glucose transporter in skeletal
muscle), increased insulin signaling, and elevated blood flow.
Postexercise is commonly described as an urgent period of
battling the demons of muscle catabolism and glycogen
depletion. However, if the proper pre- and during-training
nutrition was taken care of (see the previous month’s article
starting on page 2), then this type of alarmism isn’t warranted,
nor is the need to spike insulin. As a reminder, a maximal degree
of muscle protein synthesis and inhibition of protein breakdown
occurs at insulin elevations only slightly above fasting levels
(see page 4 of the January issue for more discussion). If done
right, postexercise nutrition should merely function as an
extension of the objectives of the previous phases. Maintaining
hydration and blood levels of glucose and amino acids
contributes to glycogenesis, muscle protein synthesis, and
inhibition of muscle protein breakdown.
CARBOHYDRATE
Timing
When endurance bouts to glycogen depletion occur multiple
times in a single day, speed of glycogen resynthesis can is a
potential concern. However, this is only an issue in the event of
either absent or insufficient pre- and/or mid-training
carbohydrate. Nevertheless, in a comprehensive yet aging review
by Jentjens and Jeukendrup, a between-bout threshold of 8 hours
is considered grounds for attempting to expedite glycogenesis as
much as possible.4 Carbohydrate timing and type both influence
the rate of glycogenesis. In often-cited research by Ivy et al,
delaying postexercise carbohydrate (2g/kg of a glucose polymer
solution) by 2 hours versus immediate ingestion resulted in a
 
45% slower rate of glycogen resynthesis during the second 2
hours of recovery (4 hours post-exercise).5
When examining longer recovery periods, the necessity for
careful timing diminishes. For example, Parkins et al examined
immediate ingestion of 5 high-glycemic index carbohydrate
meals versus waiting 2 hours after training to begin the recovery
feedings.6 No difference was seen in glycogen levels at the 8-
hour and 24-hour mark, regardless of the 2-hour postexercise
delay in one group. It would have been useful to include at least
one more treatment group that ingested low-glycemic index
carbohydrates so a basis of comparison could be made between
types. Finally, it can’t be repeated enough that the proper pre-
and/or during-training carbohydrate dosing, often negates the
need quick carbohydrate postexercise.
Type
Within the context of sports nutrition, carbohydrate classification
centers on its glycemic index (GI), which is a measure of a
food’s ability to raise blood glucose. In general, carbohydrates
with a high GI replenish muscle glycogen more quickly than
low-GI carbs. When comparing extremes, glucose (GI = 100)
has been consistently seen to replenish muscle glycogen faster
than fructose (GI = 20).7-9 However, though a strict emphasis has
been placed on postexercise high-GI carbohydrate, moderate
sources are just as effective. Blom et al compared 0.7g/kg of
either glucose or sucrose (GI = 60) ingested at three 2-hour
intervals beginning immediately after glycogen depletion. A
very similar rate of glycogenesis was seen between the two
carbohydrate types during the 6 hour test period.7 A possible
explanation for this is that the fructose content of sucrose
supplies the demand for liver glycogen. Compared to glucose
alone, sucrose more effectively takes care of both glycogen
storage depots. Let me quote the authors’ speculations about
why glucose didn’t significantly out-perform sucrose at
glycogenesis, despite sucrose being 50% fructose:7
“It might be suggested that fructose, by virtue of its rapid
metabolism in the liver as compared to glucose, inhibits
postexercise hepatic glucose uptake, thereby rendering a larger
proportion of absorbed glucose available for muscle glycogen
synthesis”
Another fact relevant to this topic is that postexercise gastric
emptying speed of sucrose and glucose is nearly identical.10 And
if you recall from last month’s opening article, a combination of
glucose and fructose (at either a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of glucose to
fructose) ingested during training can cause a 20-50% faster
carbohydrate oxidation rate than glucose alone.11,12 This is why
it wasn’t too surprising to see sucrose perform comparably to
glucose for glycogen resynthesis. However, it should be noted
that Bowtell et al saw a glucose polymer solution replenish
muscle glycogen quicker than a sucrose solution.13 But unlike
the previously mentioned study by Blom administering 0.7g/kg
every 2 hours for a total of three doses,7 Bowtell’s trial examined
the effect of a single, smaller dose of 61g.13
Waxy Maize Starch: Marketing a Magic Bullet?
Waxy maize starch (WMS – under the trade name Vitargo) is
high-molecular weight glucose polymer. Because of its osmotic
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 3
properties, it empties from the stomach faster than glucose.
Lately, it’s been hyped as a universal ergogenic, but it lacks a
substantial body of evidence. The WMS marketing train picked
up steam when Piehl Aulin et al compared 300g WMS to 300g
glucose monomers and oligomers divided through 30 minute
intervals following glycogen depletion in well trained men.14
The WMS group had a 23% faster rate of glycogen synthesis
during the 4-hour postexercise test period. In a later study,
Rowlands et al investigated the possibility that faster gastric
emptying and glycogenesis might translate to higher ingested
carbohydrate oxidation rates during training (a good thing for
preventing glycogen use).15 However, they found no
difference in during-training oxidation rates between the two
carb types.
So, this brings us to the question of whether the fast gastric
emptying speed of WMS indeed translates to increased
performance. As of this writing, only one study has directly
investigated this question. Stephens et al measured cycling
performance 2 hours after a glycogen depletion protocol as a
result of ingesting either 100g WMS or 100g maltodextrin
immediately postexercise.16 During a 15-minute time trial
performed 2 hours after a glycogen depletion protocol, the WMS
group had a 10% greater work output than the maltodextrin
group. Not surprisingly, the WMS had both a greater glycemic
and insulinemic effect than maltodextrin, helping facilitate
quicker muscle glycogen replenishment. A major limitation here
was that these subjects were not trained athletes, so questions
still remain about the effects of WMS on the competitive
population. WMS might be of value for anyone who a) trains in
a fasted state, minus any pre- or mid-training carbohydrate, b)
trains to complete glycogen depletion, and c) is forced to
compete again two hours after complete glycogen depletion.
Given the current state of the research, it’s unknown whether
WMS has any special benefits for strength/power sports, where
full glycogen depletion rarely occurs in the first place, let alone
repeatedly within the same day. The point is that maximizing
speed of glycogenesis is far from the universal objective, as it’s
often assigned. Also, consider again the fact that proper
nutritional support pre- and during training negates the need for
fast-acting postexercise carbohydrate. A traditional
recommendation is to avoid fat postexercise in order to keeping
the meal quickly absorbed. However, one study showed a
marked benefit of whole milk over skim milk for increasing
muscle protein synthesis.17 For review, refer to the bottom left of
page 3 of the January issue where I review postexercise
treatments showing that even after full depletion, glycogen is
restored to the same degree in 24 hours regardless of the
presence of other macronutrients, fat included.18-20
A recent study by worth highlighting compared the effects of
40g whey + 120g of sucrose, honey powder, or maltodextrin
ingested after resistance training.21 Interestingly, glucose
concentration 30 minutes after ingestion was highest in the
honey powder treatment. Although not to a statistically
significant degree, honey had a more sustained effect on glucose
elevation. This outcome was unexpected considering the honey
powder’s composition was 31.5% fructose, 26% glucose, 25.3%
wheat starch, 12.5% soluble fiber, and 4.7% maltose. The results
 
of this trial directly challenge postexercise high-GI zealotism. It
would be interesting to see the long-term adaptations of similar
protocols in future research.
Form
Very little investigation has been done on the effect of
carbohydrate’s physical form on glycogen synthesis rate. In
perhaps the first study of its kind, Keiser et al compared a
glycogenic properties of a solid carbohydrate-rich meal with a
liquid carbohydrate supplement ingested after glycogen
depletion.22 At 5 hours postexercise, glycogen levels were not
different between the two treatments. At the 22 hour mark,
glycogen in both groups was fully restored. A possible
confounder in this trial was the solid food treatment had 10%
more carbohydrate (35g). Shortly after that study, Reed et al
compared a solid and liquid carbohydrate load (3g/kg) taken
over two equal doses after glycogen depletion: immediately
postexercise, and again 2 hours later.23 No differences were
seen between those treatments during the 4 hour test period.
Recently, Berardi et al compared a liquid carbohydrate-protein
supplement (0.8g/kg Carb + 0.4g/kg Prot) with an isocaloric
carb-only supplement (1.2g/kg) administered immediately, 1
hour, and 2 hours postexercise.24 At 4 hours postexercise, the
two groups consumed a solid meal. A 3rd group who drank a
non-caloric placebo during the 2 previous doses also consumed
a solid meal at the 4-hour point of recovery, but had an
additional 14 kcal/kg in order to match calories. Not
surprisingly, the liquid protein-carb treatment replenished
glycogen faster than the carb-only treatment. But here’s the
kicker – in a 60-minute performance trial done 2 hours after all
groups ingested their solid meals, no significant differences
were seen in work output between the groups. This all but nails
the coffin shut for the common belief that liquid carbohydrate
is blanketly superior to solid carbohydrate for glycogen
resynthesis and/or subsequent exercise performance.
However, it should be mentioned that liquid carbohydrate may
be more suitable for some individuals who don’t have much of
an appetite postexercise, yet need to rehydrate and replenish
glycogen as soon as possible for a subsequent event starting
within just a few hours. For the latter group, solid foods might
not be optimal, and a fair case can be made for liquid nutrition.
Amount Required for Endurance Sports
Fundamentally, the dosing scheme of postexercise carbohydrate
should reflect the nature of the sport. For athletes that require a
maximal rate of glycogen replenishment due to an extremely
limited recovery period, there are at least a couple of options to
consider. Jentjens et al found a maximal rate of glycogenesis to
occur when 1.2g/kg was ingested immediately postexercise, and
every 60 minutes for a 3-hour recovery test period.25 And
unlike prior research using a lower carbohydrate dose, adding a
highly insulinogenic combination of wheat protein hydrolysate
(28.57g), free leucine (14.28g), and free phenylalanine
(14.28g) did not cause any further glycogenesis. The above
mentioned trial and several others led Jentjens and Jeukendrup
to conclude in their review that maximal glycogen synthesis
rates occur at a dose range of 1.0-1.85g/kg ingested every 15-
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 4
60 minutes for up to 5 hours postexercise.4 With an hourly
dosing schedule, 1.2g/kg appears to yield maximal
glycogenesis. Subsequently, Ivy et al found that a supplement
containing 28g protein and 80g carbohydrate enhanced
glycogenesis beyond a protein-free treatment of 108g
carbohydrate when dosing frequency was limited to every 2
hours.26 The mechanism for increased glycogen synthesis with
the addition of protein was once thought to be insulin-based,
but this study’s results challenged that idea since the higher-
carb and protein-carb treatments didn’t differ in their ability to
raise insulin levels.
Amount Required for Strength/Power Sports
Optimal postexercise carbohydrate dosing for strength/power
sports has not been systematically investigated. But when you
think about it, finding what works ‘best’ would depend on a
myriad of individual circumstances. It’s tempting to say that
there’s no such thing as an optimal postexercise carbohydrate
dose for strength/power athletes. As long as there’s not an
absence of carbohydrate around training, and the athlete is
consuming enough total carbohydrate in the day, the need will
be met. In the case of a limited allotment of carbohydrate or
inability to do high-frequency dosing, combining protein and
carbohydrate is an effective way to push the envelope of
glycogen synthesis rate. However, when the rate of glycogen
synthesis is not a concern such as the case of most
strength/power training, the postexercise dose defaults to the
maximum amount that can be comfortably consumed without
impinging upon the total allotment for the day.
In my experience with competitive athletes, a workable target
for the immediate postexercise meal is 0.5g/lb of ideal
bodyweight (also called target bodyweight). As I’ve mentioned
in the January issue, this amount happens to almost identically
concur with the dosing suggestion of Jentjens et al, which is
1.2g/kg.4 It’s important to note that for athletes with massive
energy demands, this dose may need to either be increased or
repeated at relatively frequent intervals in order to meet daily
carbohydrate totals. Daily carbohydrate requirements for
competitive endurance athletes can range from 7-10g/kg (and
sometimes more), most competitive strength/power athletes
need approximately 5-7g/kg.27 It should also be noted that not
everyone needs 0.5g/lb postworkout due to a restricted
carbohydrate intake (for weight reduction, or just individual
tolerance. Therefore, a more appropriately inclusive guideline
would be 0.25-0.5g/lb (0.55-1.1g/kg) of target bodyweight.
PROTEIN
Timing
The general purpose of postexercise protein is to work
interactively with carbohydrate for promoting protein synthesis
and inhibiting protein breakdown via a number of mechanisms,
most of which are not completely understood. This effect is
pronounced when it occurs during elevated blood flow and
tissue receptivity resulting from exercise. Neglecting or
delaying protein intake (or absorption) at this time can
compromise adaptations. In a 4-day trial using elderly subjects,
immediate ingestion of a supplement containing 10g + 7g
 
carbohydrate caused hypertrophy and strength gain, whereas
delay of 2 hours before ingestion caused no significant changes
strength or size.28 In contrast, Rasmussen et al studied younger
subjects and saw no difference in acute markers of muscle
anabolism from ingesting 6g essential amino acids (EAA) +
35g sucrose 1 hour versus 3 hours postexercise.29 The big
limitation of this study, other its acute nature and traditionally
small EAA dose, was the absence of an immediate post-
exercise treatment. Soon after this trial, Levenhagen et al found
that 10g protein + 8g carbohydrate consumed immediately
after 60 minutes of moderate exercise caused much greater
glucose uptake and utilization, as well as greater muscle and
whole-body protein uptake.30 Granted that these trials (like
most nutrient timing research) were done on fasted subjects,
they still illustrate the general importance of absorbing protein
near the end of the training bout, especially when pre- and/or
during-training nutrition is insufficient.
Perhaps the one of the most relevant examples of the
effectiveness of timing macronutrients closely around the
training bout is a 10-week trial by Crib et al,31 which I’ve
discussed in earlier issues. The investigators compared the
effect of a carbohydrate-protein-creatine supplement taken
immediately before and immediately after resistance training
with the same dose taken at two points furthest away from the
training bout. The immediate pre-post group experienced greater
gains in lean mass and strength. To top it off, they also lost a
slight amount of body fat. Unlike typically designed protocols
in this area of research, the subjects in this trial did not train in
an overnight-fasted state. This lends even more credibility to
the effectiveness of proper timing of nutrients for maximal
training adaptations.
Type
Debate continues to rage over what might be the optimal type
of postexercise protein. So far it’s been a back-and-forth battle
of slow versus fast-acting proteins and/or amino acids. Perhaps
what fuels this debate is a widespread neglect of the influence
of pre- and/or during-training protein on the postexercise state.
The available research isn’t quite conclusive, but it provides a
fair amount of points for speculation. In one corner, we have
the casein-dominant protein in milk, and in the opposite corner,
we have whey, milk’s minor subfraction. In our natural human
tendency to oversimplify, we’ve pegged this topic as an either-
or issue, often neglecting the possibility that a blend of the two
types of proteins might be ideal. Let’s review some important
non-acute performance and body composition trials whose
protocol included resistance training and postexercise protein
dosing.
A 12-week trial by Demling et al compared the effect of a casein-
dominant protein (MET-Rx) versus a whey supplement (Pro-
Score).32 A sum of 75g of supplemental protein was ingested
over 2 occasions daily - postexercise, and 8 hours separate
from that. The diet was designed to provide 1.5g/kg protein,
and meet 80% of their maintenance energy needs. A structured
resistance training program was administered. The casein group
lost double the body fat, and gained more lean mass and
strength. The major confounder of this study was the 19g carbs
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 5
contained in the casein-dominant supplement. Even though total
carbohydrate intake between groups was similar, the timing of
the carbohydrate may have contributed significantly to the
outcome since it was ingested at a favorable partitioning point.
A 10-week trial by Kerksick et al compared effects of following 3
treatments on resistance-trained men: 40g whey + 8g casein
(WC); 40g whey + 3g BCAA + 5g glutamine (WBG); 48g
carbohydrate placebo (C).33 The supplements were ingested
postworkout and on the mornings of non-exercise days. A
structured resistance training program was administered. The
casein/whey group had the greatest increase in lean mass, with
the carbohydrate group coming in second by not gaining any
lean mass. Interestingly, the whey/BCAA/glutamine group had
the least favorable result and actually lost lean mass. The primary
confounder of this trial was an increase of calories from baseline
in the WC group, although it was considered statistically
insignificant.
In contrast to the above studies, Cribb et al found whey isolate
to be superior over casein for strength and lean mass gain, as well
as fat loss.34 The 10-week trial that included a structured
resistance training program. The primary difference between this
trial and the previous ones was the supplement dose, which
at 1.5g/kg for an average of 84kg equates to 126g of
supplement per day, as opposed to the 48g in Kerksick’s and 75g
in Demling’s study. The whey group was consuming
approximately 250 more calories per day than the casein group.
Another confounder pointed out by the authors themselves is the
study's high attrition (dropout). The small sample size (13
subjects, 6 of which received the whey treatment) weakens the
results when compared to the 36 subjects of Kerksick’s study
and 38 subjects in Demling’s study.
Given the scarcity of available data, it’s still safe to say that total
amount of high-quality protein should be the primary focus, with
type being a secondary concern. Thus far, the research is slightly
in favor of a blend of casein and whey. An optimal proportion of
fast and slow types has not been systematically investigated, so
anything in that vein is pure speculation. My personal take is
that a wide range of different proportions will produce nearly
identical outcomes, and it’s probably not worth the effort to try
to pinpoint a ‘golden’ ratio of fast and slow proteins for optimal
results.
Form
To my knowledge, no research has yet compared the chronic
body composition or performance effects of isonitrogenous
amounts solid whole-food protein to that of powdered proteins.
Additionally, there’s no research to my knowledge comparing
these chronic effects as a result of intact powdered protein
versus peptide hydrolysates. In the supplement industry, many
protein and protein-derived products are hyped based on their
speed of absorption. However, there’s currently no compelling
evidence of a direct relationship between absorption speed and
improved athletic performance or body composition. One trial in
particular by Paddon-Jones et al is used to assert the pro-speed
position,35 but it’s riddled with limitations, which I discuss on
page 15 of the January issue. Recently, an acute study by
Famfield et al found that regular protein-bound whey isolate
 
caused a more rapid absorption of amino acids and greater
overall anabolic response than whey hydrolysate.36
Addition of Amino Acids
Of the branched chain amino acids, leucine has garnered
particular interest due to its critical role in protein synthesis.37
The steadily mounting momentum of leucine research led to its
investigation as an addition to whole protein treatments for the
aim of furthering protein synthesis. An often-cited example of
this happens to apply directly to our topic. Koopman et al
compared three post-workout treatments: carbohydrate,
carbohydrate and protein, or carbohydrate, protein, and free
leucine.38 The latter treatment had the greatest net protein
balance and highest protein synthetic rate. As expected, the carb-
only group experienced negative protein balance. However, the
leucine-fortified group ingested 59g more amino acid content
than the other treatments during the test period. Unanswered
questions remain about the effect an additional 59g of intact
protein (such as whey) compared to the 59g additional leucine.
Glutamine has received some press as a means to enhance
glycogenesis based on a study by Bowtell et al, where 8g
glutamine alone or 8g glutamine + 61g glucose polymer caused
similar increases in glycogen resynthesis in fasted, glycogen-
depleted subjects.39 However, soon after this trial, van Hall et al
saw similar rates of post-depletion glycogen resynthesis when
comparing glutamine, whey protein hydrolysate, or wheat
protein hydrolysate within a glucose solution.40 Although not to
a degree of statistical significance, whey and wheat protein
actually caused greater rates of glycogenesis than glutamine.
This trial had a number of design strengths over the earlier trial,
including doses proportional to bodyweight (as opposed to fixed
doses) and a longer test period (3 hours instead of 2). This is yet
another feather in the cap of whey, which happens to be more
economical than glutamine.
As the research stands, it would be premature to assume that
additional postexercise leucine or glutamine would be of any
benefit beyond an isonitrogenous amount of high-quality
protein. It’s especially doubtful within the context of an athlete’s
diet containing a high amount of protein in the first place.
Amount
Fundamentally, there’s not much difference in the postexercise
demands for protein in endurance versus strength/power
activity. Once again, this is especially the case if the proper
pre-and/or during-training nutrition is provided. This lack f
major difference in protein demand is also reflected
recommended ranges of total daily protein intake for endurance
athletes (1.2-1.4g/kg) and strength athletes (1.2-1.7g/kg).41
Interestingly enough, there is indeed some data on healthy
normal-weight humans that barely begins to hint toward an
optimal post-exercise protein dose. Tipton et al compared the
effect of 40g of mixed amino acids (MAA) 20g essential
amino acids (EAA) orally ingested after resistance training.42
The MAA contained 21.4g EAA and 18.6g non-essential
amino acids (NEAA). No difference was seen in net protein
synthesis between groups. Let it be clear that this study had
some definite limitations. First of all, the sample size was
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 6
small (3 men and 3 women), and the subjects had not done any
resistance training for over a year. Goodness.
So, it’s still open to question whether or not a larger dose of
EAA or MAA would have caused any further increase in net
protein synthesis. This simply was not investigated. Therefore,
it can’t be assumed that either 20g EAA or 40g MAA is the
maximum beneficial dose – we just don’t know. Other research
has shown a small amount of EAA (3-6g) in either free form or
within whole protein can stimulate muscle protein synthesis
postexercise.43,44 On the other hand, a very high protein dose
(0.3g/kg/hr for 6 hrs postexercise, 1.8g/kg total) has been seen
to increase net protein balance, to a degree where additional
carbohydrate didn’t cause any further protein synthesis.45
In the case of incomplete research data, I tend to default to
what I’ve seen successfully used in the field. My ballpark all-
purpose recommendation for the immediate postexercise
protein dose is 0.25g/lb of target bodyweight (0.55g/kg). This
dose tends to fit in well with the athlete’s total protein intake
and distribution throughout the day, and it’s not likely to
grossly under- or over-shoot what might be required for
maximal net protein synthesis postexercise. Those not
particularly concerned with maximizing the anabolic response
can reduce that amount by 50% (0.1g/lb, or 0.28g/kg) and still
get a protein-synthetic effect while either economizing total
calorie intake, or simply deferring more protein for another
point in the day.
KEY PRINCIPLES (CLIFF NOTES)
Hierarchy of Importance, Objectives
• Postexercise nutritional demands vary according to the
intensity, duration, and frequency of the activity.
• In the post-trained state, muscles are highly receptive to the
macronutrients due to a number of known and unknown
mechanisms.
• If done right, postexercise endurance nutrition should
function as an extension of the objectives of the other
phases, which are to maintain hydration and blood levels of
glucose and amino acids in order to promote glycogenesis,
muscle protein synthesis, and inhibition of muscle protein
breakdown.
Definitions
• For the purposes of this article, endurance training is
defined as any prolonged exercise – either continuous or
intermittent – that depletes glycogen, or comes close to
depleting it.
• For simplicity, strength/power is defined as anything that’s
done with barbells, dumbbells, or stacks of iron and other
such heavy objects. Think in terms of external load within
the moderate to short-term energy systems.
Carbohydrate Timing
• Speed of glycogen resynthesis is only a concern when pre-
and/or mid-training carbohydrate is absent or insufficient,
and endurance bouts to glycogen depletion occur multiple
times in a single day.
 
 • A between-bout threshold of 8 hours is considered by some
researchers to be grounds for attempting to expedite
glycogenesis as much as possible.
• After glycogen depletion, delaying postexercise
carbohydrate by 2 hours versus immediate ingestion has
resulted in a 45% slower rate of glycogen resynthesis.
• With longer recovery periods (greater than 8 hours), the
concern for perfect timing diminishes.
Carbohydrate Type & Form
• In general, carbohydrates with a high GI replenish muscle
glycogen more quickly than low-GI carbs. However, a very
similar rate of glycogenesis was seen between sucrose (a
moderate-GI carb) and glucose during a 6 hour test period.
• The fructose content of sucrose supplies the demand for
liver glycogen. Compared to glucose alone, sucrose more
effectively takes care of both glycogen storage depots
(liver and muscle glycogen).
• WMS may benefit athletes who train in a fasted state with
extremely short recovery intervals between multiple
exhaustive exercise bouts in the same day.
• It’s unknown whether WMS has any special benefits to
strength/power sports, but it’s unlikely.
• Liquid carbohydrate nutrition hasn’t been proven superior
to solid nutrition for enhancing glycogenesis and/or
exercise performance.
Carbohydrate Amount for Endurance Sports
• Total amount is more important than specific type
postexercise for athletes that don’t have multiple glycogen
depleting bouts in single day.
• Daily carbohydrate requirements for competitive
endurance athletes can range from 7-10g/kg (and
sometimes more).
• Maximal postexercise glycogen synthesis rates occur at a
dosing range of 1.0-1.85g/kg ingested every 15-60
minutes for up to 5 hours postexercise.3
• With an hourly dosing schedule, 1.2g/kg appears to yield
maximal glycogenesis.
• A supplement containing 28g protein and 80g
carbohydrate enhanced glycogenesis beyond a protein-
free treatment of 108g carbohydrate when dosing
frequency was limited to every 2 hours.
Carbohydrate Amount for Strength/Power Sports
• Total daily amount is more important than specific
amount postexercise. Most competitive strength/power
athletes need approximately 5-7g/kg.
• Rate of glycogen synthesis is not a concern, so the
postexercise dose defaults to the maximum amount that
can be comfortably consumed without impinging upon
the distribution of your total allotment for the day.
• A workable target for the immediate postexercise meal is
0.5g/lb of ideal bodyweight (also called target
bodyweight). This amount can be reduced as low as
0.25g/lb for those who are restricting carbohydrate, or for
those with little concern for maximal rate of glycogen
resynthesis and/or general anabolism.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 7
Protein Timing
• In elderly subjects, delaying postexercise protein by 2
hours compromised gains in strength and hypertrophy.
• When pre- and/or during-training nutrition is insufficient,
ingesting protein as soon as possible postexercise leads to
greater uptake of glucose and amino acids by the muscle.
• “Sandwiching” your training with protein (and
carbohydrate) as close as possible to both sides of the
bout is likely the optimal route, versus neglecting either
one on either side of the bout.
Protein Type & Form, Addition of Amino Acids
• Given the scarcity of available data, it’s still safe to say
that total amount of high-quality protein should be the
primary focus, with type/speed of absorption being a
secondary concern.
• Thus far, the research is slightly in favor of a blend of
casein and whey, versus either one in isolation. An optimal
proportion of fast and slow types has not been
systematically investigated.
• No research has yet compared the body composition or
performance effects of isonitrogenous amounts solid
whole-food protein to that of powdered proteins.
• There’s no compelling evidence of a direct relationship
between absorption speed and improved athletic
performance or body composition.
• There’s no proof that additional postexercise leucine or
glutamine would be of any benefit beyond an
isonitrogenous amount of high-quality protein within the
context of an athlete’s diet which typically contains a high
amount of protein in the first place.
Protein Amount
• Total amount for the day is far more important than
specific amount postexercise.
• Fundamentally, there’s very little difference in
postexercise demand for protein in endurance versus
strength/power activity.
• The above point is reflected in the very minor difference
in the recommended ranges of total daily protein intake
for endurance athletes (1.2-1.4g/kg) and strength athletes
(1.2-1.7g/kg).
• A postexercise protein dose that provides a maximal
anabolic response is not known, and furthermore, it would
be highly variable according to individual protocols.
• An optimal proportion of fast and slow types has not been
systematically investigated, so anything in that vein is pure
speculation.
• In the case of insufficient research data, I tend to default
to what I’ve seen successfully used in the field. My
ballpark all-purpose recommendation for the immediate
postexercise protein dose is 0.25g/lb of target bodyweight
(0.55g/kg).
• Those who are not concerned with maximizing anabolism
can cut this amount in half (0.13g/lb; 0.28g/kg) and still
reap recovery benefits while saving total calorie intake, or
deferring more protein for another point in the day.
 
 PRACTICAL APPLICATION
When an athlete has less than 6-8 hours to recover after
complete glycogen depletion before training the same muscle
groups:
• Choose a carbohydrate food with a minimum glycemic
index (GI) of 60. A comprehensive GI list can be found
here. Approximately 1.2g/kg, or 0.5g/lb per hour for up
to 5 hours postexercise should restock glycogen at a
maximal rate. If hourly dosing is not realistic, adding a
fast-acting protein source such as whey (0.27g-0.55g/kg
or 0.13-0.25g/lb) will keep glycogenesis accelerated
even if dose frequency is reduced to every 2 hours.
• Liquid carbohydrate/electrolyte beverages typically
contain at least 60g carbohydrate per liter (32 oz).
Having a scoop of whey protein (20g) for every liter of
sports beverage is one of many ways to accelerate
glycogen replenishment. Consumption should begin as
soon as possible postexercise. From that point, you can
move on to solid food, or simply repeat the recovery
drink consumption if you have another competition
coming up in short order.
• If the above strategy seems inconvenient, an equally
effective route is chocolate milk.45 It has a similar
macronutrient profile as the above option, it’s yummier,
and has a more ideal protein. The drawback is that it
needs refrigeration.
• In the literature, solid food has performed as well as
liquid nutrition for glycogen resynthesis. For this
reason, the only time solids might need to be excluded
is if exhaustive events have less than 3-4 hours between
them, leaving little time for sufficient digestion.
Remember that there are no magic foods, so stick to the
ones you personally like the taste of. If you need help
with nutritional information of foods, a good resource is
www.nutritiondata.com.
When an athlete has more than 6-8 hours to recover after
complete glycogen depletion before training the same muscle
groups:
• Glycemic index and gastric emptying speed are simply
a non-issue in this case. Strength/power sports as well
as general fitness and physique development pursuits
rarely (if ever) demand rapid glycogen resynthesis after
full depletion.
• Simply focus on hitting your targets for total amount of
carbohydrate and protein for the day, and make an
attempt to “sandwich” your training bouts with protein
and carbohydrate. Whether it’s liquid or solid form is
inconsequential.
• My general-purpose postexercise carbohydrate dose is
0.5g/lb (1.1g/kg) of target bodyweight. The protein
dose is 0.25g/lb (0.55g/kg) of target bodyweight, This
should be consumed within roughly 30 minutes
postexercise, sooner is better than later.
• It should be noted that a carbohydrate dose of 0.5g/lb
postworkout might not be suitable for those with a low
carbohydrate intake (for weight reduction, etc). So, a
more inclusive guideline would be 0.25-0.5g/lb (0.55-
1.1g/kg), depending on how carb-restricted the diet is.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 8
REFERENCES
1. Goforth HW Jr, et al. Effects of depletion exercise and light
training on muscle glycogen supercompensation in men. Am
J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Dec;285(6):E1304-11.
[Medline]
2. Stephens FB, et al. Postexercise ingestion of a unique, high
molecular weight glucose polymer solution improves
performance during a subsequent bout of cycling exercise. J
Sports Sci. 2007 Aug;27:1-6. [Medline]
3. Stephens BR, et al. Effect of timing of energy and
carbohydrate replacement on post-exercise insulin action.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007 Dec;32(6):1139-47.
[Medline]
4. Jentjens R, Jeukendrup A. Determinants of postexercise
glycogen synthesis during short-term recovery. Sports Med.
2003;33(2):117-44. Review. [Medline]
5. Ivy JL, et al. Muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise: effect
of time of carbohydrate ingestion. J Appl Physiol. 1988
Apr;64(4):1480-5. [Medline]
6. Parkin JA, et al. Muscle glycogen storage following
prolonged exercise: effect of timing of ingestion of high
glycemic index food. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997
Feb;29(2):220-4. [Medline]
7. Blom PC, et al. Effect of different postexercise sugar diets on
the rate of muscle glycogen synthesis. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1987 Oct;19(5):491-6. [Medline]
8. Burke LM, et al. Muscle glycogen storage after prolonged
exercise: effect of the glycemic index of carbohydrate
feedings. J Appl Physiol. 1993 Aug;75(2):1019-23.
[Medline]
9. Van Den Bergh AJ, et al. Muscle glycogen recovery after
exercise during glucose and fructose intake monitored by
13C-NMR. J Appl Physiol. 1996 Oct;81(4):1495-500.
[Medline]
10. Leese GP, et al. Postexercise gastric emptying of
carbohydrate solutions determined using the 13C acetate
breath test. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1995;71(4):306-10. [Medline]
11. Jentjens RL, et al. Oxidation of combined ingestion of
glucose and fructose during exercise. J Appl Physiol 2004;
96: 1277-84. [Medline]
12. Jentjens RL, Jeukendrup AE. High rates of exogenous
carbohydrate oxidation from a mixture of glucose and
fructose ingested during prolonged cycling exercise. Br J
Nutr. 2005 Apr;93(4):485-92. [Medline]
13. Bowtell JL, et al. Effect of different carbohydrate drinks on
whole body carbohydrate storage after exhaustive exercise.
J Appl Physiol. 2000 May;88(5):1529-36. [Medline]
14. Piehl Aulin K, et l. Muscle glycogen resynthesis rate in
humans after supplementation of drinks containing
carbohydrates with low and high molecular masses. Eur J
Appl Physiol. 2000 Mar;81(4):346-51. [Medline]
15. Rowlands DS, et al. Glucose polymer molecular weight
does not affect exogenous carbohydrate oxidation. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2005 Sep;37(9):1510-6. [Medline]
16. Stephens FB, et al. Postexercise ingestion of a unique, high
molecular weight glucose polymer solution improves
 
 performance during a subsequent bout of cycling exercise.
[Medline]
17. Elliot TA, et al. Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle
protein synthesis following resistance exercise. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2006 Apr;38(4):667-74. [Medline]
18. Burke LM, et al. Effect of coingestion of fat and protein
with carbohydrate feedings on muscle glycogen storage. J
Appl Physiol. 1995 Jun;78(6):2187-92. [Medline]
19. Roy BD, Tarnopolsky MA. Influence of differing
macronutrient intakes on muscle glycogen resynthesis after
resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1998 Mar;84(3):890-6.
[Medline]
20. Fox AK, et al. Adding fat calories to meals after exercise
does not alter glucose tolerance. J Appl Physiol. 2004
Jul;97(1):11-6. [Medline]
21. Kreider RB, et al. Effects of ingesting protein with various
forms of carbohydrate following resistance-exercise on
substrate availability and markers of anabolism, catabolism,
and immunity. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Nov 12;4(1):18
[Medline]
22. Keizer HA, et al. Influence of liquid and solid meals on
muscle glycogen resynthesis, plasma fuel hormone
response, and maximal physical working capacity. Int J
Sports Med. 1987 Apr;8(2):99-104. [Medline]
23. Reed MJ, et al. Muscle glycogen storage postexercise: effect
of mode of carbohydrate administration. J Appl Physiol.
1989 Feb;66(2):720-6. [Medline]
24. Berardi JM, et al. Postexercise muscle glycogen recovery
enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2006 Jun;38(6):1106-13. [Medline]
25. Jentjens RL, et al. Addition of protein and amino acids to
carbohydrates does not enhance postexercise muscle
glycogen synthesis. J Appl Physiol. 2001 Aug;91(2):839-46.
[Medline]
26. Ivy JL, et al. Early postexercise muscle glycogen recovery is
enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. J Appl
Physiol. 2002 Oct;93(4):1337-44. [Medline]
27. Burke LM, et al. Guidelines for daily carbohydrate intake:
do athletes achieve them? Sports Med. 2001;31(4):267-99.
[Medline]
28. Esmarck B, et al. Timing of postexercise protein intake is
important for muscle hypertrophy with resistance training in
elderly humans. J Physiol. 2001 Aug 15;535(Pt 1):301-11.
[Medline]
29. Rasmussen BB, et al. An oral essential amino acid-
carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein
anabolism after resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2000
Feb;88(2):386-92. [Medline]
30. Levenhagen DK, et al. Postexercise nutrient intake timing in
humans is critical to recovery of leg glucose and protein
homeostasis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001
Jun;280(6):E982-93. [Medline]
31. Cribb PJ, Hayes A. Effects of supplement timing and
resistance exercise on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2006 Nov;38(11):1918-25. [Medline]
32. Demling RH, Desanti L. Effect of a hypocaloric diet,
increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass
gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann
Nutr Metab. 2000;44(1):21-9. [Medline]
33. Kerksick CM, et al. The effects of protein and amino acid
supplementation on performance and training adaptations
during ten weeks of resistance training. J Strength Cond
Res. 2006 Aug;20(3):643-53. [Medline]
34. Cribb PJ, et al. The effect of whey isolate and resistance
training on strength, body composition, and plasma
glutamine. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006
Oct;16(5):494-509. [Medline]
35. Paddon-Jones D, et al. Exogenous amino acids stimulate
human muscle anabolism without interfering with the
response to mixed meal ingestion. Am J Physiol Endocrinol
Metab. 2005 Apr;288(4):E761-7 [Medline]
36. Farnfield MM, et al. Plasma amino acid response after
ingestion of different whey protein fractions. Int J Food Sci
Nutr. 2008 May 8:1-11. [Medline]
37. Norton LE, Layman DK. Leucine regulates translation
initiation of protein synthesis in skeletal muscle after
exercise. J Nutr. 2006 Feb;136(2):533S-537S. [Medline]
38. Koopman R, et al. Combined ingestion of protein and free
leucine with carbohydrate increases postexercise muscle
protein synthesis in vivo in male subjects. Am J Physiol
Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;288(4):E645-53. [Medline]
39. Bowtell JL, et al. Effect of oral glutamine on whole body
carbohydrate storage during recovery from exhaustive
exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1999 Jun;86(6):1770-7. [Medline]
40. van Hall G, et al. The effect of free glutamine and peptide
ingestion on the rate of muscle glycogen resynthesis in man.
Int J Sports Med. 2000 Jan;21(1):25-30. [Medline]
41. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes.
J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79. [Medline]
42. Tipton KD, et al. Postexercise net protein synthesis in
human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am J
Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):E628-34. [Medline]
43. Borsheim E, et al. Essential amino acids and muscle protein
recovery from resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol
Metab. 2002 Oct;283(4):E648-57. [Medline]
44. Tang JE, et al. Minimal whey protein with carbohydrate
stimulates muscle protein synthesis following resistance
exercise in trained young men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.
2007 Dec;32(6):1132-1138. [Medline]
45. Koopman, et al. Coingestion of carbohydrate with protein
does not further augment post-exercise muscle protein
synthesis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007
Sep;293(3):E833-42. [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 9 

Physiogenomic comparison of human fat loss in
response to diets restrictive of carbohydrate or fat.
Seip RL, et al. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2008 Feb 6;5(1):4. [Medline]
PURPOSE: To use physiogenomics to explore associations
among polymorphisms in candidate genes and changes in
relative bodyfat on low fat and low carbohydrate diets.
METHODS: Bodyfat percent (BF%) was assessed by dual
energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in 93 healthy adults on a
low-carb diet (12% total kcal from carb – LC) and in 70 on a
low-fat diet (25% total kcal from fat – LF). 53 single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs) selected from 28 candidate genes
involved in food intake, energy homeostasis, and adipocyte
regulation were ranked according to probability of association
with the change in BF% using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: BF% dropped 3.0 +/- 2.6% (absolute units) for LC
and 1.9 +/- 1.6% for LF. SNPs in 9 genes were significantly
associated with BF% change, with 4 genes significant after
correction for multiple statistical testing. CONCLUSION: Fat
loss under LC and LF diet regimes appears to have distinct
mechanisms, with 1 of the observed genes associated with fat
restriction and 3 genes associated with carbohydrate restriction.
These discoveries could provide clues to physiologic
mechanisms underlying the BF% change in low-carb and low-fat
diets. SPONSORSHIP: Grants from the University of
Connecticut Center for Science & Technology
Commercialization, and Genomas internal research &
development funds.
Study Strengths
A fairly large sample was used (163 healthy subjects) compared
to the commonly skimpy sample sizes in trials examining body
composition. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA),
widely considered the gold standard of methods, was used to
measure body composition. Study duration was 12 weeks,
although some participants in the low-carb group lasted only 4-6
weeks (more on this in the limitations). Subjects monitored their
level of ketosis daily using urine strips. Blood ketones were also
checked. Verbal and written instructions accompanied weekly
follow-up dietetic education. Subjects completed detailed
weighed food records at various phases of the diet that were
assessed with nutrient analysis software.
Study Limitations
Last month I reviewed a trial by Das et al, which happened to be
one of the most thoroughly controlled studies I’ve ever seen. The
point is that although I acknowledged the degrees of dietary
control in the present study, Das et al provided subjects their
meals for 6 months. In that case, the diet was 100% lab-
controlled. In contrast, subjects in the present trial were
responsible for their own intake. I would have accepted a smaller
sample size in order to assert that level of control over the
experiment, but perhaps I got spoiled by Das et al. Something
that can diminish the quality of a study is vague or incomplete
reporting. Although the authors mentioned that dropout occurred
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 10
in the low-carb group at 4-6 weeks, but never specified the
number of subjects or the cause of attrition.
Comment/Application
If you’ve never heard the term “physiogenomics” before, the
authors of this study define it as “a medical application of
sensitivity analysis and systems engineering. Sensitivity analysis
is the study of the relationship between input and output from a
system as determined by system components. Physiogenomics
utilizes the genes as the components of the system. The gene
variability, measured by single nucleotide polymorphisms
(SNPs), is correlated to physiological responses, the output, of a
diversely responsive human population.”
Just so you’re aware, I re-read that definition a few times. If you
absorbed it all on the first read, you’re probably not in the fitness
industry (hah!). The concept of this study is quite innovative.
There obviously exists a certain degree of genetic variation
across individuals regarding the tendency to manifest calories
and nutrients as either lean mass or fat mass. Currently, the exact
genes that influence the physiology of fat tissue versus lean
tissue are unknown. So, pinpointing the genes associated with
their respective tissue compartments can potentially pave the
way for either direct manipulation, or indirect manipulation via
dietary means. In order to identify these genes, the investigators
examined a battery of physiological processes relevant to the
regulation of bodyfat. From these processes, 28 ‘candidate’
genes were chosen to represent three categories: food intake,
energy homeostasis, and adipocyte regulation.
Given how methodical and meticulous they had to be throughout
this “systems engineering” process, it’s ironic that the less
complex aspect of the study (diet) didn’t receive the same degree
of thorough handling. This was clearly evidenced by the
discrepant outcomes. The low-carb group dropped 2.98% (4.8
kg) bodyfat, while the low-fat group dropped 1.92% (3.18 kg)
bodyfat. That’s nothing too strange, but here’s the weird part.
The low-carb group lost twice as much lean mass as the low-fat
group (1.42 kg versus 0.70 kg) despite reportedly consuming
more protein and calories than the low-carb group (115g versus
94g, protein, 1705 kcal versus 1470 kcal/day). As you can see,
the numbers don’t make sense, and we’re left to deduce that the
error is due to dietary self-administration and self-reporting.
So what can we learn from this study? You can’t strive for
DNA-based dietary weight loss interventions unless you
establish that varying proportions of fat and carbohydrate make a
significant difference under hypocaloric conditions when protein
intake is sufficient for preserving lean body mass. Since an
attempt was made to draw associations between genes and
changes in bodyfat percent, it’s critically important to suppress
any imbalance between groups in terms of total calories. This is
because thermodynamics is by far the most influential variable
on bodyfat flux. To the credit of the investigators, they did
mention that their list of genes was exploratory rather than
comprehensive. Exploratory in this case means highly
theoretical. Also, as they astutely pointed out, “It is possible that
the genes shown to exert their effects through both diets, actually
do so through the commonality of caloric restriction.”
 
Moderate exercise, postprandial energy expenditure,
and substrate use in varying meals in lean and obese
men.
Stiegler P, et al. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2008
Feb;18(1):66-78. [Medline]
PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of prior exercise
on energy expenditure and substrate utilization after meals
containing varying amounts of macronutrients. METHODS:
Eight lean (11.6% bodyfat) and 12 obese (35.9% body fat) men
were randomly assigned to a protein (43% protein, 30% carb) or
a carbohydrate (10% protein, 63% carb) meal. The metabolic
responses to the meals were investigated during 2 trials, when
meals were ingested after a resting period or after cycling
exercise (65% VO2max, 200 kcal). Energy expenditure, substrate
utilization, glucose, and insulin responses were measured for 4
hrs during the postprandial (post-meal) phase. RESULTS:
Although postprandial energy expenditure was not affected by
prior exercise, the total amount of fat oxidized was higher
(170.8g vs 137.8g) and the use of carbohydrate as substrate was
decreased (136.4g vs. 164.0g). After the protein meal fat-
oxidation rates were higher than after carbohydrate intake, an
effect independent of prior exercise. Plasma insulin tended to be
lower during and after the protein meal. No statistically
significant change in postprandial blood glucose was induced by
prior exercise. CONCLUSION: Exercising before meal
consumption can result in a marked increase in fat oxidation,
which is independent of the type of meal consumed.
SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study Strengths
The use of both lean and obese subjects was useful, broadening
its potential application. Participants were weight-stable for 6
months prior to the trial (I’ve seen studies that required as little
as a 1-month weight stability period). Crossover treatment
insured that effect weren’t unique to either group, and the
washout period of 1 week was sufficient given the acute nature
of this protocol.
Study Limitations
As with all acute-effect trials, the chronic effects can only be
speculated over. So, at best these results are good for generating
hypotheses, since extrapolating short-term results into the long
term doesn’t always add up. Another limitation pointed out by
the authors themselves was the intermittent measurement of
metabolic processes during the postprandial and postexercise
period. This is a minor limitation, however, and may even have
its own built-in safeguards against thermodynamic confounders
such as fidgeting as a result of the discomfort of constant
intravenous attachments
Comment/Application
Upon reading the abstract, I wondered why a relatively mellow
exercise protocol was chosen. I assumed that since the sample
contained obese subjects, the researchers were being sensitive to
their physical limits and deconditioned state. Indeed, the full text
revealed that this was part of the reason. However, the authors
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 11
also implied that the lower exercise intensity is optimal for fat
loss: “Exercise training, especially at low intensity, increases fat
oxidation Moreover, an increase in metabolic rate together
with a shift from carbohydrate to fat oxidation in the
postexercise period has been reported.”
There are a few bones I need to pick with this statement and its
implications. First off, while it’s true that low-intensity exercise
increases fat oxidation, this is a phenomenon limited to fasted
training. Fasted training antagonizes muscle protein synthesis
and the prevention of muscle protein breakdown – not a good
thing from both a performance and a recovery standpoint.
Optimizing performance and recovery, over the long term,
equates to optimal body composition changes.
Although training at lower intensities can burn proportionally
more fat during the bout, this doesn’t automatically translate to a
greater net amount. Even in the case that a greater net amount of
fat is burned during low intensity exercise than high-intensity
exercise, this doesn’t mean that a greater net amount of fat
oxidation will occur by the end of the day. In research by
Melanson et al, both low or high intensity exercise caused the
same net fat oxidation 24 hours postexercise. The same
phenomenon was seen in research by Saris et al, who observed
no difference in net fat oxidation between high and low-intensity
exercise by the 24-hour mark. While the high intensity group
had a higher during-training respiratory quotient (indicating a
greater oxidation of carbohydrate and lesser oxidation of fat) this
was reversed during the recovery period, where a lower
respiratory quotient than the low-intensity group was seen.
Shorter duration but higher intensity resulted in the same fat
oxidation by the end of the day. This is why high-intensity
exercise is great for physically capable folks who are short on
time and patience.
In the present study, more fat oxidation occurred after meal
ingestion in the postexercise state than in the non-exercised
state. Nothing too surprising there, as were the greater
hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia in the obese subjects.
Interestingly, there was no significant difference in fat oxidation
between lean and obese subjects. This is in contrast to recent
research by Wong et al, who saw more postexercise fat oxidation
occur in lean subjects than obese ones. However, the latter trial
used a high-intensity exercise protocol with greater energy
expenditure. This may have uncovered the higher fat oxidation
capacity of lean subjects as more commonly seen in the
literature. Apparently, the low-intensity exercise in the present
study simply wasn’t enough to make the same metabolic ‘dent’
as past research. The other interesting find of this study was that
less fat oxidation occurred as a result of the high-carbohydrate
meal (63g carb, 10g prot, 12g fat) compared the high-protein
meal (30g carb, 43g prot, 12g fat). This was attributed the
greater insulin response elicited by the high-carb meal. It should
be noted that recent research by Stephens et al found that after
glycogen depletion, nearly double the amount of carbohydrate
used in this study actually enhanced the insulin-sensitizing
effects of exercise. The moral of the story is, the greater the
energy expenditure, the greater the demand for a higher
postexercise carbohydrate intake. Another take-home point is
that acute effects don’t necessarily equate to chronic effects.
 

Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplement timing on
acute exercise-induced muscle damage.
White JP, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Feb 19;5(1):5.
[Medline]
PURPOSE: To determine if timing of a supplement would have
an effect on muscle damage, function and soreness.
METHODS: Twenty-seven untrained men (avg age 21 yrs)
were given a supplement before or after exercise. Subjects were
randomly assigned to the following groups: The pre-exercise
group received carbohydrate/protein drink before exercise and
placebo after. Post-exercise group received placebo before and
carbohydrate/protein drink after. Control group received placebo
before and after exercise. Subjects performed 50 eccentric
quadriceps contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer. Tests for
creatine kinase (CK), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and
muscle soreness were recorded before exercise and at six, 24, 48,
72, and 96h post exercise. Repeated measures ANOVA were
used to analyze data. RESULTS: CK significantly increased for
all groups when compared to pre exercise, reaching a peak at
48h. MVC was significantly reduced at 6h by 31.4+/-14.0%.
Muscle soreness was also significantly increased from pre
exercise, peaking at 48h. CONCLUSIONS: Eccentric exercise
caused significant muscle damage, loss of strength, and
soreness; however timing of ingestion of carbohydrate/protein
supplement had no effect. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study Strengths
Since this was an acute study with a simple design, not a whole
lot in terms of potential control measures can be reported on.
However, one strength worth noting was the use of a
standardized meal replacement supplement to control the
participants’ hunger levels during each 6-hour measurement
period. This also insured identical calorie and macronutrient
consumption.
Study Limitations
This study examined markers of muscle damage in the short
term. As such, it would be interesting to see this trial carried out
over a period of weeks, where changes in body composition or
performance adaptations would have a chance to manifest.
Protein balance was not measured here. This would have been
helpful to see, since both protein and carbohydrate were used in
this study, whereas recent research by Tipton et al used protein
only.
Perhaps the most profound limitation of this study is the use of
untrained subjects. As a matter of fact, to qualify, they had to be
sedentary for a minimum if 6 months leading into the study. This
presents some applicability challenges. Most individuals
concerned with training-induced muscle damage are those who
have progressed to conditioning levels that are closer to their
genetic limits and must put training variables under a higher
resolution lens in order to further progress. In other words, more
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 12
advanced trainees are less susceptible to beginner gains, which
in practice seem to occur regardless of protocol.
Comment/Application
The authors of this study speculate that the lack of effect of the
protein-carbohydrate supplement was due to the form/context of
amino acid delivery. While they acknowledge that protein-
carbohydrate and essential amino acid (EAA)-carbohydrate
mixtures suppress indicators of muscle damage in endurance
training research, they also point out a lack of protective effect
seen in resistance training trials where whole proteins rather than
free form amino acids are used. They suspect that in endurance
protocols, the protein-carb supplements have sufficient time to
be absorbed and act upon cellular processes that prevent muscle
damage, whereas durations common to resistance training don’t
allow this to happen.
In support of this speculation, they mention how research by
Wojcik et al, as well as a previously mentioned trial by Tipton et
al supports this idea. I smelled something fishy about this, so I
dug into the latter trials, and here’s the scoop. Tipton’s trial
found no statistically significant difference in protein synthesis
between 20g whey given either immediately pre or immediately
postexercise. However, in the discussion, he points out that the
study was underpowered for its small sample size, and double
the subjects would have shown a significant benefit of the
immediate pretraining treatment as did his previous study using
essential amino acids. While it’s true that Wojcik et al report no
effect of a postexercise milk-based beverage on muscle damage
compared to a carb-only and a non-caloric placebo solution, the
full text reveals a crucial detail, let me quote it:
“It is interesting that if the 3MH excretion values are analyzed
using one-way ANOVA only on the day of eccentric exercise
(day 1), the milk-based beverage group had a lower absolute
excretion than the other 2 groups.”
This means that the post-exercise milk treatment indeed reduced
muscle damage from eccentric exercise. The relevance is direct,
since the present study exclusively used eccentric resistance
exercise to induce muscle damage. Furthermore, a recent
resistance training study by Baty et al (too recent to be
mentioned in the present trial) found that a protein-carbohydrate
supplement taken during training reduced muscle damage and
soreness.
But let’s look beyond the short-term effects. There’s research on
the chronic effects of whole protein near the resistance training
bout that make acute effects on muscle damage seem trivial. A
study by Kerksick et al, 40g whey + 8g casein caused a
significantly greater lean mass gain than 40g whey + 3g BCAA +
5g glutamine. If net muscle anabolism over time depended on
speed of substrates absorbed near training, then the results of the
latter trial would have been different. As of this writing, no trials
aside from this one have compared the long-term effect of near-
training isolated amino acids versus an isonitrogenous (equal in
terms of nitrogen content) on muscular size and strength. Based on
the evidence thus far, whole protein is in the lead.
 
The effects of creatine pyruvate and creatine citrate on
performance during high intensity exercise.
Jager R, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Feb 13;5(1):4.
[Medline]
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of oral creatine pyruvate (Cr-
Pyr) and creatine citrate (Cr-Cit) supplementation on exercise
performance in 32 healthy young athletes. METHODS:
Performance during intermittent handgrip exercise of maximal
intensity was evaluated before and after 28 days of Cr-Pyr
(5g/d), Cr-Cit (5g/d) or placebo (pla, 5g/d) intake. Subjects
performed ten 15-sec exercise intervals, each followed by 45 sec
rest periods. RESULTS: Cr-Pyr and Cr-Cit significantly
increased mean power over all intervals. Cr-Cit increased force
during the first and second interval compared to placebo. The
effect of Cr-Cit on force decreased over time and the
improvement was not significant at the sixth and ninth interval,
whereas Cr-Pyr significantly increased force during all intervals.
Cr-Pyr and Cr-Cit resulted in an increase in contraction velocity,
whereas only Cr-Pyr intake significantly increased relaxation
velocity. Oxygen consumption measured during rest periods
significantly increased with Cr-Pyr, whereas Cr-Cit and placebo
intake did not result in significant improvements.
CONCLUSION: Four weeks of Cr-Pyr and Cr-Cit intake
significantly improves performance during intermittent handgrip
exercise of maximal intensity and that Cr-Pyr might benefit
endurance, due to enhanced activity of the aerobic metabolism.
SPONSORSHIP: Degussa AG, Freising, Germany, and FSI
Nutrition, Omaha, NE, USA, for funding this research.
Study Strengths
At 49 participants, the sample size is relatively large for this type
of study. Each of the tests was performed at the same time of
day. The measuring of grip strength, despite its limitations (to be
discussed), requires minimal coordination and allows blood
samples to be taken from working muscles. The ‘slow loading’
dose of creatine at 3g/day (5g total supplement per day including
the assisting compounds) was not typical. Amounts in the 10-
20g range are more common in loading phases. The more
conservative dose used in this study adds to the small body of
lower-threshold creatine dosing research. Since it was effective
here, it strengthens the case for a more conservative/economical
approach to dosing. However, the economic savings involved
here might be a mute point since specialized creatine complexes
have prices that reflect their, um, special-ness.
Study Limitations
While forearm grip testing is a simple method that has the
potential to reflect overall strength, and is practical for
concurrent blood sampling. However, it doesn’t necessarily
reflect the functional or dynamic strength required for sports
performance. Therefore, one can argue that the best place to test
out these compounds is on the field where various strength and
endurance elements are forced to converge. Although no subject
was a vegetarian, and each reported a regular consumption of
meat, no strict dietary control was imposed upon the participants
throughout the duration of the trial.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 13
Comment/Application
Aside from the present trial, at least two others have looked at
the combined effect creatine and pyruvate on performance
measures on more explicit/direct tests (instead of indirectly via
grip strength). In a 5-week study by Stone et al, football players
were given either creatine monohydrate, calcium pyruvate, or
both. As expected the creatine treatments caused an increase in
lean mass, strength in the 1-rep max bench press and squat, and
static vertical jump output. Not surprisingly, pyruvate failed to
impact any of these tests. More importantly for the context of the
present study, there was no significant difference between
creatine alone, or the combination of creatine and pyruvate.
Another study by Van Shuylenbergh et al found creatine-
pyruvate ineffective at improving intermittent sprint cycling
performance. However a trial duration of only 7 days weakens
the strength of these results, especially since supplemental
creatine requires a loading period that can take at least that long
to saturate muscle stores.
Various studies have shown the effectiveness of sodium citrate
for buffering acidity, but nevertheless it has a mixed track record
for improving anaerobic performance. Complexing it with
creatine was perhaps a well-meaning shot in the dark. As the
present trial indicated adding combining two primarily anaerobic
performance agents turned out to be a redundant strategy since
citrate got outperformed by pyruvate, which has been implicated
in aerobic performance.
It should be noted that the subjects in this study were not trained
athletes. This is an important point because the more conditioned
the population, the less ergogenic potential creatine
supplementation appears to have. For example, a recent trial by
O’connor et al compared the effect of creatine (3g/day) or HMB
+ creatine (3g/day of each) on leg strength, endurance, power,
and anthropometry in elite male rugby players. Neither
compound improved any of the parameters tested. The authors
of the trial mentioned that the lack of performance increase
could have been due to the insufficient length of the trial (6
weeks). According to them, it’s remotely possible that the
athletes were fully creatine-loaded for the only final 2 weeks of
the study. Another remote possibility they noted is an interaction
between HMB and creatine that somehow might have
neutralized each other’s effects.
In the present study, both creatine-pyruvate and creatine-citrate
increased measures of mean power in the subjects used.
Creatine-pyruvate provided the advantage or maintaining
maximal force throughout the gripping intervals and thus was
the superior agent. That’s well and good, and it opens the door
for further investigation into creatine complexes that might push
the envelope of creatine’s existing effectiveness. But the big
unanswered question remains – can either one of them
outperform good ole’ inexpensive creatine monohydrate? Thus
far, the evidence doesn’t indicate that. To get a clearer picture
and eliminate some key confounders, it would be interesting to
see the effects of such compounds put to more direct tests after
longer dosing durations.
 

Combined effects of caloric restriction and branched-
chain amino acid supplementation on body
composition and exercise performance in elite
wrestlers.
Mourier A, et al. Int J Sports Med. 1997 Jan;18(1):47-55.
[Medline]
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of a branched chain amino
acid (BCAA)-enriched protein supplement on body composition
and anaerobic capacity under caloric restriction. METHODS:
Twenty-five competitive wrestlers restricted their caloric intake
to 28 kcal/kg/day for 19 days, using a hypocaloric control (HC),
hypocaloric high-protein (HP), hypocaloric high-branched-chain
amino acid (HBCAA), hypocaloric low-protein (HLP) diet to
determine the effects on body composition and performance
versus a normocaloric control diet (C). Anthropometric
parameters (weight, percent body fat) and adipose tissue (AT)
distribution measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
obtained before and after diet, were compared. RESULTS: A
significant highest body weight loss (-4 kg) and decrease in the
percent of body fat (-17.3%) were observed for subjects of the
HBCAA group. Subjects of the HBCAA group exhibited a
significant reduction (-34.4%) in abdominal visceral adipose
tissue (VAT). There was no change in aerobic capacity
(VO2max) and anaerobic capacity (Wingate test), and in
muscular strength. CONCLUSION: The combination of
moderate energy restriction and BCAA supplementation induced
significant and preferential losses of VAT, and allowed the
maintainance of a high level of performance. SPONSORSHIP:
None listed.
Study Strengths
Subjects were all highly trained and had been wrestling for
“many years” (average number not specified), so universal
newbie effects were a non-issue. A thorough set of treatment
groups were used:
• Normocaloric control: 40 kcal/kg, 55% C 12% P, 33% F
• Hypocaloric control: 28 kcal/kg, 55% C, 12% P, 33% F
• Hypocaloric high-prot: 28 kcal/kg, 60% C, 25% P, 15% F
• Hypocaloric high-BCAA: 28 kcal/kg, 60% C, 20% P, 20% F
• Hypocaloric low-protein: 28 kcal/kg, 60% C, 15% P, 25% F
The above treatments eliminated a bunch of potential “what if”
questions that might remain after testing. Magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) was used to determine fat mass at different cross
sections of the body. Two separate regions of interest were
examined – the largest cross-sectional area of subcutaneous
adipose tissue (SAT), and the largest cross-sectional area of the
visceral adipose tissue. Subjects weighed their food, recorded
their dietary intake, and had regular check-up meetings with
investigators to boost compliance. Food records were analyzed
with nutritional software. In all groups, protein beyond the RDA
of 0.8g/kg was consumed. All meals were eaten at a common
location with a dietitian present.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 14
Study Limitations
Because of the large number of treatment groups, this trial
needed more subjects than approximately 6 per group in order to
statistically strengthen the outcomes. Although MRI was used to
obtain cross-sectional images, skinfold measurements were used
to determine bodyfat percent. Also, 19 days is a relatively short
duration.
Comment/Application
If a more sophisticated method of bodyfat percent assessment
was made by using DEXA, hydrodensitometry, or air
displacement plethysmography (ADP), this study would be
rather elegant compared to the majority of trials in this vein. Of
course, in a dream scenario, all meals – not just the supplements
– would be provided pre-packaged by the lab.
The results of this study were definitely intriguing, and it’s a
shame that over a decade has passed and no similar protocols
have been tested. The hypocaloric high-BCAA group (HBCAA)
lost nearly twice the bodyweight as the hypocaloric high-protein
group (HP), at 4.4 kg versus 2.4 kg. However, the different
methods yielded discrepant results. The skinfold-determined
body composition changes indicated that HBCAA also lost 41%
more lean mass than HP (-2.62 kg versus -1.55 kg). In stark
contrast, when examining the MRI assessments, HBCAA
appears to have lost the least amount of lean mass, and the
greatest amount of visceral and thigh fat mass.
Once again, this discrepancy could have been resolved if a more
accurate method was used to determine bodyfat percent.
Surprisingly, all groups lost lean mass, despite the high-protein
groups ingesting approximately 2g/kg. Another interesting find
was that none of the groups experienced a decrease in aerobic or
anaerobic capacity. This was unexpected, given the hypocaloric
nature of the diets. However, the authors suspect that the high
proportion of carbohydrates was responsible for sustaining
performance capacity in all of the groups.
If we give MRI the benefit of the doubt, which is what the authors
of the present study did, then HBCAA ends up being the star of the
show, causing the best of all worlds. The authors speculate that this
occurred because of hormonal adaptations. Specifically, T3 (thyroid
hormone) decreased in Hp, but not HBCAA. They’re not sure how
or why that happened. Upon closer examination of the treatments,
HB consumed a soy-based protein supplement containing 6.1g
BCAA per 100g protein. The HBCAA group’s diet was designed to
provide 0.9g/kg BCAA. They consumed a supplement which had
51.9g BCAA per100g protein.
Given this, it’s somewhat predictable that the soy supplement would
get beaten by the end of the trial. This is not to say that soy protein
is generally an inferior source, but in a recent study by Hartman et
al, greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss occurred with skim milk
than soy milk consumed after resistance training. For now, this
study begs for some replication. What I’d like to see is a similar
BCAA-enriched treatment compared with another high-quality
protein, such as whey. It would be interesting to see if there would
be any difference given an amount of protein sufficient for
maintaining lean mass.
 

Master Amino Acid Pattern (MAP) provides a sure way
to rebuild energy – fitness – life! [BodyHealth]
(Part 2 of 2)
“I explained to my client that for 60 bucks, you can go wild and
get 5 lb of whey isolate. That translates to 2270 grams of protein,
half of which is EAA – 1135 grams. So when you compare 120g
EAA from BodyHealth for the price of 1135g EAA from whey...”
The boxed quote above sums up the point I was trying to convey
last month: this product is charging 10 times for the same EAA
amount obtainable from whey. What I didn’t mention was she
recommended 1 tab for every 8 lbs of bodyweight, and split the
dose pre and postexercise. So, a 175 lb person training 5 days
per week would have roughly 20 tabs per training day, or 100
tabs per week, and blaze through a 120-tab bottle in a little over
a week. Good thing a bottle is only 60 bucks! I mentioned that I
gave the company a call asking for the research backing up the
claims, and indeed I got some interesting info on the “Master
Amino Acid Pattern”.
Given the pretentious name, I was shocked that this stuff was
indexed in the PubMed database – I originally thought it was
100% fabricated. Well, that doesn’t seem too far from the truth,
and I’m regretful to say that the iron gates of published scientific
research are looking pretty darn flimsy. Most of the MAP studies
are published in the same journal (Advances in Therapy), and all
of the studies are led by the same researcher (M. Luca-Moretti).
That’s a little strange. My first thought is, what else is published
in this Journal? Who owns/operates it? What are the vested
interests at work behind the scenes? And finally, what’s up with
the utterly sensationalistic abstracts and study titles? I may never
find the truth behind any of these questions, but the whole thing
reeks of fraud. Take a look at this abstract. It quite literally reads
like a flagrant infomercial:
“Results of this multicentric study have shown that by giving
Master Amino acid Pattern (MAP) as a sole and total substitute
of dietary proteins to 500 overweight participants undergoing the
American Nutrition Clinics/Overweight Management
Program (ANC/OMP), the participants' body nitrogen
balance could be maintained in equilibrium with essentially
no calories (1g MAP=0.04 kcal), thereby preserving the body's
structural and functional proteins, eliminating excessive water
retention from the interstitial compartment, and preventing the
sudden weight increase after study conclusion commonly known
as the yo-yo effect.”
Notice the lack of mentioning of trial duration. Notice the
absence of confidence intervals (p-values). Also, notice the
tugging at the heartstrings. This is unheard of in MEDLINE-
indexed study abstracts, try to find one this bad – I dare you.
Notice the pimping of the product as well as the program; this
product is so good, it’s virtually calorie-free. According to the
rest of the ad – I mean, abstract – it doesn’t leave the dieter
hungry while it miraculously strips off gobs of weight. The
following section of the abstract actually kicks things up a few
notches.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 15
“Study results have shown that the use of MAP, in conjunction
with the ANC/OMP regimen, has proven to be safe and effective
by preventing those adverse effects associated with a negative
nitrogen balance, such as oversized or flabby tissue, stretch
marks, the sagging of breast tissue, increased hair loss, faded
hair color, and fragile or brittle nails. Also prevented were those
anomalies commonly associated with weight-loss diets, such as
hunger, weakness, headache caused by ketosis, constipation,
and decreased libido. The use of MAP in conjunction with the
ANC/OMP also allowed for mean weight loss of 2.5 kg (5.5 lb)
per week...”
I was about to highlight the key parts of the above section of the
abstract, but the entire thing is worth marveling at. This is easily
the most emotionally-charged abstract I’ve seen, and frankly it
charges up my own emotions. I’m not sure if the lay public
reading this stuff gets the same cringing sensation that truly
science-oriented health & fitness practitioners undoubtedly
would get from reading this, but let me tell you, to see this stuff
in PubMed is outrageous to me. However, it’s not surprising
when you think about how money often talks louder than the
truth, which often takes a back seat to dubious proceedings.
With a little digging around, I was able to access the full text of
the study that started all of this campaign, right here. The lead
investigator is listed as “Prof. Dr. M. Luca-Moretti”. The paper
lists this person is the Director of the InterAmerican Medical and
Health Association, a (supposed) US-based organization. I
couldn’t find any links to it online, perhaps it no longer exists, or
maybe it does, but requires hiring a private investigator to find.
Luca-Moretti is also listed as the Director of Research of another
US-based organization, the International Nutrition Research
Center (INRC). I did some digging and found that the INRC is a
pharmaceutical manufacturer in Coral Gables, Florida. Here’s
their profile. There’s some seriously slick marketing in that link,
down to their self-glorification of various so-called scientific
breakthroughs.
On the website of Swedish supplement company Generations of
Health (GOH), I found a press release highlighting the study
whose abstract I’ve been quoting. Before I go there, let me
mention that GOH has an extensive product line and offers a
multilevel marketing business to build your own career selling
their supplements. Here’s the business marketing tools page.
Now let me quote the press release:
A new study has recently been published showing significant
weight loss in overweight persons with the help of Master Amino
Acid Pattern MAP®, sold by GOH as Master Amino Acid Pattern
MAP®. The results of this study on 500 overweight persons are
very promising. A dosage of 0.4 g/kg/day of Master Amino Acid
Pattern MAP®, in conjunction with the Overweight
Management Program (OMP) developed by the International
Nutrition Research Center (INRC), led to a mean weight loss of
2.5 kg per week.
So there you have it, folks. Dr. Luca-Moretti, the lead
investigator of the MAP studies listed in PubMed is also
president of the INRC, the company that developed, markets,
and distributes MAP. This is a prime example of blurring the
line between science and commerce.
 
And, let’s not forget that MAP is simply an essential amino acid
supplement, not a magic panacea. It just happens to be priced as
if it was magic. So, the next time you think about citing this
study or that, realize that the peer-reviewed literature is far from
being exempt from infomercials.

In addition to reviewing the current and past-yet-juicy studies,

I’ll be looking at the adaptations of cardio versus weights, where
those lines cross, and some practical applications based on
individual goals. Until then, enjoy your March.

“Chasing a dream that never comes true beats the hell out of
running away from one that could have” – Alan Aragon

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, March, 2008                                  [Back to Contents]                  Page 16