ean

12 Deconstructing CrossFit.
By Mike Howard

15 Corrections made in past issues.

Copyright © January 1st, 2009 by Alan Aragon

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

2 Culking part 2: macronutrient manipulation.

By Alan Aragon

6 Ingested protein dose response of muscle and

albumin protein synthesis after resistance
exercise in young men.
Moore DR, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
[Medline]

7 Recovery from a cycling time trial is enhanced

with carbohydrate-protein supplementation vs.
isoenergetic carbohydrate supplementation.
Berardi JM, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Dec
24;5(1):24. [Epub ahead of print] [Medline]

8 Protein Modification Responds to Exercise

Intensity and Antioxidant Supplementation.
Lamprecht M, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009
Jan;41(1):155-63. [Medline]

9 Examination of a pre-exercise, high energy

supplement on exercise performance.
Hoffman JR, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Jan 6;6:2.
[Medline]

10 Weight loss is greater with consumption of large

morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with
large evening meals in women on a controlled
weight reduction regimen.
Keim NL, et al. J Nutr. 1997 Jan;127(1):75-82. [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009 [Back to Contents] Page 1


Culking part 2: macronutrient manipulation.
By Alan Aragon
INTRODUCTION
In the same vein as the November issue, this article will be
another diversion from my typical research reference-heavy
style. You’ll need the charts from the November issue handy
because I’ll be referring to them frequently throughout this
article. Also, take note that I made a correction in one of the
charts in the November issue (see the section in this issue
entitled Errata).
For those of you expecting a lot of magic and theoretical physics
supporting the “culking” concept, prepare for some deadpan
tools of the trade. There is no magic. In the November issue, I
clearly lay out realistic expectations of progress, and that’s the
foundational knowledge that will keep you grounded in reality.
Is it possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time? Yes.
However, the rate at which this can occur is limited by training
experience and proximity to your genetic ceiling of progress.
Refer back to November for what’s realistic.
In this article I’ll discuss the nuts and bolts of macronutrient
targeting, which inevitably will be biased by my personal
philosophies and experience in the field. Once again, many of
the answers to questions pertaining to body composition
improvement do not, and may never, have a research basis. As
with the “Culking, Part 1” article, my hope is that Part 2 will
resonate for many of you, and provide concrete guidelines for
both practitioners and enthusiasts in the area of altering body
composition.
ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF FORMULAS
Personal history trumps all formulas & theoretical targets
Since I’m about to present you with a bunch of formulas for
figuring macronutrient targets, this is as good a time as any to
quote my book, which lays out some critical concepts right on
the money:
In  the  beginning,  you  have  to  be  aware  of  your  body's 
historical  or  habitual  intake.  It  also  helps  to  have  an  inkling 
 
about  the  direction  this  amount  has  been  influencing  your 
  progress  (maintenance  or  otherwise).  This  knowledge  is  the 
  most reliable basis from which to make adjustments, formulas  position to initiate controlled advances toward the goal.
  be damned.   2) Taking prospective records – taking food records for at least
In the case that you genuinely don't have a solid grasp of how your  two weeks (or at least a month in women who tend to
 
  body  responds  to  various  protocols  (or  if  you  want  to  design  a 
program  for  someone  who  isn't  self‐aware  of  dietary  details),  What ever level of intake corresponds to a relatively static
then formulas can help.    weight is your maintenance level.
So, according to the above principle, it bears repeating that you
don’t need to fixate on theoretical needs if you know what your
actual maintenance needs are. Knowing your maintenance needs
allows you to make adjustments that have a more accurate basis
than the more generalized basis inherent with formulas. And
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
keep in mind, when I mention maintenance, I’m primarily
talking about body composition, not necessarily net weight. I’m
clarifying this because it’s possible to be gaining muscle and
losing fat at he same rate, thus maintaining net bodyweight.
If you’re armed with the knowledge of the protocol that
maintains your body composition, you’ve got the power card.
From this point, it’s merely a process of methodically adjusting
the variables in either desired direction. With that said, this
article will be most useful for a) those who have maintained a
haphazard dietary intake and need some direction, and b) those
who know exactly what their historical dietary response is, but
want to experiment with different approaches to impose further
progress.
ESTIMATING MAINTENANCE
Traditional approaches to setting up macronutrition begin with
first setting calories, then protein (or the other way around), then
fat, then filling in the rest with carbohydrate. This is a sound
approach, because it avoids the pitfall of overshooting or
undershooting overall calories. Given that all factors must
integrate for optimal effects, total calories are tied with protein
for being the most influential/critical factor in diet setup.
Nevertheless, what I have found is that properly setting up each
macronutrient tends to adequately estimate total calorie needs by
default. More on that coming up.
There are a couple of approaches to arriving at macronutrient
needs. Truth told, they both share an equal amount of
arbitrariness. And more often than not, they tend to arrive at the
same spot. One approach is setting up needs based on adding or
subtracting from current maintenance energy needs, and
adjusting periodically as plateaus ensue. The other approach is
setting up the projected maintenance needs of the future target,
making sure to set the target within a realistic range. Let’s
briefly cover the present-based model, then we’ll cover the
future-based model (which is what I’ve been using for quite
some time and thus can blather on about in more detail).
Present-based model
There are at least 3 different approaches for figuring
maintenance calories:
1) Reviewing retrospective records - drawing upon historical
records (or reasonably accurate recollections of habits). If
you are already aware of what your maintenance needs are in
terms of calories and macronutrients, then you’re in an ideal
experience major premenstrual water weight fluctuations).
3) Running numbers through a formula. There are plenty of
formulas/methods that range from the very simple
(multiplying current weight by a single number) to the
complex (calculating resting expenditure, active expenditure,
thermic effect of food).
[Back to Contents] Page 2
Ice ages ago in my college years, I was taught to run numbers
through the standard formulas for determining resting energy
expenditure (i.e., Harris-Benedict, Owen, Mifflin), then multiply
that by the proper physical activity factor. Then there was the
final step of getting cute and adding in the thermic effect of food.
By this point you’re supposed to feel really accomplished
because you’ve gone through a dozen steps to arrive at the
estimated calorie requirement.
As time passed, I saw the flaws and logical gaps in the
traditional formulas. I also came to learn through the literature
that each method had its fair share of cautions and limitations.1-3
So, in keeping with my predominant lack of sanity at the time, I
conjured up fancy formulas of my own. The problem is,
although they might be more methodical, they’re still a complex
chore to work through. And kicker of it all is that the numbers
are typically fudged up or down even after you go through all
the steps to generate them. As my career of designing diets
marched on, I came to realize (and actually admit to) the fact
that the simple methods were just as effective as the complex
methods, since they tend to generate similar numbers, which end
up getting adjusted up or down, regardless.
Estimating maintenance calories, assuming a moderate activity
range of 4-7 training hours per week, can be as easy as
multiplying current bodyweight by 13-16, depending on sex and
activity level (women with a low-moderate activity level will
maintain closer to 13, men with a high-moderate activity level
will maintain closer to 16). Numbers outside of the 13-16 range
tend to either cause weight loss or weight gain, assuming we’re
talking about a nonsedentary/active population. The
justification of the quick, no-fuss method is explained in
more depth in a series of articles by Lyle McDonald.4,5
Speaking of Lyle, you’ll get a dose of his philosophy on training
while dieting in the final section of this article.
FUTURE-BASED MACRONUTRIENT TARGETING
Basing macronutrient requirements on a future maintenance
point is simply the other direction of the fork in the road. This is
where future and present-tense methods seem to diverge. Since
the approaches eventually merge at roughly the same spot, it
ends up being a mere difference of styles. The present-based
approach picks a low-to-moderate increase or decrease in
calories (roughly 10-20%) from the current intake. The future-
based model that I use accomplishes the same thing via setting
things up prospectively, based on the rates of progress outlined
in the November issue (go ahead and pull it up).
The first step in determining macronutrient needs is having
realistic expectations of progress (November issue, Tables 1-4).
Next is the calculation of target bodyweight (TBW), outlined in
table 5 in the November issue. I’ll reiterate that target
bodyweight is a projection of what you can achieve in a 6 to 12-
month span. I’ve found that setting longer-range goals allow for
a keener sense of the bigger picture. In my observations, people
freaking out over the failure of (usually unrealistic) shorter-
range goals is a common reason for giving up. Once you’ve
calculated TBW, then you can mess with the macronutrient
targets.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
Protein
The peer-reviewed, published scientific research consensus of
the protein needs of the athletic population boils down to a rough
range of 1.2-2.0 g/kg/day. To reiterate what I mentioned in the
May issue, I’ve seen athletes thrive optimally at 2.0-3.0 g/kg
(0.91-1.36 g/lb, which can be safely rounded off to 0.9-1.4 g/lb
TBW). This is very close to the cliché in-the-trenches guideline
of 1-1.5 g/lb. Note that exceeding the upper end of the range (1.4
g/lb) is rarely warranted unless the trainee is undergoing
aggressive carbohydrate restriction combined with a prolonged
caloric deficit (as in the case of precontest dieting).
An intake of 2.0-3.0 g/kg not only puts athletes far from
deficiency, it’s likely to impart anabolic/anticatabolic effects that
may not have had the opportunity to become apparent in the
current literature. As it stands, the current body of research on
protein requirements has mainly been concerned with
maintaining nitrogen balance in non-dieting, supplement-
free/drug-free athletes. Keep in mind, however, that lower
intakes than those can easily maintain muscle mass under normal
conditions. In my observations, it’s not uncommon at all for
non-dieting individuals easily maintain muscle mass at the
lower end of the range listed in the peer-reviewed literature (1.2
-2.0 g/kg), given they’re not in a prolonged, severe
hypocaloric state – particularly one combined with over-training.
Fat
There are a couple of ways to approach setting the fat allotment.
A common way is to go by a percentage of total calories. A
common range used in sports and fitness circles is 15-30%.
However, in the spirit of avoiding being at the mercy of total
calories, I prefer to base fat at a rough range of 0.9-1.1 g/kg
TBW (0.4-0.5g/lb TBW). This range allows for the consumption
of non-skimpy servings of peanut butter, in addition to whatever
your bacon, avocado, salad dressing, mayo, nut, nut butter, or
tahini intake might be for the day. Perhaps the most distinct
paradigm shift I’ve made in the last 10 years or so of my
programming was the allowance of more dietary fat at the
expense of carbohydrate.
Carbohydrate
Carbohydrate intake should correspond to the demands of
physical activity. Notably, out of all the macronutrients,
carbohydrate tolerance seems to vary the most across
individuals. For some, body composition will actually improve
faster on higher carbs, while others will thrive on lower carb
intakes. This difference correlates to insulin sensitivity, which
can improve over time, but will nonetheless give some
individuals an advantage over others in terms of carbohydrate
tolerance.6 Regardless of differences in carbohydrate
metabolism, this doesn’t change the fact that higher exercise
volumes demand more energy than lower volumes, and the
variations of this demand are best supplied by carbohydrate.
In the literature, the commonly recommended intake for
strength/power athletes is approximately 5-7 g/kg (2.3-3.2g/lb)
for strength/power athletes, and 7-10 g/kg (3.2-4.5g/lb) for
endurance athletes.7 Given a 150 lb person, this translates to
[Back to Contents] Page 3
340-477g for general or strength training, and 477-682 g for
endurance sports. It’s important to bear in mind that these
competitive athletes can average 2-4 hours of training per
day. In private practice, a large segment of my clientele consists
business folks with desk jobs who spend most of the day sitting on
their glutes, clicking a mouse. The majority of them maintain a low-
to-moderate exercise volume of roughly 3-6 hours per week. This
population generally does well on the same carbohydrate gram
range as the previously listed protein range of 2.0-3.0 g/kg TBW
(0.9-1.4 g/lb TBW).
In addition to normal humans, there are fringe populations, such
as precontest bodybuilders, who need to achieve extreme levels
of leanness who may need to push the envelope by lowering
carbs further than listed above. In my experience, averaging in a
lowball range of 1.1-1.8 g/kg TBW (0.5-0.8g/lb TBW) during a
contest or photo/film prep phase is sometimes necessary. These
levels of intake are almost always interspersed with periodic
spikes in carbohydrate, which I’ll discuss next.
LINEAR VS NONLINEAR INTAKE
Linear versus nonlinear intake for either maintenance, muscle
gain, or fat loss (or a combination) is for the most part a matter
of individual preference. There’s really no magic to it beyond
paying closer attention to supply and demand, with the objective
of achieving better calorie partitioning. People have the tendency
to believe that lean gains can only be achieved by nonlinear
intake, but this simply isn’t true, as I’ve witnessed (and
supervised) many such cases first hand. However, in some
extreme cases of carbohydrate restriction, nonlinear dieting can
become a necessity.
Nonlinear intakes in the absence of an aggressive caloric deficit
or surplus is a route in which I’ve seen much client success. Bear
in mind that this is not the only way to accomplish muscular
gains, it’s merely a way that allows my clients to make progress
without going through ‘chubby’ phases, as is common with the
more traditional cut/bulk cycling. Can the traditional route put
on muscle quicker? Maybe. It really depends on just how lean
someone wants to stay at their fattest point. Folks who want to
see abs (or a semblance of abs) all year long, but don’t have the
metabolic predisposition would indeed be compromising their
rate of muscular gain. Is this a sacrifice some want to (or need
to) make? With some of my clientele in the entertainment
industry, as well as legions of vain single bros, the answer is yes.
I also want to stress that this is merely one way to do things –
it’s certainly not the only way.
My approach to nonlinear design is nothing revolutionary or
unique; it simply involves having more calories (predominantly
carbohydrate) on training days. The degree of caloric increase
depends largely on the magnitude of the training bout. The
general spread is roughly 400-800 carbohydrate kcals more on
training days than days off or light training days. The amount
can also vary depending on the size of the trainee. This boils
down to a difference of about 100-200 grams of carbohydrate
(and associated amounts protein and fat). For women and
smaller individuals, the spread is roughly 65-130 grams. Note
that higher-level in-season competitive athletes who are more
concerned with performance than anything else will be training
most of the days of the week at a similar magnitude. Therefore,
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
purposely dropping calories on their 1 day (occasionally 2 days)
off in the week typically isn’t necessary nor beneficial.
DISTILLING IT DOWN
I’ve found it helpful to ‘no-brainerize’ these figures by rounding
the numbers off and putting together a short series of formulas
based on either low (1-3 hrs/week), moderate (4-7 hrs/week), or
high activity (8-16 hrs/week). Note that ultra-endurance athletes
with truly massive energy expenditures may need more
carbohydrate/calories than what’s listed below. I listed
everything in terms of lbs to keep the field less cluttered, and
because I’m American, yo. Multiply the numbers by 2.2 if you
want them in kg. Note that all of the following figures are based
on target bodyweight, not current bodyweight, unless you’re
looking to maintain.
                            Linear intake 
                                 Low activity       Moderate activity     High activity 
Protein                 1.0‐1.3 g/lb             1.0‐1.3 g/lb         1.0‐1.3g/lb 
C
  arbohydrate        0.5‐1.0 g/lb             1.0‐1.5g/lb          1.5‐3.0g/lb 
Fat                 0.4‐0.5g/lb              0.4‐0.5g/lb          0.4‐0.5g/lb 
When folks seek out optimal methods for achieving physical
goals, linear intake is often overlooked because of its boring
simplicity. However, in many cases it’s just as effective, and has
the distinct advantage of requiring less thought and planning. In
my observations, when pure mass gain is the goal, linear intake
tends to be the most effective approach.
Next up, we have nonlinear intakes. The 3 populations who tend
to do best on nonlinear intakes are: a) those who are simply
bored with linear intake and find that adherence is lacking; b)
those who enjoy eating large amounts of carbohydrate but must
maintain a net hypocaloric state, and c) those who have to cut
carbs to extremely low levels to get as lean as humanly possible
for a show or a shoot (or a fast-approaching social event).
                             Moderate non‐linear intake*
                                                                                   
                                                                Moderate            Exhaustive 
                                 Days off              
    training days         training days 
P rotein                 1.0‐1.4 g/lb            1.0‐1.4 g/lb          1.0‐1.4 g/lb 
C
  arbohydrate        0.5‐1.0 g/lb            1.0‐1.5 g/lb          1.5‐2.2 g/lb 
Fat                 0.4‐0.5g/lb             0.4‐0.5g/lb          0.4‐0.5g/lb 
           
                              ‘Extreme’ non‐linear intake**  
                                                                                   
                                                                Moderate            Exhaustive 
                                 Days off                training days         training days 
 
Protein                 1.2‐1.6 g/lb            1.2‐1.6 g/lb          1.2‐1.6 g/lb 
 
Carbohydrate        0.25‐0.5g/lb           0.5‐1.0 g/lb          1.5‐2.2 g/lb 
Fat                 0.4‐0.5g/lb             0.4‐0.5g/lb          0.4‐0.5g/lb 
 
*Moderate  nonlinear  intake  can  be  applied  to  all  goals  (gain,  loss 
maintenance). Note that trainees don’t HAVE to engage 3 levels of intake. 
It’s perfectly fine to keep it simpler and alternate 2 levels of intake. 
**Extreme  nonlinear  intake  is  more  conducive  to  the  end‐stages  of 
precontest fat loss or similar goals involving temporary levels of extreme 
leanness. Note that I realize that the term “extreme” is relative. 
[Back to Contents] Page 4
LYLE’S TAKE ON TRAINING WHILE DIETING
WARNING TO SENSITIVE READERS: The  following  is  time to upregulate, consider doing a 'consolidation phase of 2
part  of  an  unaltered,  impromptu  conversation  with  über‐expert  weeks' where calories are brought to maintenance, cardio is
Lyle  McDonald.  It  contains  language  that  might  offend  some  of  gradually brought up, etc.
you, so please be warned if you choose to read this. I decided to 
keep  the  message  in  its  unedited  state  in  order  to  preserve  the  6a. Keeping some cardio in while bulking will keep fat burning
original  nuances and brutal candidness unique to Lyle.   pathways more active than if you do none. It will also improve
What are some of your thoughts/philosophies on training
while dieting?
1. Low volume high intensity lifting. If there is a single place
people fuck up, it's following pro bodybuilders who are on
drugs. They can do lots of high rep pumpy volume and not lose
muscle (although they still do). Weight on the bar maintains
muscle and NOTHING else. Volume/frequency can be cut by
2/3rds as long as intensity (weight on bar) is maintained. It takes
only a handful of sets to maintain muscle as long as weight on
the bar stays the same.
1a. The amount of calories burned by weight training is not
large. Doing a ton more sets you can't recover from is pointless.
However, if someone wants to do some glycogen depletion work
they should be replacing heavy volume with the metabolic crap.
So if they did 8 heavy sets while gaining mass, and they want to
do depletion work on a diet. They should replace some of the
heavy volume with metabolic stuff. So cut heavy volume to 2-3
sets and then do some metabolic work afterwards (or on another
day).
2. This idea that volume/frequency should go UP on a diet is
retarded. It came out of drug fueled contest prep. If you can't
recover from it while you're overeating, you sure can't recover
from it while dieting.
3. Either cut calories hard OR do a lot of cardio. Don't do both,
it will fuck you. Exception: at the very end of contest prep,
sometimes naturals have to do crazy stuff to keep losing fat
against the metabolic adaptations. But don't do it until you need
it.
I strongly feel that that is where the idiotic 'cardio burns muscle'
thing came from. Take a guy eating big, training bit and doing
no cardio. Now it's 'time to diet'. So they drop weights, cut
calories hard and jump into an hour of cardio when the fat
burning pathways aren't firing. Boom, muscle loss. ease into it
over a couple of weeks (the old consolidation/hardening phase)
where you bring up cardio gradually, bring calories and carbs
down (glycogen depletion enhances fat oxidation) and start
reducing training volume and you're solid.
4. Don't do intervals 4X/week and try to train legs 3X/week.
Steady state worked for 40 years and it still works now.
5. If you feel like shit in the gym, cut it short and go home. Get
you couple of heavy sets but don't keep digging the hole deeper
by doing every rep and set that you had planned when your body
is telling you it needs rest.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
6. Don't go from high calories, bulking and no cardio to
excessive deficits, lots of cardio, etc. Fat burning pathways need
recovery, increase hunger, etc. 20-30' of low intensity work 2-
3X/week is plenty. Brisk walking, light cardio is fine. Don't
fucking do intervals.
Yes, for the hardcore skinny guys who tend to burn off stuff via
NEAT, drop the cardio. They don't usually have much trouble
dieting anyhow.
7. Start your prep earlier rather than later unless you have tons of
experience. Most overestimate their fat and this prevents you
from doing stupid things when you're not on schedule. As well,
it will allow you to take full breaks during the diet (2 weeks at
normal calories and carbs) to help with recovery, upregulate
metabolic hormones, and keep the diet humming along.
Thanks Lyle, excellent points… Would this be a problem to
post as-is, or are you looking to civilize it up a bit? I'm cool
with either way.
Yeah, cuz i'm always so concerned about language. Just realize
that it will probably get you a bunch of unsubscribes. "I find
your language distasteful sir." Ha ha.
REFERENCES
1. Garrel DR, et al. Should we still use the Harris and Benedict
equations? Nutr Clin Pract. 1996 Jun;11(3):99-103.
[Medline]
2. Frankenfield DC, et al. Validation of several established
equations for resting metabolic rate in obese and nonobese
people. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003 Sep;103(9):1152-9.
[Medline]
3. Fankenfield D, et al. Comparison of predictive equations for
resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a
systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5):775-
89. [Medline]
4. McDonald L. Calories, Nutrients or Food? Accessed Jan
2008. [Bodyrecomposition]
5. McDonald L. How to estimate maintenance caloric intake.
Accessed Jan 2008. [Bodyrecomposition]
6. Cornier NA, et al. Insulin sensitivity determines the
effectiveness of dietary macronutrient composition on weight
loss in obese women. Obes Res. 2005 Apr;13(4):703-9.
[Medline]
7. Burke LM, et al. Guidelines for daily carbohydrate intake: do
athletes achieve them? Sports Med. 2001;31(4):267-99.
[Medline]
[Back to Contents] Page 5

Ingested protein dose response of muscle and
albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in
young men.
Moore DR, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8. [Medline]
PURPOSE: The anabolic effect of resistance exercise is
enhanced by the provision of dietary protein. We aimed to
determine the ingested protein dose response of muscle (MPS)
and albumin protein synthesis (APS) after resistance exercise. In
addition, we measured the phosphorylation of candidate
signaling proteins thought to regulate acute changes in MPS.
METHODS: Six healthy young men reported to the laboratory
on 5 separate occasions to perform an intense bout of leg-based
resistance exercise. After exercise, participants consumed, in a
randomized order, drinks containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole
egg protein. Protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation
were measured over 4 h after exercise by a primed constant
infusion of [1-(13)C]leucine. RESULTS: MPS displayed a dose
response to dietary protein ingestion and was maximally
stimulated at 20 g. The phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6
kinase (Thr(389)), ribosomal protein S6 (Ser(240/244)), and the
epsilon-subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2B (Ser(539))
were unaffected by protein ingestion. APS increased in a dose-
dependent manner and also reached a plateau at 20 g ingested
protein. Leucine oxidation was significantly increased after 20
and 40 g protein were ingested. CONCLUSION: Ingestion of
20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS and
APS after resistance exercise. Phosphorylation of candidate
signaling proteins was not enhanced with any dose of protein
ingested, which suggested that the stimulation of MPS after
resistance exercise may be related to amino acid availability.
Finally, dietary protein consumed after exercise in excess of the
rate at which it can be incorporated into tissue protein stimulates
irreversible oxidation. SPONSORSHIP: Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.
Study strengths
Conceptually, trainees concerned with building size and/or
strength have wanted to see a study similar to this for probably
the past decade, wherein the ‘buzz’ of nutrient timing around
training has picked up considerable steam. The long-standing
question of what’s the optimal amount of postexercise protein
has begged for a true dose-response trial, and this study begins
to provide some clues. Although the sample size was small, a
repeated-measures (within-subject) design was used, which can
reduce the variability of effects across individuals. Subjects were
given 2 days of prepackaged meals prior to each trial, which
tightened up dietary control considerably.
Study limitations
Subject inclusion criteria was rather broad (4 months to 8 years
of training experience). The mixing of trained subjects with
relative newbies potentially confounds the applicability of the
results. Also, the decision to use an egg protein supplement is
perplexing. The data would be more applicable if a vastly more
common product such as whey was used. Finally, as an acute-
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
effect study, the long-term outcomes of the various treatments
remain to be determined.
Comment/application
The present trial was the first to ever examine the responses of
mixed-muscle albumin protein synthesis as well as whole body
leucine oxidation to a graduated series of protein doses after a
single bout of resistance exercise. The primary finding was that
muscle protein synthesis (MPS) increased in a dose-dependent
manner with up to 20 g protein, but with the 40 g dose, whole
body leucine oxidation markedly increased without any further
increase in MPS. However, it’s important to note that the
training protocol was 4 sets of 8-10 RM of 3 leg exercises (leg
press, knee extension, leg curl) – a total of 12 sets. In typical
strength and/or hypertrophy training routines, the volume of sets
is easily double this per training bout, since more than one
muscle group is trained. Thus, the idea that postexercise protein
synthesis is maximally elicited with 20 grams of protein
warrants further investigation with more relevant training
regimes. It would stand to reason that higher volumes of work
would require higher doses of postexercise substrate to max out
protein synthesis. Furthermore, I’d question the authors’
speculations that more than 20g at a time might dampen the
protein synthetic response. To quote them directly,
“Because muscle protein synthesis becomes refractory to persistent
aminoacidemia (49) and excess amino acids are lost to oxidation
(44), we speculate that no more than 5–6 times daily could one
ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein
synthesis to be maximally stimulated. Protein consumption in excess
of this rate or dose would ultimately lead to oxidative loss.”
According to the above, a total 100-120 g/day would maximally
stimulate muscle protein synthesis. Given the current consensus that
the upper end of optimal protein dosing for athletes is
approximately 2.0 g/kg,1 the 100-120 g figure would only apply to
individuals weighing roughly 50-60 kg.
Although a fasted training protocol was necessary for isolating
the postworkout variables, questions remain about the degree
preworkout substrates influence the effects of the postworkout
substrates. In an often-cited trial Tipton by et al, 6g of essential
amino acids (EAA) plus 35g sucrose taken immediately before
45-50 minutes of resistance training caused 262% more amino
acid uptake than the same supplement taken immediately
afterward.2 To throw a little wrinkle in here, Tipton also
conducted a subsequent trial that compared the protein-synthetic
effect of 20g whey taken either immediately pre- or immediately
post-exercise.3 Although no statistically significant differences
in protein synthesis were seen, it was suggested that a protein-
synthetic advantage would be seen in the pre-exercise treatment
if there were double the number of subjects.
A useful follow-up to the present investigation would be to
compare the dose-response effect of various preworkout protein
or amino acid doses. Still, other follow-up studies could compare
doses of protein/AA with and/or without carbohydrate ingested
both pre- and postworkout. Yet other trials could compare
different types of protein and carbohydrate in addition to the
aforementioned possibilities. Again, a more applicable training
protocol than the present trial is warranted in future research.
[Back to Contents] Page 6
Recovery from a cycling time trial is enhanced with
carbohydrate-protein supplementation vs. Isoenergetic
carbohydrate supplementation.
Berardi JM, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Dec 24;5(1):24.
[Epub ahead of print] [Medline]
PURPOSE: In this study we assessed whether a liquid
carbohydrate-protein (C+P) supplement (0.8 g/kg C; 0.4 g/kg P)
ingested early during recovery from a cycling time trial could
enhance a subsequent 60 min effort on the same day vs. an
isoenergetic liquid carbohydrate (CHO) supplement (1.2 g/kg).
METHODS: Two hours after a standardized breakfast, 15
trained male cyclists completed a time trial in which they cycled
as far as they could in 60 min (AMex) using a Computrainer
indoor trainer. Following AMex, subjects ingested either C+P, or
CHO at 10, 60 and 120 min, followed by a standardized meal at
4 h post exercise. At 6 h post AMex subjects repeated the time
trial (PMex). RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in
performance for both groups in PMex versus AMex. However,
performance and power decreases between PMex and AMex
were significantly greater (p </= 0.05) with CHO (-1.05 +/- 0.44
km and -16.50 +/- 6.74 W) vs C+P (-0.30 +/- 0.50 km and -3.86
+/- 6.47 W). Fat oxidation estimated from RER values was
significantly greater (p </= 0.05) in the C+P vs CHO during the
PMex, despite a higher average workload in the C+P group.
CONCLUSION: Under these experimental conditions, liquid
C+P ingestion immediately after exercise increases fat oxidation,
increases recovery, and improves subsequent same day, 60 min
efforts relative to isoenergetic CHO ingestion.
SPONSORSHIP: Met-Rx USA, Inc. and Worldwide Sport
Nutritional Supplements, Inc. Biotest Laboratories, LLC (C+P),
Weider Nutrition International (CHO), and Kellogg Canada Inc
(Cereal and Cereal Bars) provided additional support in the form
of food and nutritional supplements.
Study strengths
A high degree of dietary control was implemented. On the day
prior to the experiment, the cyclists weighed and recorded all
foods and beverages and refrained from exercise. Dietary
records were analyzed with nutritional software. 2 hours prior to
testing, subjects consumed a standardized breakfast consisting of
cereal (Vector® Meal Replacement, Kellogg Canada Inc), cereal
bars (Vector®, Kellogg Canada Inc), and skim milk. Instead of
measuring time-to-exhaustion (TTE), distance traveled within a
60-minute all-out time trial was done on a computerized cycling
apparatus that tracked speed, distance, and power output. This
may be more representative of actual race conditions than the lab
measurement of TTE. It was a replication of an outdoor ride
with the advantage of giving the subjects virtual opponents.
Study limitations
It’s tough to find holes in this trial other than the very common
limitation of a small sample size (8 in the CHO group, 7 in the C
+ P group). Typically, these types of trials pay little attention to
the breakfast and/or the previous day’s intake, but that wasn’t
the case here. Although lab-based performance assessments are
easier to manipulate and precisely control, their translation to the
actual track isn’t always perfect.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
Comment/application
The present trial adds to a rich history of comparisons of the
glycogenic ability of CHO-only with carbohydrate plus protein. In
one of the earlier trials, Zawadski et al found that a mixed solution
(112.0 g CHO + 40.7 g protein) taken immediately postexercise
and again 2 hours later resynthesiszed glycogen faster than either
component in isolation.4 This was perhaps the first study to
cause investigators to seriously contemplate the potential of
including protein for the purpose of speeding up glycogenesis
via increasing the insulin response. Given that this comparison
was not isocaloric across the treatments, more research surfaced
addressing this potential confounder. Carrithers et al saw no
difference comparing a 1.0g/kg dose of 3 different treatments
administered every 30 minutes for 4 hours postexercise: CHO-only,
70% CHO + 20% protein + 10% fat, and 80% CHO + 20% essential
amino acids.5 Thus, it was demonstrated that beyond a certain
amount CHO and frequency of dosing, the inclusion of protein or
EAA didn’t hasten the rate of glycogen resynthesis. Similarly,
Jentjens et al found no enhancement of glycogenesis by adding
0.4g/kg of protein with free leucine and phenylalanine to 1.2g/kg.hr
of CHO consumed in 30-minute intervals postexercise for a 3 hour
test period.6
Nevertheless, alternate ways of enhancing glycogen resynthesis
were still sought out. The CHO dosing in the Carrithers study
(1.0g/kg every 30 minutes) and the Jentjens study (0.6g/kg every 30
minutes) is not necessarily practical for athletes trying to economize
their caloric intake for the purposes of weight loss or prevention of
weight gain. Some may find these dosing schemes gastrically
intolerable and/or inconvenient. Shortly after the Jentjens trial, Ivy
et al found that the addition of protein to a carbohydrate
supplement can indeed increase the rate of muscle glycogen
resynthesis beyond the maximal rate produced by carbohydrate
alone. However, they note that ability of protein to maximize the
carbohydrate response might be limited to dosing intervals of
2 hours or longer. As an interesting side note, in the mixed
treatment in Ivy’s study, there was a greater rate of glycogen
storage during the first 40 minutes of recovery followed by a
more sustained rate of glycogen storage during the final 2 hours
of recovery. Since the first 30-60 minutes of postexercise
glycogen resynthesis has been reported to be independent of
insulin,7 a mechanism other than increased insulin response from
the added protein must be responsible for the greater rate of
glycogen synthesis. Other trials since then have yielded similar
results, favoring a mix of CHO and protein over CHO alone.8-10
The present study differs from its predecessors in several ways.
It had a high level of assessment sophistication (computerized
race simulation-based time trial). An isocaloric comparison was
done; this has been rare in previous research. With the exception
of two studies to my knowledge,10,11 a higher amount of protein
was ingested in the postexercise period (0.4g/kg/hr; 111g total
for 6 hrs). An interesting finding of this study was a greater rate
of fat oxidation in the CHO-protein group, despite higher insulin
levels (insulin levels weren’t measured, but plenty of previous
research confirms this possibility). It was speculated that the
protein elicited glucagon-stimulated lipolysis, which has been
shown to increase rates of fat oxidation despite concurrent
increases in insulin levels. A better Profile of Mood States
(POMS) score was yet another benefit seen in the in the CHO-
protein group.
[Back to Contents] Page 7

Protein Modification Responds to Exercise Intensity
and Antioxidant Supplementation.
Lamprecht M, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Jan;41(1):155-
63. [Medline]
PURPOSE: To assess the effects of different exercise intensities
and antioxidant supplementation on plasma protein modification.
METHODS: Trained men (n = 41) from a homogenous
population were randomly assigned to perform cycle ergometer
exercise either at 70% or 80% of individual .VO2max. Each
intensity group was randomly assigned to receive either juice
powder concentrate (JPC 70%, n = 11; JPC 80%, n = 10) or
placebo (Plac 70%, n = 10; Plac 80%, n = 10) capsules for 28
wk. Four controlled exercise bouts and blood collections were
conducted at baseline and study weeks 4, 16, and 28. Blood
samples were drawn before (BE), immediately after (IE), and 30
min (30M) and 30 h (30H) postexercise. These samples were
analyzed to estimate concentrations of carbonyl groups on
plasma proteins (CP) and the redox state of human serum
albumin (HSA). RESULTS: In the Plac group, CP
concentrations increased at 80% of .VO2max IE and 30M,
returning to preexercise concentrations by 30H (P < 0.05). At
both 16 and 28 wk, the Plac groups had significantly higher BE
and 30H CP concentrations than the JPC groups (P < 0.05). The
reduced fraction of HSA, human mercaptalbumin (HMA),
decreased at all four exercise tests at both exercise intensities IE
and 30M, returning to preexercise values by 30H (P < 0.05).
Supplementation had no influence on HSA. CONCLUSION:
These results indicate that CP concentrations increase with 80%
VO2max intensity. The JPC group had lower baseline CP levels
after 16 and 28 wk and no exercise-induced CP increase. HSA is
reversibly shifted to a more oxidized state by recent intense
exercise. SPONSORSHIP: This work was funded in part
through a cooperative international research grant from National
Safety Associates (NSA) to the Medical University of Graz and
the Styrian Health Association, Graz, Austria. This work was
also financially supported by the Franz Lanyar-Stiftung (No. 290
and No. 314).
Study strengths
A trained, homogenous sample was used. Eligibility included the
requirement that subjects have had trained aerobically at least 3
days per week for a minimum of 1 year before participation and
had a minimum level of aerobic fitness, assessed by VO2max
testing. 3 hours before each exercise test, subjects consumed a
standardized breakfast consisting of, 32–34 g protein, 144–150 g
carbohydrate, and 28–30 g fat to further minimize any influence
of recent diet. Food records were software-analyzed.
Study limitations
Although the subjects were instructed to maintain their normal
dietary habits, diet was still self-selected, and thus uncontrolled.
In addition, exercise parameters were too loosely defined:
“Subjects performed two to three sessions of endurance and
weight training per week in addition to special mission specific
training.”
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
Since this trial’s main purpose was to assess the effect of
exercise on markers of oxidation, tighter control of the physical
activity variables was warranted.
Comment/application
Juice Plus+ was introduced to the market in 1993 by National
Safety Associates (NSA), a multi-level marketing (MLM)
company that originally sold in-home fire detectors in the 1970’s
and water/air filtration units in the 1980’s. With their latest
product capitalizing on the public’s health consciousness, NSA’s
president/CEO Jay Martin says,12 “We’ve barely scratched the
surface of Juice Plus+ business potential.”
Juice Plus+ is an encapsulated concentration of 7 different fruits
and 8 different vegetables, and 2 types of grains. The premise
pushed by NSA is that this product can help fill the void created
by the widespread lack of consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Several published studies have shown the benefits of Juice
Plus+. To state the obvious, funding bias can make all the
difference in terms of study outcomes. Since the majority of the
Juice Plus+ studies have been funded by NSA, it’s safe to
assume a certain level of predetermination of outcomes.
Back to the present study… According to the diet analyses,
Average food group servings were similar in all groups,
although fruit and nonstarchy vegetable intake was low,
averaging 3.2 servings per day in total. This intake was
significantly below the current USDA guidelines for adults,
which are approximately 3 servings of vegetables and 2 servings
of fruit per day. The experimental supplement dose was 6
capsules per day, which provided an estimated 7.5 mg A-
carotene, 200 mg vitamin C, 60 mg vitamin E, and 600 mcg
folate. Given this, it’s open to question what impact a high-dose
multivitamin would have compared to the supplement.
The main finding was that Juice Plus+ diminished the increase in
oxidative damage to plasma protein, which increased at 80%
VO2max with 40-min duration. The other significant finding
was the redox state of human serum albumin (HSA) was not
affected by Juice Plus+. Regarding the lack of effect of the
supplement on HSA (despite successful prevention of protein
damage), the authors hypothesize that the supplement might
have exerted its effects somewhere between the chain reaction
between the “first line of defense” and the end products of the
oxidants’ attacks on the plasma proteins. Basically, they were
befuddled as to why. Nevertheless, the supplemented group did
not incur the exercise-induced oxidative damage seen in the
placebo group.
The big question that comes to mind is whether or not Juice
Plus+ exerts superior effects to simply eating the recommended
daily amount of fruits and vegetables. This question is not a
likely candidate for investigation – at least not by NSA. Since
my practice focuses on altering body composition, substituting
encapsulated constituents in place of whole fruits and vegetables
might preserve some of their antioxidant effects, but this would
be at the expense of a potentially significant degree of satiety
and displacement of calorie-dense foods in the diet. For the high
proportion of overweight individuals on the planet, I’m not
convinced that this is an even trade.
[Back to Contents] Page 8
Examination of a pre-exercise, high energy supplement
on exercise performance.
Hoffman JR, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Jan 6;6:2.
[Medline]
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect
of a pre-exercise high energy drink on reaction time and
anaerobic power in competitive strength/power athletes. In
addition, the effect of the pre-exercise drink on subjective
feelings of energy, fatigue, alertness and focus was also
explored. METHODS: Twelve male strength/power athletes
(21.1 +/- 1.3 y; 179.8 +/- 7.1 cm; 88.6 +/- 12.1 kg; 17.6 +/- 3.3%
body fat) underwent two testing sessions administered in a
randomized and double-blind fashion. During each session,
subjects reported to the Human Performance Laboratory and
were provided with either 120 ml of a high energy drink (SUP),
commercially marketed as Redline Extreme or 120 ml of a
placebo (PL) that was similar in taste and appearance but
contained no active ingredients. Following consumption of the
supplement or placebo subjects rested quietly for 10-minutes
prior to completing a survey and commencing exercise. The
survey consisted of 4 questions asking each subject to describe
their feelings of energy, fatigue, alertness and focus for that
moment. Following the completion of the questionnaire subjects
performed a 2-minute quickness and reaction test on the Makoto
testing device (Makoto USA, Centennial CO) and a 20-second
Wingate Anaerobic Power test. Following a 10-minute rest
subjects repeated the testing sequence and after a similar rest
period a third and final testing sequence was performed. The
Makoto testing device consisted of subjects reacting to both a
visual and auditory stimulus and striking one out of 30 potential
targets on three towers. RESULTS: Significant difference in
reaction performance was seen between SUP and PL in both
average number of targets struck (55.8 +/- 7.4 versus 51.9 +/-
7.4, respectively) and percent of targets struck (71.9 +/- 10.5%
versus 66.8 +/- 10.9%, respectively). No significant differences
between trials were seen in any anaerobic power measure.
Subjective feelings of energy (3.5 +/- 0.5 versus 3.1 +/- 0.5) and
focus (3.8 +/- 0.5 versus 3.3 +/- 0.7) were significantly higher
during SUP compared to PL, respectively. In addition, a trend
towards an increase in average alertness (p = 0.06) was seen in
SUP compared to P. CONCLUSION: Results indicate a
significant increase in reaction performance, with no effect on
anaerobic power performance. In addition, ingestion of this
supplement significantly improves subjective feelings of focus
and energy in male strength/power athletes. SPONSORSHIP:
Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FL, USA).
Study strengths
To minimize the limitations of the small sample, a crossover was
implemented. In other words, the experimental and control
treatments were undergone by both groups, with a 1-week
washout period between trials. Interesting new technology was
used to assess physical performance, more on this in the
comment/application section.
Study limitations
It would have been useful to have a caffeine-only arm in this
study. As it stands, the experimental supplement (VPX Redline
Extreme) was compared with a placebo, whose description was
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
nothing more than an “inert substance”, which I’m assuming
was non-caloric. Given the generally positive track record of
caffeine, it’s very predictable that a caffeine-containing solution
will work better than nothing for tasks involving exercise
performance. Another limitation was a lack of dietary control;
subjects were instructed to refrain from eating 3 hours prior to
testing. Given that digestion and absorption of a full-sized meal
can far exceed 3 hours, a standardized pre-trial meal would have
minimized the confounding variability of dietary influences.
Comment/application
The Makoto device is
eight feet from base to
apex, consisting of three
6-foot-tall steel towers
with 10 targets each.
The reaction test began
with a loud auditory
stimulus. During the
next two minutes
subjects were required
to react to both a visual
and auditory stimulus.
As the gong sounded
and the light on the
target lit up, the subject
was required to lunge
and make contact with the target using a padded staff. Subjects
were required to make as many contacts as possible within the 2-
minute period. The average number and percentage of hits was
determined. The benefit of using this device is the ability to
measure quickness/reaction time in a controlled, precise manner.
Of course, the potential limitation is that the device represents a
generalized series of challenges rather than real-life task-
specificity. Nevertheless, there’s definite potential for crossover
into a variety of actual scenarios in sports or combat.
Redline Extreme is VPX’s latest racehorse in the lucrative energy
drink market. To illustrate just how popular these products are,
Froiland et al conducted a survey of varsity athletes at a Division
I university.13 The most frequently used supplements were energy
drinks (73%). Next were calorie replacement products of all types
(61.4%), with a multivitamin coming in 3rd place (47.3%).
Creatine (37.2%) and vitamin C (32.4%) rounded out the rest of
the field. Redline Extreme contains a “proprietary blend” of
ingredients (beta-alanine, vitamin C, evodiamine, tyrosine,
tyramine, hordinine, 5-HTP, potassium, silbutiamine, vinpocetine,
yohimbine HCL, and St. John’s wort). Of the latter list, the
amounts per can of Redline Extreme are unspecified except for
caffeine (250 mg), vitamin C (126% daily value), and potassium
(1% of daily value).
It’s common for supplement companies to use undisclosed,
insignificant doses of a wide array of compounds under the veil of
a proprietary blend. This loophole provides the freedom to
economize on the more expensive ingredients while still having
them appear on the label. The active ingredient in the mix is
caffeine, and at 250 mg, it’s the coffee equivalent of 2-3 cups.
Underneath the marketing, Redline Extreme is yet another vehicle
for caffeine, the most widely used drug in the world.14
[Back to Contents] Page 9

Weight loss is greater with consumption of large
morning meals and fat-free mass is preserved with
large evening meals in women on a controlled weight
reduction regimen.
Keim NL, et al. J Nutr. 1997 Jan;127(1):75-82. [Medline]
PURPOSE: To determine whether meal ingestion pattern [large
morning meals (AM) vs. large evening meals (PM)] affects
changes in body weight, body composition or energy utilization
during weight loss. METHODS: Ten women completed a
metabolic ward study of 3-wk weight stabilization followed by
12 wk of weight loss with a moderately energy restricted diet
[mean energy intake +/- SD = 107 +/- 6 kJ/(kg.d)] and regular
exercise. The weight loss phase was divided into two 6-wk
periods. During period 1, 70% of daily energy intake was taken
as two meals in the AM (n = 4) or in the PM (n = 6). Subjects
crossed over to the alternate meal time in period 2. RESULTS:
Both weight loss and fat-free mass loss were greater with the
AM than the PM meal pattern: 3.90 +/- 0.19 vs. 3.27 +/- 0.26
kg/6 wk, P < 0.05, and 1.28 +/- 0.14 vs. 0.25 +/- 0.16 kg/6 wk, P
< 0.001, respectively. Change in fat mass and loss of body
energy were affected by order of meal pattern ingestion. The PM
pattern resulted in greater loss of fat mass in period 1 (P < 0.01)
but not in period 2. Likewise, resting mid-afternoon fat oxidation
rate was higher with the PM pattern in period 1 (P < 0.05) but
not in period 2, corresponding with the fat mass changes.
CONCLUSION: Ingestion of larger AM meals resulted in
slightly greater weight loss, but ingestion of larger PM meals
resulted in better maintenance of fat-free mass. Thus,
incorporation of larger PM meals in a weight loss regimen may
be important in minimizing the loss of fat-free mass.
SPONSORSHIP: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Study strengths
This study was more meticulously designed and executed than
the vast majority of dietary interventions I’ve seen. A very high
degree of control over all aspects intake and output was
imposed. Subjects lived in the metabolic suite at the Western
Human Nutrition Research Center, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week for the entire 105-day duration of the study. All activity,
including formal exercise and non-exercise activity, was
standardized. A crossover was implemented, reducing the
limitation of the small sample (10 subjects completed the study).
Instead of one-per-day treatments, the diets (4 meals a day) were
patterned to reflect more common/realistic variations. The
energy intake of the AM pattern was distributed: 35% at
breakfast, 35% at lunch, 15% at dinner and 15% at evening
snack. The PM pattern was distributed: 15% at breakfast, 15% at
lunch, 35% at dinner and 35% at evening snack.
Mean energy intake throughout the trial was approximately 2000
kcal. This intake makes the outcomes of this trial applicable to
those on moderate or non-severe diets. Subjects’ compliance was
excellent, ranging from 99-100% of the prescribed energy
intake. A comprehensive, standardized exercise program was
administered. It consisted of outside walks, treadmill work, and
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
progressive resistance training.
Study limitations
To reiterate, the sample size was small. Questions remain about
how men might respond to this intervention done on an all-
female sample. 2 out of 12 original subjects dropped out,
causing an imbalance (4 in one group, 6 in the other). I could nit-
pick at the limits of applicability of the test diets, which
averaged 88 g protein, 293 g CHO, and 49 g fat. Dieters in this
day and age typically don’t consume a high-carbohydrate diet as
seen in this trial, so questions remain about how the outcomes of
a low-carbohydrate version of this trial might have differed.
Comment/application
Two trials done in 1975 examined a similar question as the
present trial (also using 2000 kcals), and arrived at similar
findings – less weight loss with the bulk of the calories in the
evening.15,16 However, these trials were very short-term, used
single-meal designs, and did not measure body composition. The
present trial attempted to mimic more realistic conditions,
included formal exercise, and measured body composition with
total-body electrical conductivity (TOBEC), which has been
validated as accurate and reliable.17,18 TOBEC has not been a
commonly used means of assessing body composition in recent
trials, and the reasons for this are anyone’s guess.
The results of this trial refute the common belief that calories
consumed later versus earlier in the day are more fattening. A
popular variant of this dogma is that carbohydrates consumed
later in day are more fattening than those eaten earlier in the day.
This trial refutes that idea as well. The test diets contained nearly
300g carbohydrate, and in the PM group, the majority of calories
eaten late in the day indeed were carbohydrate.
The AM group consumed 70% of their calories early in the day,
while the PM group consumed 70% of their calories later in the
day. For the second experimental period, the groups switched to
the alternate energy intake pattern. For both groups, the time of
the exercise sessions remained constant throughout both
experimental periods. Interestingly, there was a lack of
significant difference in body composition across the treatments
despite the static placement of exercise earlier in the day. Amidst
the current emphasis of nutrient timing around training, one
would expect to see improvement in lean mass retention in the
AM group, but the opposite occurred. Yet another interesting
outcome was that the greatest rate of fat oxidation in the entire
study was seen in the PM group in the first phase (before the
crossover). Overall, the PM treatment caused the greatest loss in
bodyfat and least decrease in lean mass – although not to a
statistically significant degree. As I’ll quote the authors’
conclusion, the PM treatment had the edge:
“A desired outcome of a weight loss intervention is to minimize
loss of fat-free mass, and the consumption of larger meals in the
evening may very well contribute to achieving this outcome,
particularly if the retention of fat-free mass proves to be lean
tissue and not merely water.”
Another myth bites the dust.
[Back to Contents] Page 10
 18. Van Loan MD, et al. TOBEC methodology for body
composition assessment: a cross-validation study. Am J Clin
1. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition Nutr. 1987 Jul;46(1):9-12. [Medline]
position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr.
2007 Sep 26;4:8. [Medline]
2. Tipton KD, et al. Stimulation of net muscle protein
synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after
exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007
Jan;292(1):E71-6. [Medline]
3. Tipton KD, et al. Stimulation of net muscle protein
synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after
exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007
Jan;292(1):E71-6. [Medline]
4. Zawadski KM, et al. Carbohydrate-protein complex
increases the rate of muscle glycogen storage after exercise.
J Appl Physiol. 1992 May;72(5):1854-9. [Medline]
5. Carrithers JA, et al. Effects of postexercise carbohydrate-
protein feedings on muscle glycogen restoration. J Appl
Physiol. 2000 Jun;88(6):1976-82. [Medline]
6. 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]
7. Jentjens R, Jeukendrup A. Determinants of postexercise
glycogen synthesis during short-term recovery. Sports Med.
2003;33(2):117-44. Review. [Medline]
8. Williams MB, et al. Effects of recovery beverages on
glycogen restoration and endurance exercise performance. J
Strength Cond Res. 2003 Feb;17(1):12-9. [Medline]
9. Saunders MJ, et al. Effects of a carbohydrate-protein
beverage on cycling endurance and muscle damage. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Jul;36(7):1233-8. [Medline]
10. 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]
11. Howarth KR, et al. Co-ingestion of protein with
carbohydrate during recovery from endurance exercise
stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in humans. J
Appl Physiol. 2008 Nov 26. [Epub ahead of print]
[Medline]
12. Martin J. NSA: the company behind your virtual franchise.
Accessed Jan 2008. [NSA Vitrual Franchise]
13. Froiland K, et al. Nutritional supplement use among college
athletes and their sources of information. Int J Sport Nutr
Exerc Metab. 2004 Feb;14(1):104-20. [Medline]
14. McCusker RR, et al. Caffeine content of decaffeinated
coffee. J Anal Toxicol. 2006 Oct;30(8):611-3. [Medline]
15. Hirsh E, et al. Body weight change during 1 week on a
single daily 2000-calorie meal consumed as breakfast (B) or
dinner (D). Chronobiologia. 1975;2(suppl 1):31-32. [no
medline record]
16. Jacobs H, et al. Relative body weight loss on limited free-
choice meal consumed as breakfast rather than as dinner.
Chronobiologia. 1975;2(suppl 1):33. [no medline record]
17. Presta E, et al. Comparison in man of total body electrical
conductivity and lean body mass derived from body density:
validation of a new body composition method. Metabolism.
1983 May;32(5):524-7. [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009 [Back to Contents] Page 11


Deconstructing CrossFit.
By Mike Howard
CrossFit has catapulted itself into the stratosphere of fitness
popularity over the past few years. CrossFit has become a
hotbed of controversy amongst fitness professionals and exercise
enthusiasts alike. For those who are unfamiliar with CrossFit, it
is a training system built around high intensity lifting –
incorporating Olympic lifts, kettlebells, body weight exercises
and infinite combinations thereof. CrossFit’s mandate is to
create "the quintessential athlete” by promoting a brand of
exercise that tackles 10 physical attributes;
cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength,
flexibility, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, and
accuracy.1 CrossFit was founded by ex-gymnast Greg Glassman,
and according to Business News Network, CrossFit is "one of
the fastest growing fitness movements on the planet” – with
affiliate gyms burgeoning from 18 to 881 since 2005.2
My intention is to serve up a critical analysis on the mystique
that is the CrossFit methodology. I aim to do so with a
scientific, analytical eye, whilst maintaining open-mindedness.
A couple of disclaimers
Right out of the shoot, I am going to roll out some caveats in an
attempt to placate both extremes of the CrossFit believer
continuum. Internet forums tend to be a breeding grounds for
polarity, misunderstanding and good old fashioned poop-
slinging – as evidenced by a couple of pieces published in T-
Nation.3,4 I hope these qualifiers will level the playing field.
1. We need to separate the practitioners from the system. It
would be myopic if not irresponsible of me to offer up
either an across-the-board COMMENdation or
CONDEMNation of CrossFit – or any other system for
that matter. I duly acknowledge that there are very skilled
CrossFit coaches out there amongst the decidedly
deplorable ones. As such, any generalization or
presumption will be based on what I believe to be
“typical” situations/workouts/philosophies of CrossFit.
2. We need to address the CrossFit “grey zones”: There
exists a lot of crossover between CrossFit and more
traditional forms of strength and high intensity training.
As such, I have no intention to compare CrossFit to other
systems of training. I acknowledge that the aspects of
CrossFit that I scrutinize are not necessarily unique to
CrossFit.
3. When commenting on CrossFit, I will be doing so based
on my own research, experience and observations. I have
no vested interest in bastardizing CrossFit or aggrandizing
more traditional systems of strength training.
With those 3 items in mind, buckle up and let’s get going!
What I like about CrossFit
Take a look at a typical CrossFit facility and what you have is
pretty much my dream facility – Bars, plates, gymnastics rings,
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
kettlebells, boxes, ropes and plenty of floor space. As an
organization, they have certainly distanced themselves from the
traditional, undesirable aspects of the typical gym - rows upon
rows of cardio equipment, weight machines, balance
implements, “hi/low” classes, yoga, pilates, yoga-lates, pilate-
oga, cardio/dance/strip-aerobic/hyper-fusion-pump classes…you
get the picture.
The cornerstone of CrossFit workouts are lifts and movements
that are highly functional and conducive to accelerated progress
in overall fitness and potentially body composition. Indeed they
are the very movements that most people should be learning and
incorporating into their own fitness regimes – and ones that
frighteningly high amount of personal trainers don’t make use
of.
CrossFit Critique: A Preamble
In analyzing the CrossFit method, I propose that the flaws to
their system are layered. As such, I have decided to break down
my dissertation into both macro and micro-critiques. The macro
will focus on the deep-routed and systemic flaws to the CrossFit
system – its philosophies, mentalities and such. The micro will
address the more specific physiological and what I would call
intangible shortcomings – most of which stem from the systemic
flaws.
CrossFit Critique – The Macro Flaws
Flimsy Accreditation Process
Perhaps the most glaring chink in the armor that is CrossFit is
the very process involved in becoming one of them. A weekend
and a cool $1000 is all it takes to be on board, which is
laughable – even by personal training certification standards.
CrossFitters usually play the red herring card here – arguing that
their process is no less stringent than other personal training
certifications. While I agree that most personal training
certification requirements are shoddy, the very nature of
CrossFit inherently demands a higher standard of knowledge.
Part and parcel of the feeble accreditation process is the
inevitability of a watered down quality of coaches – a problem
that even the most devout CrossFitters acknowledge.
Cookie Cutting
I’ve always held to the belief that there is little room for canned
workouts or systems in the world of fitness. While pre-
packaging is a good way to make lots of money, it just doesn’t
jibe with the very foundational aspects of pragmatic
programming. So while you can almost make the
standardization argument for a system like Curves – CrossFit is
a whole different animal. The higher the intensity and
complexity of a protocol, the less of a candidate it is for pre-
packaging and release to the masses.
CrossFitters maintain that workouts are scaled and that
intensities are modulated, but there is an undeniably canned
aspect to their system originating from the top of the CrossFit
pecking order – coach Glassman.
[Back to Contents] Page 12
A Cult-Like Elitism and Brashness
With scant exception, coaches and devotees alike believe
CrossFit to be the way, the truth and the light when it comes to
fitness. Their devotion to the system and coach Glassman
borders on creepy when you browse through internet forums and
speak to CrossFitters in person. They have bought in – to the
point where any other training method is vastly inferior and
myopic in its scope. This is evidenced by their trigger-happiness
when anyone prints CrossFit piece that even hints at a downside
to the system. i It is apparent in their fervor when they speak of
CrossFit and what it can do anybody who has the intestinal
fortitude to try it and stick with it. To quote a CrossFitter:
“Working out SHOULD suck. It should hurt. It should make you
want to die.”
Unabashed swagger aside, CrossFit pushes the boundaries of
good tastes when devotees make light of working out until you
vomit and suffer from life-threatening conditions like
rhabdomyolysis (a condition where destruction of the muscle
causes damaged muscle cells to leak into the bloodstream,
potentially damaging the kidneys). They have even created
characters “Pukey the Clown” and “Uncle Rhabdo” and wear the
T-shirts as badges of honor. ‘Cause nothing is quite as funny as
someone on death’s doorstep with poisoned kidneys.
If CrossFit doesn’t start taking these situations seriously, they’ll
have “Uncle Lawsuit” and “Litigation the Clown” after them.
They’re warning shot came this past year when an ex-marine
suffered permanent damage from a CrossFit workout5 (CrossFit
was not named in the suit). The plaintiff, Makimba Mimms was
awarded $300 000 in damages.6
CrossFit Critique: The Physiological Flaws
Inadequate screening
When a certification stream doesn’t cover anatomy, physiology
or biomechanics, it should come as no surprise that screening is
not part of the curriculum. If you don’t remember where the
inferior gemellus inserts – I’m okay with that. If you possess
little to no ability to detect faulty movement patterns in a squat
or deadlift, have no idea what a normal range of dorsiflexion is,
can’t describe and recognize “neutral spine” or have no
semblance of how certain postures can affect certain lifts – I
have a BIG problem with that. Again, the complexity and
magnitude of the type of workouts demand it.
Disregard for appropriate progression
One of the hallmarks of smart programming is the ability to
apply the science and art of progression – systematically taking
people through workouts when they are physically and mentally
prepared for it. Piling weight on someone who doesn’t have
mastery of the given movement presents an unnecessary
potential for injury. In CrossFit’s defense, a group-based setting
makes progression very challenging, but again I must point to
the folly of mass producing something that needs to be
individualized.
Arbitrary Programming
In following CrossFit WODs (workout of the day) posted on
their site and inquiring about how coaches design workouts –
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
there appears to be little to no justification for the exercise
selections/volume scheme/order and the like. Okay, I get that
this is their modus operandi, but there is a fundamental
difference between strategically integrating well-timed variety
and randomly pulling exercises out of your wazoo. One of the
more undesirable trends in personal training has been the cult of
variety and CrossFit – for all their disdain of the current fitness
culture, appears to follow suit here. Many trainers have become
married to the idea that if you don’t “shake things up” – all the
time, the client won’t see results and/or will succumb to
boredom. The irony is that we see variety as the key to
progression when it may in fact be what’s keeping our clients
from progressing. In essence, there doesn’t appear to be any
rhyme or reason to the workout scheme – just different versions
of yank-your-guts-out intensity.
Excessive Programming
Recall that I was on board with big lifts – including the Olympic
lifts, deadlifts and other compound movements. Heck, I’m all
for balls to the wall intensity -
WITHIN…THE….PROPER…CONTEXT. Intensities must be
introduced in a graded fashion when/if the individuals
goals/abilities are conducive to such. Anybody with half a brain
can work someone until they can barely walk.
To be fair, CrossFit offers “scaled down” workouts but still
don’t seem to put much credence on individual needs. One of
the aspects of the CrossFit workouts that makes lifting coaches
raise an eyebrow are the prolific rep schemes of some of the
Olympic lifts. Strength coach Alwyn Cosgrove notes:
"A recent CrossFit workout was 30 reps of snatches with 135
pounds. A snatch is an explosive exercise designed to train
power development. Thirty reps is endurance. You don't use
an explosive exercise to train endurance; there are more
effective and safer choices.”
Let me be clear on something – you can bring somebody to the
verge of tears by doing wall angels and X-tubing side steps.
You can go after weak links without compromising much (if
anything) in the way of progress.
Poorly managed Recovery
Perhaps a corollary of CrossFit’s excessive programming is the
lack of attention to proper recovery. Rest is as big a part of the
performance-enhancing process as the exercise sessions
themselves. Recovery needs differ from one individual to the
next, but there seems to be a deficiency in working recovery into
the individual sessions as well as the micro, meso and
macrocycles. If you are responsible for pushing people to
physical extremes, you have the responsibility to know the
effects of fatigue and recovery. It is important to have a
physiological understanding of both peripheral and central
fatigue and its impact on the individual participant.
Studies demonstrate the adverse effect of fatigue functions such
as landing mechanics, postural control, and neuromuscular
function. Fatigue causes substantial degradation in central
processing and/or control pathways.7 This has been shown to
increase injury risk in recreational and non-athletes –
[Back to Contents] Page 13
specifically stress fractures,8 ankle injuries,9 ACL injuries in
females10 and overall injury risk to sub-elite athletes.11 From
this we can see that there is a risk-reward equation that we have
to consider here – especially for the newbies.
Jack-of-all fitness markers
CrossFit has created a marketing juggernaut by promising to
make people great at everything. In theory, it sounds ideal –
why wouldn’t someone want to be the most physically well-
rounded specimen out there? The popular counter argument is
the “jack-of-all trades, master of none” contention – an argument
I only partially agree with, depending on how it’s presented.
No, you will not become the greatest at any one thing, but I
don’t buy the detractors who think you’ll be “mediocre” at
everything. The average person will make some pretty solid all-
around gains by doing CrossFit - barring injury of course. My
take on the complete athlete argument is this;
ƒ Attack the most glaring weaknesses first: Rather than
taking square pegs and trying to pound them into round
holes, go after the weakest links – address postural
deviations, movement pattern dysfunctions, imbalances
and asymmetries.
ƒ Given the right type/intensity of a strength training
protocol, there is no reason why the average person
wouldn’t improve on most of the 10 fitness domains, as
outlined by CrossFit. Mix in an anaerobically-dominant
sport during the week and you pretty much cover
everything. Bottom line – you can improve all 10
markers effectively and efficiently without CrossFit. To
what degree makes for interesting discussion.
ƒ We need to ask: What are you trying to accomplish?
Individual needs/goal reign supreme here. A good coach
will respect this and work you accordingly.
CrossFit: Best for the Military?
The aforementioned lawsuit brings to light the growing trend of
the Military using CrossFit workouts. On the surface it would
appear to be an ideal match, afterall the demands of CrossFit
parallel the demands of combat. Consider though the monstrous
issue of injuries in the military,13 specifically musculoskeletal
injuries and even more specifically, lower back injuries.14 With
this in mind, it would only make sense to get some better
screening, with an emphasis on “pre-habbing” and moving
correctly instead of just pummeling them with high intensity
workouts with little to no regard for proper movement.
Experts Weigh In
The following are some quotes from some of the top
performance and rehabilitation experts in the field:
“They took some good equipment, good metabolic ideas and
good lifts and through them all together and let anybody,
anywhere, anytime do them at extreme…they’re getting a few
things right, but when it comes to the things that Mike and I
(Mike Boyle) believe in the most – proper coaching, good
supervision, proper technique and… why don’t you frickin’
screen somebody before you throw task at them!”
- Gray Cook
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
“I don’t think most adults are orthopedically geared towards
Olympic lifting…any good Olympic lifting coach will tell you
that you cannot have the level of technical mastery and do
high repetition exercises.
- Mike Boyle
[Both of the above quotes are courtesy of Stregthcoach.com
podcast episode 19.5]
"That's a great disc herniator," (watching a video of a hip-
back extension exercise on the CrossFit website). "A lot of
lifts and jumps are demonstrated by people with wonderful
form. But the average person could open themselves up to the
risk of injury."15
- Stuart McGill
My Crossfit Experience
Determined to get into the trenches of a CrossFit experience, I
visited the top CrossFit game in Canada. It was a monster of a
facility with half a dozen coaches (each of whom went by
nicknames) and a bevy of recruits. I had a fascinating discussion
with the owner – a garrulous man with an affinity for 4-letter
bombs and an undeniable confidence in what he provided. I was
impressed with his candor as he admitted some mistakes early
on in his CrossFit journey. If there is a right way to do CrossFit
– this guy’s found it.
Being the first Canadian affiliate and a personal friend of coach
Glassman, this guy got in on the ground floor and built his way
into what looks like a pretty lucrative operation (he mentioned
that 2 of his trainers are flirting with 6 figure incomes).
There is certainly a tight-knit community in the place – no BS,
no sugar-coating, just keep-your-mouth-shut hard work. He is
accepting of all walks of life but has no trouble showing people
the door who are high maintenance.
I challenged him on some of the CrossFit philosophies that I find
flawed – most notably progression. Turns out the dude honors
progression - seeing clients individually for several dozen
sessions if necessary, before integrating them into group classes.
His screening methods leave a lot to be desired (sign a waiver,
sprint 400m with a medicine ball, take heart rate) and he didn’t
seem to put much stock in the rehab process.
Overall, I think this particular operation got many things right
and I will take him up on the free workout some day.
I also emailed a dozen or so CrossFitters some queries about
their methods. Nothing terribly challenging or contentious, just
some questions about screening, perceived misconceptions and
how closely they follow the originally-intended protocol. Well,
it seems this particular group keeps their cards close to their
chests. I got some timely responses, but mostly inquisitions;
“who are you writing for”, “what are your credentials”, etc. Fair
questions, but upon answering them honestly I received nothing.
Oh well.
[Back to Contents] Page 14
Recap
There is no perfect system. CrossFit has some good things
going for it but has some glaring flaws from the top down. Now
we mustn’t throw out the exercise selection baby out with the ill-
conceived and haphazard programming bathwater. CrossFit
serves a niche – and serves it very well. It would be difficult to
argue against the legions of followers who have achieved
formidable results by using their system. I think it can be of
great benefit to those who are fit to begin with, injury free and
have no apparent dysfunction. It would serve an athlete or
highly trained individual well in terms of a general preparatory
conditioning stint – something to cross train them in shorter
spurts.
Perhaps the most glaring downfall of CrossFit is the very
essence of what makes a great trainer or coach – adequate and
appropriate screening and timely progression. The haphazardly
high-intensity nature of the activity, inadequate recovery and
disregard for progression is a recipe for injury potential. This
stems from the level of training not being commensurate with
the demands that CrossFitters bestow on their clients.
With CrossFit’s popularity being relatively new, only time will
tell the degree of its effectiveness and/or the depth and breadth
of its shortcomings. Until then, proceed with caution.
Mike Howard is a Vancouver, British Columbia-based personal
trainer, writer, and educator - specializing in fat loss and
corrective exercise. He is a regular contributor to Diet Blog
(www.diet-blog.com), and has supplied articles to several local
and national magazines and newspapers. Mike has also taught
personal training preparatory and other continuing education
courses. More information on Mike can be found at his website:
www.coreconceptswellness.com
References:
1. CrossFit Wikipedia Entry.
2. Business News Network (November 2, 2007).
3. T-Nation: Bad-Ass Mo-Fo’s, January, 2006.
4. T-Nation: The Truth about CrossFit. November, 2008.
5. NY Times This Week Magazine, March 2008.
6. Marine Corps Times. August 19, 2008.
7. Marine Corps Times. October 13, 2008.
8. Spiking Fatigue. Biomechanics Archives, April, 2008.
9. C. Roger James, Janet S. Dufek, Barry T. Bates. Effects of
stretch shortening cycle exercise fatigue on stress fracture
injury risk during landing. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport. March, 2006
10. Gutierrez GM, Jackson ND, Dorr KA, et al. Effect of
fatigue on neuromuscular function at the ankle. J Sport
Rehabil 2007;16(4):295-306.
11. Borotikar BS, Newcomer R, Koppes R, McLean SG.
Combined effects of fatigue and decision making on female
lower limb landing postures: central and peripheral
contributions to ACL injury risk. Clin Biomech
2008;23(1):81-92.
12. Tim J. Gabbett, BHSc(Hons), PhD, Nathan Domrow, BSc.
Risk Factors for Injury in Subelite Rugby League Players.
Am J Sports Med September 1, 2007 35:1537-1543.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January, 2009
13. Kenton R Kaufman, PhDa, Stephanie Brodine, MDbc,
Richard Shaffer. Military training-related injuries:
Surveillance, research, and prevention. Journal of
preventative Medicine. Volume 18, Issue 3, Supplement 1,
Pages 54-63 (April 2000).
14. Cohen SP, Griffith S, Larkin TM, et al. Presentation,
diagnoses, mechanisms of injury, and treatment of soldiers
injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom: an epidemiological
study conducted at two military pain management centers.
Anesthesia and Analgesia 2005;101:1098-1103.
15. The Globe and Mail: No Puke, no Gain. January 11th,
2008.
Indeed, I actually review the reviews I write so the info doesn’t
escape my memory too quickly. In doing so, I’ll catch an
occasional flub. I’ll report the significant ones in future Errata
sections as I catch them.
ƒ In the November 2008 issue, on page 3, Table 2 listed the
weekly decrease of lean individuals as “0.5-0.1 lb; 0.2-0.5
kg”, when the red should read “1.0”. This has been
corrected, so make sure you have the corrected version, or
simply re-download it.
ƒ In the February 2008 issue, on page 6, the boxed guidelines
in bold (point b) have been reworded to more accurately
convey the specifics. This has been corrected, so please
make sure you have the latest version, or simply re-
download it to be doubly sure.
Katherine Hobson of US News & World Report interviewed a
few registered dietitians, and... Me. The topic was how to
manage the junkfest of Superbowl Sunday. Read the blog post
here.
If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, bones of
contention, cheers, jeers, guest articles you’d like to submit, or
any feedback at all, send it over to aarrsupport@gmail.com. All
suggestions are taken very seriously. I want to make sure this
publication continues to kick ass, I mean, butt.
[Back to Contents] Page 15