Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Real Chocolate Cake: how to make it? with 100% REAL cacao of course- "100% or go home"
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Chocolate is good for us. Really. It's got all sorts of health things going for it - particularly when it's as close to its pure cacao form as possible (here's a detailed overview of why). I really enjoy a square of Lindt 85% or 99% cacao bar for a taste treat in the evening - one of the advantages is that that's pretty much all a person wants: one square - very satisfying.
Recently i was welcomed to the next level of cacao bliss: baking with the stuff - pure 100% cacao. Oh wow. No offense to Baker's Chocolate, but my word, the taste difference of using real cacao is so incredible, my guess is once you try it you won't want anything else. Let me help you prove this to yourself.
In the UK, there is a company called Willie's cacao (no affiliation, and i'm sorry about the annoying flash site) that sells cacao in these chunky cylynders that's ideal for baking and cooking.
The chocolate itself supposedly comes from the owner's farm on the Other Side of the pond and to the south, while it's processed in the UK on 100 year old chocolate making equipment. Not sure how that makes it taste better, but oh well.
The point is that one can swap out cooking chocolate like bakers from any recipe, put this stuff in instead and suddenly the taste experience just goes up - exponentially.
By way of example, if you would really like to give this taste experience a chance, here's avariant on an old but delicious Baker's Chocolate Cake Recipe, that really, if you do this swap, you'll be well, on another plane of desert experience.
This is not a recipe that is shy of real serious ingredients. Use them; don't skip on making anything less fat than is called for. You're doing this because you know you can make this, freeze it and take out a piece from time to time. Seriously. IT's almost better (like Sara Lee cake if made by gods) post frozen.
Ok Here we go:
classic german chocolate cake (history of german choc. cake)
Prep Time: 40 minutes. Bake Time 30 minutes
a whole cylynder of the Peruvian Black Willie's Cacao (180g)
1,1/4 cup butter
2 1/2 cup granulated sugar (prefer organic castor sugar or nat. unrefined cane sugar)
6 eggs
2 cups all purpose flour
1tsp baking soda
1 cup buttermilk - no skimping
Coconut Pecan Icing
1 cup evaporated milk
1 cup granulated sugar
3 slightly beaten egg yolks
1/2 cup butter
1 tsp vanilla - real vanilla, please
1 1/2 cup schreded coconut - try to get flakes, and not fresh - that's too moist
1 cup chopped pecans
Cake:
1. nuke the chocoalate and butter in a big nuker bowl on high for about 2 minutes. stui until choc. is completely melted.
2. stir in sugar until well belnded . Add eggs one at a time, mix well. Beat in flour and baking soda alternately with buttermilk until smooth. Pour into bunt pan (here we break with tradition of the cake pans)
3. Bake in preheated 350F oven for 1hr10mi. Use the toothpick test if you wish to check readiness. for departure from over. Cool on a rack.
Icing:
Combine milk, sugar, egg yolks, butter and vanilla in saucepan. Bring to a BOIL. COok and stir over medium heat about 8 to 10 minutes or until golden. Remove from heat. Stir in cocnut and nuts. Cool, spread frosting over top of cake.
Now that last instruction is tricky. You'll have frosting left over most like which is fine as it can be used on the side by guests (or yourself depnding on mood) to add more like a spread should they wish - or decline and pretend to be healthier for declining extra icing.
Experience
Well what can i tell you? it's delicious the first day; it matures and tastes richer the seond, and post freezing, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
This is not a cheap cake - the chocolate alone is 6quid; ya'll know how much butter and high grade eggs cost, but really quality ingredients do make a difference. And if food is something you love, and for something that will be available for some time unless you go all gluttonish on it, it will be a wonderful experience for yourself, or you and the folks you love.
I'd be keen to hear if you can't get Willie's in your country, what options you've found for Cooking Cacao.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
In the UK, there is a company called Willie's cacao (no affiliation, and i'm sorry about the annoying flash site) that sells cacao in these chunky cylynders that's ideal for baking and cooking.
The chocolate itself supposedly comes from the owner's farm on the Other Side of the pond and to the south, while it's processed in the UK on 100 year old chocolate making equipment. Not sure how that makes it taste better, but oh well.
The point is that one can swap out cooking chocolate like bakers from any recipe, put this stuff in instead and suddenly the taste experience just goes up - exponentially.
By way of example, if you would really like to give this taste experience a chance, here's avariant on an old but delicious Baker's Chocolate Cake Recipe, that really, if you do this swap, you'll be well, on another plane of desert experience.
This is not a recipe that is shy of real serious ingredients. Use them; don't skip on making anything less fat than is called for. You're doing this because you know you can make this, freeze it and take out a piece from time to time. Seriously. IT's almost better (like Sara Lee cake if made by gods) post frozen.
Ok Here we go:
classic german chocolate cake (history of german choc. cake)
Prep Time: 40 minutes. Bake Time 30 minutes
a whole cylynder of the Peruvian Black Willie's Cacao (180g)
1,1/4 cup butter
2 1/2 cup granulated sugar (prefer organic castor sugar or nat. unrefined cane sugar)
6 eggs
2 cups all purpose flour
1tsp baking soda
1 cup buttermilk - no skimping
Coconut Pecan Icing
1 cup evaporated milk
1 cup granulated sugar
3 slightly beaten egg yolks
1/2 cup butter
1 tsp vanilla - real vanilla, please
1 1/2 cup schreded coconut - try to get flakes, and not fresh - that's too moist
1 cup chopped pecans
Cake:
1. nuke the chocoalate and butter in a big nuker bowl on high for about 2 minutes. stui until choc. is completely melted.
2. stir in sugar until well belnded . Add eggs one at a time, mix well. Beat in flour and baking soda alternately with buttermilk until smooth. Pour into bunt pan (here we break with tradition of the cake pans)
3. Bake in preheated 350F oven for 1hr10mi. Use the toothpick test if you wish to check readiness. for departure from over. Cool on a rack.
cooling cake on rack
Icing:
Combine milk, sugar, egg yolks, butter and vanilla in saucepan. Bring to a BOIL. COok and stir over medium heat about 8 to 10 minutes or until golden. Remove from heat. Stir in cocnut and nuts. Cool, spread frosting over top of cake.
exemplar cacao enriched cake, dressed for festive occaision.
Experience
Well what can i tell you? it's delicious the first day; it matures and tastes richer the seond, and post freezing, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
This is not a cheap cake - the chocolate alone is 6quid; ya'll know how much butter and high grade eggs cost, but really quality ingredients do make a difference. And if food is something you love, and for something that will be available for some time unless you go all gluttonish on it, it will be a wonderful experience for yourself, or you and the folks you love.
I'd be keen to hear if you can't get Willie's in your country, what options you've found for Cooking Cacao.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
How Chefs think about Size - Portion Size that is (another b2d nugget)
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
"Despite the focus on the increase in portion sizes and the possible role in the development of obesity, little is known about how portion sizes are determined in restaurants." This is how an intriguing discussion of Chefs and their restaurant food size practices begins. The study aslo notes that eating out has gone up from 2.3x's a week in 1981 to 5 times in 2000. Within that period we know that standard dinner plates have gone from 10 to 12 inch plates. So what do chefs - the folks in the restaurant it turns out who set portion size - think of as "regular" sizes?
Interestingly, chefs over 51 (trained in the smaller portion size era of the 70's) serve smaller sizes than younger chefs raised in the bigger portion period in which we find our super sized selves.
If you think that Chefs are in the know about nutrition when it comes to food prep, this may be a leap of faith. The authors write:
What Motivates Chef Portion Size Selection? Survey says, not surprisingly: "presentation of food", cost, customer expectations. Competition and calorie count had only "some influence." But intriguingly, competition with other restaurants was strongly correlated with portion size of say pasta and steak. What's wild (ok, to me) is that where "customer expectiation" was high, larger veggie side plates were served BUT when calories were perceived to be a biggie, that's when veggie portion sizes got SMALLER. That's rather an interesting insight for what chefs might be taught, no?
And indeed, from the text above on portion sizes, restaurants are serving larger than 2-3oz of veggies - when they serve veggies - and what's wrong with that? 1/2 a cup is nothing. Bring it on - as long as it's sans the oil, butter, deep frying and etc's. Have the condiments on the side and add as necessary. Or not. But that is a topic for another day.
Chef Perceptions: Here's something else interesting from the study: Chefs thought that patrons would notice if a serving size on their plate was 25% smaller - but a few things here: we are lousy at figuring size. And as we know from the last b2d post on energy density work, we can keep the plate looking just as full by using low energy dense foods, and folks can feel satisfied by same.
What does this lack of knowledge in the kitchen mean for eating out? Be not afraid to ask the kitchen to put together something for you closer to your spec, and your sizes, perhaps. Putting together a variety of sides (smaller by nature than their full meal counter parts) can often be great. If you're anything like me - if it's in front of you, you'll eat it (interesting related work showing i fear i'm not unique in this) - so an easier thing for me is just not to have the bigger size in front of me and say "serve it, i just won't eat all of it"
Are these findings a surprise? That chefs (600 surveyed; 80% response rate) seem not to understand that veggies are largely low cal foods, or that their portion sizes are so out of whack with any recommendations for such sizes? Or is it to be expected that chefs simply learn what tastes good and how to prepare it in an appetising way, with younger chefs going for bigger sizes?
Does this mean it is all the more surprising that it was a chef, Jamie Oliver, who noticed the appalling quality of "school dinners" in the UK & now the US? That if a chef noticed, they must be truly terrible?
But perhaps more than anything else, this kind of survey means: trust no one. WHile the study's authors want to investigate ways to help chefs get up to speed with nutrition relative to the food they prepare, in the meantime, we need to educate ourselves about what's healthy or not; an appropriate portion or not, and perhaps what seems is a particular challenge for some folks, to make specific requests of a restaurant when eating out, based on that knowledge.
External Resources:
CITATIONS
"Despite the focus on the increase in portion sizes and the possible role in the development of obesity, little is known about how portion sizes are determined in restaurants." This is how an intriguing discussion of Chefs and their restaurant food size practices begins. The study aslo notes that eating out has gone up from 2.3x's a week in 1981 to 5 times in 2000. Within that period we know that standard dinner plates have gone from 10 to 12 inch plates. So what do chefs - the folks in the restaurant it turns out who set portion size - think of as "regular" sizes?
If you think that Chefs are in the know about nutrition when it comes to food prep, this may be a leap of faith. The authors write:
An unexpected finding of this study was that chefs who reported that calorie content was an important factor when determining portion size reported serving a smaller portion of a vegetable side-dish, such as steamed broccoli, compared with chefs who did not identify calorie content as being important. This suggests that chefs do not understand that such vegetables are low in energy density and can help customers moderate energy intake.So, as we saw in the last b2d post about energy density rather than portion size being a big factor in successful weight management AND meal satisfaction, there's a huge whack of chefs who are failing on both energy density and portion size.
Figure Above: When chefs were asked to describe their perceptions of the average portion size of foods served in their establishments (Figure 1), the majority (76% ) reported serving "regular" portions, and <20% reported serving "large" or "extra-large" portions. When respondents were asked to estimate the typical portion size of penne pasta served in their restaurant, 4 oz (27% ), 6 oz (32% ), and 8 oz (18% ) portions were most frequently reported, with 90% of respondents serving portions larger than United States Department of Agriculture's recommendation of 1 oz. For strip steak, 48% of the respondents indicated that 12 oz steaks were typically served in their establishment, and 28% reporting 8 oz portions as being typical, with 83% of respondents serving portions that were larger than the 5.5 oz that the government recommends should be consumed each day. Most respondents (38% ) reported serving 3-oz portions of a vegetable side-dish, with 31% reporting 4-oz portions. Forty percent of these respondents served vegetable portions larger than United States Department of Agriculture's recommendation of ½ cup (2 to 3 oz). When asked about the size of plates used in their restaurants, 38% reported using 9.25- to 11-inch plates, and 33% reported using 11.25- to 13-inch plates.
What Motivates Chef Portion Size Selection? Survey says, not surprisingly: "presentation of food", cost, customer expectations. Competition and calorie count had only "some influence." But intriguingly, competition with other restaurants was strongly correlated with portion size of say pasta and steak. What's wild (ok, to me) is that where "customer expectiation" was high, larger veggie side plates were served BUT when calories were perceived to be a biggie, that's when veggie portion sizes got SMALLER. That's rather an interesting insight for what chefs might be taught, no?
And indeed, from the text above on portion sizes, restaurants are serving larger than 2-3oz of veggies - when they serve veggies - and what's wrong with that? 1/2 a cup is nothing. Bring it on - as long as it's sans the oil, butter, deep frying and etc's. Have the condiments on the side and add as necessary. Or not. But that is a topic for another day.
Chef Perceptions: Here's something else interesting from the study: Chefs thought that patrons would notice if a serving size on their plate was 25% smaller - but a few things here: we are lousy at figuring size. And as we know from the last b2d post on energy density work, we can keep the plate looking just as full by using low energy dense foods, and folks can feel satisfied by same.What does this lack of knowledge in the kitchen mean for eating out? Be not afraid to ask the kitchen to put together something for you closer to your spec, and your sizes, perhaps. Putting together a variety of sides (smaller by nature than their full meal counter parts) can often be great. If you're anything like me - if it's in front of you, you'll eat it (interesting related work showing i fear i'm not unique in this) - so an easier thing for me is just not to have the bigger size in front of me and say "serve it, i just won't eat all of it"
Are these findings a surprise? That chefs (600 surveyed; 80% response rate) seem not to understand that veggies are largely low cal foods, or that their portion sizes are so out of whack with any recommendations for such sizes? Or is it to be expected that chefs simply learn what tastes good and how to prepare it in an appetising way, with younger chefs going for bigger sizes?
Does this mean it is all the more surprising that it was a chef, Jamie Oliver, who noticed the appalling quality of "school dinners" in the UK & now the US? That if a chef noticed, they must be truly terrible?
TED prize winner, Jamie Oliver, giving his TED talk
But perhaps more than anything else, this kind of survey means: trust no one. WHile the study's authors want to investigate ways to help chefs get up to speed with nutrition relative to the food they prepare, in the meantime, we need to educate ourselves about what's healthy or not; an appropriate portion or not, and perhaps what seems is a particular challenge for some folks, to make specific requests of a restaurant when eating out, based on that knowledge.
External Resources:
- Precision Nutrition - free overview about painless healthy eating heuristics
- Georgie Fear's "Dig In" cook book - healthy AND tasty.
CITATIONS
Condrasky, M., Ledikwe, J., Flood, J., & Rolls, B. (2007). Chefs’ Opinions of Restaurant Portion Sizes* Obesity, 15 (8), 2086-2094 DOI: 10.1038/oby.2007.248
Harnack, L., Steffen, L., Arnett, D., Gao, S., & Luepker, R. (2004). Accuracy of estimation of large food portions☆ Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104 (5), 804-806 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.02.026
Wansink B, Painter JE, & North J (2005). Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obesity research, 13 (1), 93-100 PMID: 15761167Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, May 16, 2010
b2d nugget: portion size is out; energy density is in for effective weight management
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
You'd think with bigger sizes, folks would feel more full after a feeding than with smaller sizes. Apparently not so.
In 2005, researchers were interested in whether the increase in portion size at restaurants and in snack foods was contributing to the obesity epidemic. Rightfully they acknowledge that while that would SEEM to make sense, it's tough to say so conclusively.
So what they did look at was - does eating more make one feel more full (and so maybe eat less at any point?). They also looked at "energy density" - how many calories are packed into a food item with the same weight (broccoli low ed; ice cream, high) - to see if that had an effect on fullness.
Here's the simple takeaway: big pig portions don't leave one more satisfied. But we all know small portions can leave one feeling well hungry. So, solution? Help folks start to mix in low energy dense foods, and that's way more successful than asking them to cut the fat. Guess what? weight loss ensues as their energy uptake (amount of calories a day) goes down.
Here's the abstract
That last line says "eating satisfying portions" - which means that portions can still be pretty unfettered IF you're eating low energy density food. I wrote awhile ago how making mounds of greens super edible just by adding some really good balsamic vinegar. The beauty is, low energy density foods are also often HIGH in nutrient density. So, for instance, leafy greens are rich in macro and micronutrients while being low in kcals.
There's another related study in 2007 that shows however IF you can encourage folks to cut the fat a bit, after awhile, we don't miss it. So again another strategy towards saving kcals and weight management. Here's the abstract about how this finding was constucted:
That's cool. We happily adapt. SO of course someone had to look at the combination of some reduced fat and some engery density lowering foods together. Backlash? not at all. Good results:
The main thing in this last finding it seems is that again, we don't have to fiddle portion size on the plate particularly - which folks have a difficult time with as we looked at back when considering stupid set point theory - BUT get the mix of lowering fat and upping VOLUME of low energy dense food - which means good colours on the plate too, that we get to reduced caloric intake without feeling like we're starving.
Related resources:
Citations
You'd think with bigger sizes, folks would feel more full after a feeding than with smaller sizes. Apparently not so.In 2005, researchers were interested in whether the increase in portion size at restaurants and in snack foods was contributing to the obesity epidemic. Rightfully they acknowledge that while that would SEEM to make sense, it's tough to say so conclusively.
So what they did look at was - does eating more make one feel more full (and so maybe eat less at any point?). They also looked at "energy density" - how many calories are packed into a food item with the same weight (broccoli low ed; ice cream, high) - to see if that had an effect on fullness.
british nutrition foundation "feed yourself fuller" chart
Here's the simple takeaway: big pig portions don't leave one more satisfied. But we all know small portions can leave one feeling well hungry. So, solution? Help folks start to mix in low energy dense foods, and that's way more successful than asking them to cut the fat. Guess what? weight loss ensues as their energy uptake (amount of calories a day) goes down.
Here's the abstract
The increase in the prevalence of obesity has coincided with an increase in portion sizes of foods both inside and outside the home, suggesting that larger portions may play a role in the obesity epidemic. Although it will be difficult to establish a causal relationship between increasing portion size and obesity, data indicate that portion size does influence energy intake. Several well-controlled, laboratory-based studies have shown that providing older children and adults with larger food portions can lead to significant increases in energy intake. This effect has been demonstrated for snacks and a variety of single meals and shown to persist over a 2-d period. Despite increases in intake, individuals presented with large portions generally do not report or respond to increased levels of fullness, suggesting that hunger and satiety signals are ignored or overridden. One strategy to address the effect of portion size is decreasing the energy density (kilojoules per gram; kilocalories per gram) of foods. Several studies have demonstrated that eating low-energy-dense foods (such as fruits, vegetables, and soups) maintains satiety while reducing energy intake. In a clinical trial, advising individuals to eat portions of low-energy-dense foods was a more successful weight loss strategy than fat reduction coupled with restriction of portion sizes. Eating satisfying portions of low-energy-dense foods can help to enhance satiety and control hunger while restricting energy intake for weight management.
There's another related study in 2007 that shows however IF you can encourage folks to cut the fat a bit, after awhile, we don't miss it. So again another strategy towards saving kcals and weight management. Here's the abstract about how this finding was constucted:
This study establishes the reliability and validity of the Fat Preference Questionnaire©, a self-administered instrument to assess preference for dietary fat. Respondents select the food which tastes better and is eaten more frequently from 19 sets of food. Each set is comprised of related foods differing in fat content. The questionnaire was administered to women in laboratory-based (n=63), cross-sectional (n=150), and weight-loss (n=71) studies. The percentage of food sets in which high-fat foods were reported to “taste better” (TASTE score) and to be “eaten more often” (FREQ score) was determined. A measure of dietary fat restriction (DIFF) was created by subtracting TASTE from FREQ. Food intake was assessed by direct measure, 24-h recall, or food diary. Additionally, participants completed a standard survey assessing dietary restraint. Test–retest correlations were high (r=0.75–0.94). TASTE and FREQ scores were positively correlated with total fat intake (r=0.22–0.63). DIFF scores positively correlated with dietary restraint (r=0.39–0.52). Participants in the weight-loss trial experienced declines in fat consumption, TASTE and FREQ scores, and BMI values, and an increase in DIFF scores. Weight loss correlated with declines in FREQ (r=0.36) scores and increases in DIFF scores (r=−0.35). These data suggest that preference for dietary fat declines when following a reduced-fat diet and an increase in restraint for intake of dietary fat is important for weight loss. The Fat Preference Questionnaire© is a stable, easily-administered instrument that can be used in research and clinical settings.
That's cool. We happily adapt. SO of course someone had to look at the combination of some reduced fat and some engery density lowering foods together. Backlash? not at all. Good results:
BACKGROUND: Consuming foods low in energy density (kcal/g) decreases energy intake over several days, but the effectiveness of this strategy for weight loss has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: The effects on weight loss of 2 strategies for reducing the energy density of the diet were compared over 1 y. DESIGN: Obese women (n = 97) were randomly assigned to groups counseled either to reduce their fat intake (RF group) or to reduce their fat intake and increase their intake of water-rich foods, particularly fruit and vegetables (RF+FV group). No goals for energy or fat intake were assigned; the subjects were instructed to eat ad libitum amounts of food while following the principles of their diet. RESULTS: After 1 y, study completers (n = 71) in both groups had significant decreases in body weight (P < 0.0001). Subjects in the RF+FV group, however, had a significantly different pattern of weight loss (P = 0.002) than did subjects in the RF group. After 1 y, the RF+FV group lost 7.9 +/- 0.9 kg and the RF group lost 6.4 +/- 0.9 kg. Analysis of all randomly assigned subjects also showed a different pattern of weight loss between groups (P = 0.021). Diet records indicated that both groups had similar reductions in fat intake. The RF+FV group, however, had a lower dietary energy density than did the RF group (P = 0.019) as the result of consuming a greater weight of food (P = 0.025), especially fruit and vegetables (P = 0.037). The RF+FV group also reported less hunger (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Reducing dietary energy density, particularly by combining increased fruit and vegetable intakes with decreased fat intake, is an effective strategy for managing body weight while controlling hunger.
The main thing in this last finding it seems is that again, we don't have to fiddle portion size on the plate particularly - which folks have a difficult time with as we looked at back when considering stupid set point theory - BUT get the mix of lowering fat and upping VOLUME of low energy dense food - which means good colours on the plate too, that we get to reduced caloric intake without feeling like we're starving.
Related resources:
- b2d nutrition index
- respect the fat
- what's a "whole protein" - esp. going veggie
- set point theory is crap
- why is fish oil anti-inflamatory?
Citations
Ello-Martin JA, Ledikwe JH, & Rolls BJ (2005). The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 82 (1 Suppl) PMID: 16002828Tweet Follow @begin2dig
LEDIKWE, J., ELLOMARTIN, J., PELKMAN, C., BIRCH, L., MANNINO, M., & ROLLS, B. (2007). A reliable, valid questionnaire indicates that preference for dietary fat declines when following a reduced-fat diet Appetite, 49 (1), 74-83 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.12.001
Ello-Martin JA, Roe LS, Ledikwe JH, Beach AM, & Rolls BJ (2007). Dietary energy density in the treatment of obesity: a year-long trial comparing 2 weight-loss diets. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 85 (6), 1465-77 PMID: 17556681
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Mentor Support: an unsung key predictor of weight loss and weight loss maintenance
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
There's one weight loss study that somehow has been in the public eye since 2003. Each time a version of its data gets published, it gets media attention for showing that LOTS of exercise helps maintain weight loss. Now from my reading of that data, that's actually kind of a misrepresentation of the findings in the paper. There are THREE factors that impact weight loss maintenance: caloric restriction (1200-1500kcals), 270-300mins of (vigorous) exercise a week AND (the under reported component) regular human contact intervention about compliance with the protocol. Finally, in yet another paper about this study, this later part of the work is being highlighted a bit more in the paper "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss." I find it fascinating that such an interesting predictor of success - along with the more familiar caloric reduction - has been so seemingly downplayed in favor of hours of exercise.
Background
Last year (2009), discussion of a second paper (published July 2008) on a 2 year study of obese women losing weight generated lots of attention. In particular, Time focused on one aspect of the study, calling their piece "The Myth of Moderate Exercise." They focused on the finding that, in a trial of 201 obese women ("conducted between December 1999 and January 2003") who took off and kept off 10% of their body, did so by exercising at twice the amount of time recommended by the CDC (center for disease control), and by doing vigerous - not moderate - work.
A less well cited piece on the study at WebMD did make a bit more about the social aspect of the study that was seen to contribute to participants' ongoing success. One more even less cited post at FoodConsumer.org, unlike Time, got it, too:
Indeed, here's the latest version: April, 2010, Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss."
Oh, and just a few months before this April 2010 version of the data, the American College of Sports Medicine put out a press release taking "strong exception to assertions [in that original Time Article?] that exercise can inhibit weight loss by over-stimulating the appetite." The key person cited in the PR is John Jakicic, author of the above study and who also just happens to "[chair] a committee on obesity prevention and treatment for the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and helped write an ACSM Position Stand on strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults."
Naturally, the ACSM statement says exercise helps maintain weight loss. And to that end, quotes an awful lot of Jakicic's singular study's findings. Now, that all sounds great, but let's face it, (1) this cohort was 201 obese women, and (2) the ACSM may have just a little invested in celebrating the importance of exercise. They were burning off 1800+ calories with exercise AND living on calorie reduced diets AND were still, after two years, considered overweight. So their health had certainly improved, but if nothing else, this cohort shows that losing weight from an obese state takes long, hard graft. But it also seems to benefit from something else that may be just as necessary, and that's the human expert support.
Telephones: The Secret Ingredient?
Just to be clear, i'm in no way suggesting that exercise doesn't help with weight loss. Recently i've discussed just two of many studies - one on HIIT, one on cardio - that shows benefit for fat loss. But what i am intrigued by, and what's been in the published data since day one, is the fact that exercise and BIG calorie restriction were not the only key factors in getting the weight off, and perhaps just as importantly, keeping it off. While the researchers have made this point repeatedly in the data, it's one they themselves seem reluctant to foreground, even in the latest study. Here's the abstract:
Here's a bit on the way social support with the protocol worked:
This is a pretty substantial result that is intriguingly reiterated in a smaller cohort study carried out over at Precision Nutrition awhile ago (and discussed at b2d here).
To the folks who were "extremely happy" with the progress towards their weight goals, 77% said that they'd had regular mentorship from someone who was in the shape they wanted to achieve.
It's important to note that not everyone needs social/expert support to achieve their weight loss goals. Brad Pillon, whose work is continually interesting and intriguing, blogged recently about how happy he was to carve his own path. And any guy who can fast regularly twice a week is probably just that kinda guy. But let's face it: Mr. Pillon of the terrific Eat, Stop, Eat has a heck of a background in nutrition and supplements, so perhaps he's not the Norm in the distribution here? Maybe?
Martha Beck of the Four Day Win
(your way to Thinner Peace [i love that]) reiterates the value of social support for success in body comp 
goals, encouraging folks who don't have it for free in their social network to go pay for it (precision nutriton - the forum - is the biggie i've praised for ages for this value; the lean eating program takes that to daily, direct contact).
For the rest of us, then, it seems we more than get by, but can thrive with a little help if not just from supportive friends, but from knowledgeable mentors.
And uptake of *that* human support component is, at least in this Never Ending Study, an unsung key predictor of success with caloric reduction and exercise for attainment and maintenance of body comp success.
Related Posts
PS Please Remember,
UNICK, J., JAKICIC, J., & MARCUS, B. (2010). Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42 (4), 745-753 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181bd1a57
Tweet
Follow @begin2dig
There's one weight loss study that somehow has been in the public eye since 2003. Each time a version of its data gets published, it gets media attention for showing that LOTS of exercise helps maintain weight loss. Now from my reading of that data, that's actually kind of a misrepresentation of the findings in the paper. There are THREE factors that impact weight loss maintenance: caloric restriction (1200-1500kcals), 270-300mins of (vigorous) exercise a week AND (the under reported component) regular human contact intervention about compliance with the protocol. Finally, in yet another paper about this study, this later part of the work is being highlighted a bit more in the paper "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss." I find it fascinating that such an interesting predictor of success - along with the more familiar caloric reduction - has been so seemingly downplayed in favor of hours of exercise.
Background Last year (2009), discussion of a second paper (published July 2008) on a 2 year study of obese women losing weight generated lots of attention. In particular, Time focused on one aspect of the study, calling their piece "The Myth of Moderate Exercise." They focused on the finding that, in a trial of 201 obese women ("conducted between December 1999 and January 2003") who took off and kept off 10% of their body, did so by exercising at twice the amount of time recommended by the CDC (center for disease control), and by doing vigerous - not moderate - work.
A less well cited piece on the study at WebMD did make a bit more about the social aspect of the study that was seen to contribute to participants' ongoing success. One more even less cited post at FoodConsumer.org, unlike Time, got it, too:
But even among this group who sustain 10 percent weight loss, exercise may not be the only thing they did to have the effect. These people also completed more phone calls with the research staff and engaged in more eating behaviors recommended for weight loss and had a lower intake of dietary fat.This was the second time this same study data had garnered attention for the reason Time made primary. Back in 2005, WebMD published a story called "how much exercise sparks weight loss." It focused on the data that showed that the women who exercised for 4.5-5 hours a week, at an overall vigorous intensity, lost the most weight. This was the first time the full study data had been taken out for a walk - this time at a presentation at the North American Association for the Study of Obesity’s annual scientific meeting, Vancouver, Canada, Oct. 15-19, 2005. Prior to this, a one year version of the study, with pretty much the same findings at the 12 month point was reported in 2003 in the Journal of American Medical Association. Gotta say, i am amazed at the longevity of this data set. It's a lesson for academics about how much information one can get from a rich data set.
Indeed, here's the latest version: April, 2010, Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, "Contribution of Behavior Intervention Components to 24-Month Weight Loss."
Oh, and just a few months before this April 2010 version of the data, the American College of Sports Medicine put out a press release taking "strong exception to assertions [in that original Time Article?] that exercise can inhibit weight loss by over-stimulating the appetite." The key person cited in the PR is John Jakicic, author of the above study and who also just happens to "[chair] a committee on obesity prevention and treatment for the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and helped write an ACSM Position Stand on strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults."
Naturally, the ACSM statement says exercise helps maintain weight loss. And to that end, quotes an awful lot of Jakicic's singular study's findings. Now, that all sounds great, but let's face it, (1) this cohort was 201 obese women, and (2) the ACSM may have just a little invested in celebrating the importance of exercise. They were burning off 1800+ calories with exercise AND living on calorie reduced diets AND were still, after two years, considered overweight. So their health had certainly improved, but if nothing else, this cohort shows that losing weight from an obese state takes long, hard graft. But it also seems to benefit from something else that may be just as necessary, and that's the human expert support.
Telephones: The Secret Ingredient?
Just to be clear, i'm in no way suggesting that exercise doesn't help with weight loss. Recently i've discussed just two of many studies - one on HIIT, one on cardio - that shows benefit for fat loss. But what i am intrigued by, and what's been in the published data since day one, is the fact that exercise and BIG calorie restriction were not the only key factors in getting the weight off, and perhaps just as importantly, keeping it off. While the researchers have made this point repeatedly in the data, it's one they themselves seem reluctant to foreground, even in the latest study. Here's the abstract:
That's an interesting conclusion. It separates out achieving a weight loss target to sustaining a weight loss target. It says, if i'm reading it correctly, that eating behaviors and social expert support about the progress in the program are potent factors for getting to weight loss equal to 5% of total weight, or for that matter to anything above 5%. To *sustain* weight loss that is equal to or greater than 10%, however, high level physical activity has to be there. At least if you're an obese woman.Sustaining weight loss at the long term is difficult.Purpose: To examine if eating behaviors, physical activity levels, and program participation influence ones ability to achieve ≥5%, ≥7%, and ≥10% weight loss during a period of 24 months.Methods: Data from 170 overweight and obese women (body mass index = 32.7 ± 4.2 kg·m−2) were analyzed in this study. All women followed a standard 24-month behavioral weight loss program in which they were instructed to decrease caloric intake and increase physical activity levels. Eating behaviors, body weight, and physical activity levels were assessed at baseline and at 6 and 24 months. Program participation was evaluated by the percentage of group meetings attended and the percentage of telephone calls completed with an interventionist. Three separate stepwise linear regression analyses were performed to identify variables that were predictive of ≥5%, ≥7%, and ≥10% weight loss at 24 months.Results: The percentage of telephone calls completed and change in weight loss eating behaviors predicted ≥5% (r2 = 0.16), ≥7% (r2 = 0.14), and ≥10% weight loss (r2 = 0.10) at 24 months. However, the change in physical activity levels from baseline to 24 months was only predictive of weight losses ≥10% (r2 = 0.11).Conclusions: Behavioral factors, such as adopting healthy eating behaviors and telephone contact time, are important components that assist individuals in achieving weight losses ≥5%. However, high levels of physical activity play a more prominent role in sustaining weight losses ≥10%. Therefore, innovative strategies to enhance long-term exercise adherence should be developed.
Here's a bit on the way social support with the protocol worked:
During the initial 6 months, participants attended weekly group intervention meetings that focused on specific behavioral strategies to adopt and maintain the recommended eating and physical activity components. From months 7 to 12, participants were to attend biweekly meetings, with the frequency of these meetings reduced to monthly during months 13 to 18, and these meetings no longer offered during months 19 to 24. The group intervention meetings were complemented with brief individualized telephone contacts between months 7 and 24. The frequency of these telephone contacts was biweekly during months 7 to 12, monthly during months 13 to 18, and biweekly during months 19 to 24. Phone calls were scheduled for a period of up to 10 min; however, the weight loss counselor could extend the call beyond the 10 min period if deemed necessary. All calls followed a structured script, and calls were prescheduled to facilitate the ability of the subject to participate in this callHere's some of the main findings correlating effect of this contact with results:
In other words, whether folks went to meetings or not wasn't the big factor; the time of direct contact that folks made seems to correlate with success. My humble take is that, gosh, this is a pretty significant component to ongoing success. So heere's a conclusion, given that, i don't quite understand. The authors state:
Telephone contact time, expressed as the percentage of telephone calls completed, was significantly greater (P G 0.001) using the Q5%, Q7%, and Q10% weight loss criteria, in the MAINTAIN group (79.4%, 79.5%, and 83.6%, respectively) compared with the NONMAINTAIN (69.3%, 70.6%, and 68.4%, respectively) and NONADOPT (64.4%, 67.7%, and 69.6%, respectively) groups. There was no significant difference in participant session attendance between groups for any of the weight loss criteria
On the basis of the results of this study, physical activity was a key factor in the ability to achieve this magnitude of weight loss when used in combination with improved eating behaviors and sufficient contact with the intervention staff (Table 4). Thus, innovative strategies that would promote the adoption and maintenance of sufficient doses of physical activity are needed, and this may facilitate the achievement of larger magnitudes of longterm weight loss.If "sufficient contact" and "improved eating behaviours" are key, why do the authors only want to propose only workout strategies? Not to worry, though: the authors seem to come around by the conclusion of the study:
In addition, data from the current study indicate that sufficient levels of physical activity in combination with appropriate eating behaviors and maintaining contact with a weight loss specialist are important predictors of Q10% weight loss at 24 months, which is the level of weight loss recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (14). Therefore, to assist overweight and obese individuals in achieving and maintaining weight losses Q10% of initial body weight, innovative strategies that would enhance long-term adherence to appropriate exercise and eating behaviors and that facilitate continued contact with a weight loss specialist should be implemented.
This is a pretty substantial result that is intriguingly reiterated in a smaller cohort study carried out over at Precision Nutrition awhile ago (and discussed at b2d here).To the folks who were "extremely happy" with the progress towards their weight goals, 77% said that they'd had regular mentorship from someone who was in the shape they wanted to achieve.
It's important to note that not everyone needs social/expert support to achieve their weight loss goals. Brad Pillon, whose work is continually interesting and intriguing, blogged recently about how happy he was to carve his own path. And any guy who can fast regularly twice a week is probably just that kinda guy. But let's face it: Mr. Pillon of the terrific Eat, Stop, Eat has a heck of a background in nutrition and supplements, so perhaps he's not the Norm in the distribution here? Maybe?
Martha Beck of the Four Day Win (your way to Thinner Peace [i love that]) reiterates the value of social support for success in body comp goals, encouraging folks who don't have it for free in their social network to go pay for it (precision nutriton - the forum - is the biggie i've praised for ages for this value; the lean eating program takes that to daily, direct contact).For the rest of us, then, it seems we more than get by, but can thrive with a little help if not just from supportive friends, but from knowledgeable mentors.
And uptake of *that* human support component is, at least in this Never Ending Study, an unsung key predictor of success with caloric reduction and exercise for attainment and maintenance of body comp success.
Related Posts
- First Review of Precision Nutrition
- Change is Pain - how to work through the pain to success in Diets
- Set point theory is crap
- Fat Metabolism - a bit about how it works
- some thoughts on motivation as a skill
- sustenance - it's more than appetite
- Georgie Fear helps us Dig In
PS Please Remember,
Jamie Oliver's food revolution. Please check out the petition for better food in kids'schools.
JO's excellent TED talk on same.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Your Perfect Nutrition Assistant? What would they do for you?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
So if you think about all the times when food comes into your life - meals, snacking, social occaisions, workouts - whenever - what do you wish someone would be able to assist you to do - not do for you, but offer assistance/knowledge?
I'm aksing because part of the research my group is doing is looking at exactly this question: what is a perfect nutrition assistant?
Before we design anything, we want to make sure some of our design decisions are linking up with what folks think they'd find helpful.
If you could have such a wonderful support, what would you like it to do for and with you?
One constraint: this assistant is more or less a ghost: it can't do anything physical but it can offer to show you anything or provide any information in this space you'd like
Please do post your thoughts/desires in the comments.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
In the meanwhile, here's a physical assistant from Japan that is designed to help the elderly shop - including getting around the shop and remembering anything that might have been forgotten.
Related Links
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
What would a virtual nutrition assistant do for you? Suppose you're trying to change your body comp - lose fat; build muscle - whatever. If you could imagine the perfect coach/guide who could be with you all the time - what would they be doing? When you go to have lunch, would they tell you what was ok to eat? If you were at home, would they suggest what to make or show you how to do it? If you needed to shop, what?
I'm aksing because part of the research my group is doing is looking at exactly this question: what is a perfect nutrition assistant?
Before we design anything, we want to make sure some of our design decisions are linking up with what folks think they'd find helpful.
If you could have such a wonderful support, what would you like it to do for and with you?
One constraint: this assistant is more or less a ghost: it can't do anything physical but it can offer to show you anything or provide any information in this space you'd like
Please do post your thoughts/desires in the comments.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
In the meanwhile, here's a physical assistant from Japan that is designed to help the elderly shop - including getting around the shop and remembering anything that might have been forgotten.
Related Links
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
mc's balsamic vinegar diet: fat loss xtreme taste delight
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Diets as a regular approach to body comp, as opposed to good nutrition practices, are bad. They're evil. They show no respect for the complexity of us as humans. They say if you just eat this magic way you'll get the body you want. They have no respect for the neurological trespass that radical changes can invoke when broached without preparation or understanding: that for someone struggling with weight for a long time, it's rarely just about the food.
We see proof of this all the time: we know that folks who diet can get stuck in a cycle of deprivation/retaliation. Martha Beck describes this practically split personality response to the diet (a code word for denial) in here fabulous book about approaches to getting one's head right for food change in The Four Day Win.
In Beck's approach, one's way to "thinner peace" as she puts it, is by helping one's self prep for the kind of changes to habits a shift in food consumption really triggers, and offers strategies to help get ready for the change.
I've written about the cost of change before: we are rewiring ourselves, literally, both hedonically
(our habits for pleasure/satisfaction/sufficiency) and homeostatically (what hormones for instance get triggered when to say "you're hungry; go get carbs). I really like Susan Roberts' approach to this shifting of "instincts" as getting one with what's going on inside and having some mercy towards oneself that there are reasons we're so driven to consume, and that changing these takes time.
It's just not only about the food (as i've said before).
And folks here know that my favorite approaches to getting knowledgable about nutrition is precision nutrition (why), and that i'm also intrigued with eat stop eat as a complementary strategy.
All good.
So where does balsamic vinegar come into it?
Well, whether you're getting set to make weight as an athlete or getting ready for a special event, or just want to kick start the sanity of a diet with some self-inspiration, there are times when one may wish to crash diet. Pray these are rare. Here's my own example: i'm getting ready for an event; i was away for more than a week on the road and ate terribly. And i know how to manage road food, so won't go into why this week was a bust, but i've been paying for it since, and i want to get back to the right weight for the event. Shallow, but there it is.
So, what's the best way to do this? Well i don't know, but the way i do it is to turn to Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss Diet. McDonald offers the same caveats: a crash diet is a short-ish term thing; it is not a way of life, but there are times (not one's life) when drastic measures may be appropriate.
By drastic, we're talking what's usually known as a Protein Sparing Diet, with a few mods. The best part of the book is really the discussions around how to figure out how long to be on this, how to come off it, and how to gage what you need, why, and strategies to optimize your *short term* practice of this.
The diet part is largely getting your daily protein requirements from very lean sources (including protein powder), doing a multivitamin and calcium, doing your algae or fish oils to get the right fats, and eating all the greens you want. Leafy greens don't really add up calorically to a hill of beans. Well, literally they don't.
We're getting closer to the balsamic
Just eating a piece of protein is not so filling. However, what i've been finding is that raw leafy greens from salad greens to baby spinach, and throwing in some sprouts, is not only overwhelming to the eye (as in, 'that's a lot of food'), it's also slow going to chew. And that's great!
Normally, i'd put olive oil and balsamic on a set of veg like this, but that oil is too dear right now since it's fat i'm trying to burn, so for the first time i've been exploring well, what about just the balsamic? Oh wow.
Now, when i say balsamic here, i mean some really nice balsamic (what is balsamic?).
Getting Intrigued
Yes, like everything else made in the world, we can Get Intrigued about a particular food product. There are various types of balsamics just as there are wines and olive oils. Having had the pleasure to travel to spain at one point i got to try a bunch and learned about this incredible condoment. This is aged, pressed grapes. It's sweet and clean and oh so nice with just a hint of tartness. And also as with all things, the most expensive doesn't always mean the best either. There's a supermarket brand in the UK - selfridges - which is very very nice. And surprisingly another supermarket, waitrose, makes one too, that rivals more name brands. To my taste anyway.
AND the best thing is, it works on its own without the olive oil's fruity complement. Drizzle some of the really nice stuff on this stack of leafy greenery and it goes from a mouth full of fodder to something really quite delicious.
There are probably tons of chemical reasons for why the vinegar part of the balsamic is reacting with the lettuce to begin to cook it, and react with it, but oy, let me tell you, it's a way to make that plate of greens desireable.
Slow Down, Chew: create taste sensation and lasting delight
WHich brings us to two other great food tips we hear all the time: chew the food a lot, and eat slowly. Why? well, the mastication process brings out the flavours of the foods, and if you have a variety of greens and sprouts and balsamic notes on a plate, squishing, crushing, chewing those leaves cracks open their flavours. And heck, if you're on such thin gruel as this calorically, making a meal last as long as possible is also a good thing.
Indeed, concentrating on the food, tastes and flavours is another rewiring step that has been shown apparently to help people eat less. On this diet, no problem, one is eating less BUT in doing so, we're learning habits to carry back to Sane Eating to continue to get more from less.
Tucking Into Tastes.
Perhaps when one is so calorically restricted, creating savoriness and sweetness and just flavourfulness is truly a great practice to develop - chewing goes a long way; seasoning takes that a bit further - and while perhaps motivated by a keen focus on fat burning for the moment, for whatever short term necessary evil goal requires this (or possibly it's an aesetic rather than aesthetic one), these are useful habits to take back towards as said that sane eating (i mentioned precision nutrition if you're not sure what that looks like - here's a free ebook of most of it).
So if you find yourself in a place where you need to get a fat drop happening fast, by all means, consider the Rapid Fat Loss Diet, and bring the good quality Balsamic to the table.
And when you get a head start on where you need to go - really the time limits discussed in the book are IMPORTANT - to look at refeeds, duration, etc, and just stopping it - there are some great approaches, as said: pn, eat stop eat. All good, all sane, all healthy habits based.
Personally, i can hardly wait to get back to real eating, but balsamic and loads of leaves has been a revelation.
Related Links
Note:
A reminder, too, that Brad Pilon's free teleseminar is Feb 24 - the free slides that just got mailed around about calorie cutting for weight loss related to height and only height is worth the sign up alone. That's a head spinner. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
We see proof of this all the time: we know that folks who diet can get stuck in a cycle of deprivation/retaliation. Martha Beck describes this practically split personality response to the diet (a code word for denial) in here fabulous book about approaches to getting one's head right for food change in The Four Day Win.
In Beck's approach, one's way to "thinner peace" as she puts it, is by helping one's self prep for the kind of changes to habits a shift in food consumption really triggers, and offers strategies to help get ready for the change.
I've written about the cost of change before: we are rewiring ourselves, literally, both hedonically
(our habits for pleasure/satisfaction/sufficiency) and homeostatically (what hormones for instance get triggered when to say "you're hungry; go get carbs). I really like Susan Roberts' approach to this shifting of "instincts" as getting one with what's going on inside and having some mercy towards oneself that there are reasons we're so driven to consume, and that changing these takes time.It's just not only about the food (as i've said before).
And folks here know that my favorite approaches to getting knowledgable about nutrition is precision nutrition (why), and that i'm also intrigued with eat stop eat as a complementary strategy.
All good.
So where does balsamic vinegar come into it?
Well, whether you're getting set to make weight as an athlete or getting ready for a special event, or just want to kick start the sanity of a diet with some self-inspiration, there are times when one may wish to crash diet. Pray these are rare. Here's my own example: i'm getting ready for an event; i was away for more than a week on the road and ate terribly. And i know how to manage road food, so won't go into why this week was a bust, but i've been paying for it since, and i want to get back to the right weight for the event. Shallow, but there it is.
So, what's the best way to do this? Well i don't know, but the way i do it is to turn to Lyle McDonald's Rapid Fat Loss Diet. McDonald offers the same caveats: a crash diet is a short-ish term thing; it is not a way of life, but there are times (not one's life) when drastic measures may be appropriate.By drastic, we're talking what's usually known as a Protein Sparing Diet, with a few mods. The best part of the book is really the discussions around how to figure out how long to be on this, how to come off it, and how to gage what you need, why, and strategies to optimize your *short term* practice of this.
The diet part is largely getting your daily protein requirements from very lean sources (including protein powder), doing a multivitamin and calcium, doing your algae or fish oils to get the right fats, and eating all the greens you want. Leafy greens don't really add up calorically to a hill of beans. Well, literally they don't.
We're getting closer to the balsamic
Just eating a piece of protein is not so filling. However, what i've been finding is that raw leafy greens from salad greens to baby spinach, and throwing in some sprouts, is not only overwhelming to the eye (as in, 'that's a lot of food'), it's also slow going to chew. And that's great!
Normally, i'd put olive oil and balsamic on a set of veg like this, but that oil is too dear right now since it's fat i'm trying to burn, so for the first time i've been exploring well, what about just the balsamic? Oh wow.
Now, when i say balsamic here, i mean some really nice balsamic (what is balsamic?).
Getting Intrigued
Yes, like everything else made in the world, we can Get Intrigued about a particular food product. There are various types of balsamics just as there are wines and olive oils. Having had the pleasure to travel to spain at one point i got to try a bunch and learned about this incredible condoment. This is aged, pressed grapes. It's sweet and clean and oh so nice with just a hint of tartness. And also as with all things, the most expensive doesn't always mean the best either. There's a supermarket brand in the UK - selfridges - which is very very nice. And surprisingly another supermarket, waitrose, makes one too, that rivals more name brands. To my taste anyway.
AND the best thing is, it works on its own without the olive oil's fruity complement. Drizzle some of the really nice stuff on this stack of leafy greenery and it goes from a mouth full of fodder to something really quite delicious.
There are probably tons of chemical reasons for why the vinegar part of the balsamic is reacting with the lettuce to begin to cook it, and react with it, but oy, let me tell you, it's a way to make that plate of greens desireable.
Slow Down, Chew: create taste sensation and lasting delight
WHich brings us to two other great food tips we hear all the time: chew the food a lot, and eat slowly. Why? well, the mastication process brings out the flavours of the foods, and if you have a variety of greens and sprouts and balsamic notes on a plate, squishing, crushing, chewing those leaves cracks open their flavours. And heck, if you're on such thin gruel as this calorically, making a meal last as long as possible is also a good thing.
Indeed, concentrating on the food, tastes and flavours is another rewiring step that has been shown apparently to help people eat less. On this diet, no problem, one is eating less BUT in doing so, we're learning habits to carry back to Sane Eating to continue to get more from less.
Tucking Into Tastes.
Perhaps when one is so calorically restricted, creating savoriness and sweetness and just flavourfulness is truly a great practice to develop - chewing goes a long way; seasoning takes that a bit further - and while perhaps motivated by a keen focus on fat burning for the moment, for whatever short term necessary evil goal requires this (or possibly it's an aesetic rather than aesthetic one), these are useful habits to take back towards as said that sane eating (i mentioned precision nutrition if you're not sure what that looks like - here's a free ebook of most of it).
So if you find yourself in a place where you need to get a fat drop happening fast, by all means, consider the Rapid Fat Loss Diet, and bring the good quality Balsamic to the table.
And when you get a head start on where you need to go - really the time limits discussed in the book are IMPORTANT - to look at refeeds, duration, etc, and just stopping it - there are some great approaches, as said: pn, eat stop eat. All good, all sane, all healthy habits based.
Personally, i can hardly wait to get back to real eating, but balsamic and loads of leaves has been a revelation.
Related Links
- Edeli: a great place to get beautiful olive oils if you're in the UK (no relationship to this company; just like their stuff)
- respect the fat
- whole proteins/whole grains
- glucomannan for satiety, fiber and no cals
- optimizing HIIT for fat burning
- When you can't HIIT, do what?
- what the heck is sustenance??
- MOTIVATION - what it might be and how to get more of it.
Note:
A reminder, too, that Brad Pilon's free teleseminar is Feb 24 - the free slides that just got mailed around about calorie cutting for weight loss related to height and only height is worth the sign up alone. That's a head spinner. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Improving Longevity with Calorie Reduction in Humans?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Lots of studies on rats and a few other mamals have seemed to 
show the benefit of caloric reduction and longevity - mainly it seems in the way that CR impacts core temperature (a bit lower is better), fasting insulin levels, and oxidative stress - that free radical stuff. Testing CR and humans is going to be trickier. So researchers a few years ago looked at simply the effects of CR on these very markers that have been hypothesised to have an effect on longevity. What their work shows is that yup, CR has these effects.
The resson i mention this piece here is that neither Alan Aaragon's 2007 critique of IF (which i've cited before as a good ref and which Chris over at conditioning resaerch has also detailed); nor have i seen the work referenced in the more recent Eat Stop Eat by Brad Pilon.
So here's the abstract; the full article is also available for free, which is nice.
Now, i haven't seen a comparison of these same markers considered in a study where folks are JUST exercising and eating right (say a la precision nutrition's principles), but that is what folks like Aragon suggest - that exercise and diet have the same effects. A head to head study or gathering of results would be nice.
There is a nice 2009 follow up study by this group that looks at metabolic adaptation of folks on CR and CR + exercise. Bottom line: the folks who keep exercising while on the CR do not experience a metabolic adaptation like the *just * CR's (in other words the CR's metabolism really drops, and so does their activity). IS that maintenance good for longevity markers? not clear. But in terms of weight loss maintenance, surprise surprise:
SO diet, combined with exercise is still a good thing for maintaining ongoing body comp goals. Great.
Oh and to put icing on the cake of why exercise with diet (spliting the total CR between diet and exercise) is a good thing, the gang just published a study showing that while fat loss is the same no matter how you get you mojo on and calories off, with exercise is better:
normal healthy eating (like PN) and exercise, there seems to be at least a few of us who are using say precision nutrition approaches to eating/health on most days (and getting questions on nutrition addressed) and ESE fasting once or twice a week - for me this protocol is an exploration; nothing definitive, but intriguing. Just FYI
Related Posts
Citations:
Heilbronn, L. (2006). Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (13), 1539-1548 DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.13.1539
Redman, L., Heilbronn, L., Martin, C., de Jonge, L., Williamson, D., Delany, J., Ravussin, E., & , . (2009). Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss PLoS ONE, 4 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
LARSON-MEYER, D., REDMAN, L., HEILBRONN, L., MARTIN, C., & RAVUSSIN, E. (2010). Caloric Restriction with or without Exercise Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42 (1), 152-159 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ad7f17 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Lots of studies on rats and a few other mamals have seemed to 
show the benefit of caloric reduction and longevity - mainly it seems in the way that CR impacts core temperature (a bit lower is better), fasting insulin levels, and oxidative stress - that free radical stuff. Testing CR and humans is going to be trickier. So researchers a few years ago looked at simply the effects of CR on these very markers that have been hypothesised to have an effect on longevity. What their work shows is that yup, CR has these effects.The resson i mention this piece here is that neither Alan Aaragon's 2007 critique of IF (which i've cited before as a good ref and which Chris over at conditioning resaerch has also detailed); nor have i seen the work referenced in the more recent Eat Stop Eat by Brad Pilon.
So here's the abstract; the full article is also available for free, which is nice.
JAMA. 2006 Apr 5;295(13):1539-48.
Effect of 6-month calorie restriction on biomarkers of longevity, metabolic adaptation, and oxidative stress in overweight individuals: a randomized controlled trial.
Heilbronn LK, de Jonge L, Frisard MI, DeLany JP, Larson-Meyer DE, Rood J, Nguyen T, Martin CK, Volaufova J, Most MM, Greenway FL, Smith SR, Deutsch WA, Williamson DA, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70808, USA.
Erratum in:* JAMA. 2006 Jun 7;295(21):2482.
Comment in: * JAMA. 2006 Apr 5;295(13):1577-8.
CONTEXT: Prolonged calorie restriction increases life span in rodents. Whether prolonged calorie restriction affects biomarkers of longevity or markers of oxidative stress, or reduces metabolic rate beyond that expected from reduced metabolic mass, has not been investigated in humans. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of 6 months of calorie restriction, with or without exercise, in overweight, nonobese (body mass index, 25 to <30) men and women. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial of healthy, sedentary men and women (N = 48) conducted between March 2002 and August 2004 at a research center in Baton Rouge, La. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature. RESULTS: Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, -1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, -10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, -10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, -13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (-135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (-117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (-125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These "metabolic adaptations" (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Now, i haven't seen a comparison of these same markers considered in a study where folks are JUST exercising and eating right (say a la precision nutrition's principles), but that is what folks like Aragon suggest - that exercise and diet have the same effects. A head to head study or gathering of results would be nice.
There is a nice 2009 follow up study by this group that looks at metabolic adaptation of folks on CR and CR + exercise. Bottom line: the folks who keep exercising while on the CR do not experience a metabolic adaptation like the *just * CR's (in other words the CR's metabolism really drops, and so does their activity). IS that maintenance good for longevity markers? not clear. But in terms of weight loss maintenance, surprise surprise:Interestingly, despite similar body mass and composition changes, CR in conjunction with exercise (CR+EX) did not result in a metabolic adaptation. If weight relapse does occur in part as a result of a reduced metabolic rate in the weight reduced state, then perhaps the combination of CR and exercise may be the best choice of intervention to prevent weight regain in overweight and obese individuals. Certainly, more than 20 years ago, Pavlou observed that exercise during a CR-induced weight loss program was essential for success of weight loss maintenance [34]. Since then others have shown with doubly labeled water studies that weight stability following weight loss is sustained by higher levels of activity related energy expenditure and free-living physical activity [35], [36]. To our knowledge no studies have prospectively studied the energetic adjustments of CR only versus CR in conjunction with exercise during weight loss and weight loss maintenance.
SO diet, combined with exercise is still a good thing for maintaining ongoing body comp goals. Great.
Oh and to put icing on the cake of why exercise with diet (spliting the total CR between diet and exercise) is a good thing, the gang just published a study showing that while fat loss is the same no matter how you get you mojo on and calories off, with exercise is better:
In the meantime of waiting for the longevity marker comparison where the condition would be
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jan;42(1):152-9.
Caloric restriction with or without exercise: the fitness versus fatness debate.
Larson-Meyer DE, Redman L, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, Ravussin E.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. enette@uwyo.edu
There is a debate over the independent effects of aerobic fitness and body fatness on mortality and disease risks. PURPOSE: To determine whether a 25% energy deficit that produces equal change in body fatness leads to greater cardiometabolic benefits when aerobic exercise is included. METHODS: Thirty-six overweight participants (16 males/20 females) (39 +/- 1 yr; 82 +/- 2 kg; body mass index = 27.8 +/- 0.3 kg x m2, mean +/- SEM) were randomized to one of three groups (n = 12 for each) for a 6-month intervention: control (CO, weight-maintenance diet), caloric restriction (CR, 25% reduction in energy intake), or caloric restriction plus aerobic exercise (CR + EX, 12.5% reduction in energy intake plus 12.5% increase in exercise energy expenditure). Food was provided during weeks 1-12 and 22-24. Changes in fat mass, visceral fat, VO2peak (graded treadmill test), muscular strength (isokinetic knee extension/flexion), blood lipids, blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity/secretion were compared. RESULTS: As expected, VO2peak was significantly improved after 6 months of intervention in CR + EX only (22 +/- 5% vs 7 +/- 5% in CR and -5 +/- 3% in CO), whereas isokinetic muscular strength did not change. There was no difference in the losses of weight, fat mass, or visceral fat and changes in systolic blood pressure (BP) between the intervention groups. However, only CR + EX had a significant decrease in diastolic BP (-5 +/- 3% vs -2 +/- 2% in CR and -1 +/- 2% in CO), in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (-13 +/- 4% vs -6 +/- 3% in CR and 2 +/- 4% in CO), and a significant increase in insulin sensitivity (66 +/- 22% vs 40 +/- 20% in CR and 1 +/- 11% in CO). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar effect on fat losses, combining CR with exercise increased aerobic fitness in parallel with improved insulin sensitivity, LDL cholesterol, and diastolic BP. The results lend support for inclusion of an exercise component in weight loss programs to improve metabolic fitness.
normal healthy eating (like PN) and exercise, there seems to be at least a few of us who are using say precision nutrition approaches to eating/health on most days (and getting questions on nutrition addressed) and ESE fasting once or twice a week - for me this protocol is an exploration; nothing definitive, but intriguing. Just FYIRelated Posts
- General b2d nutrition index
- Fasting and Working out - it's alright
- respect the fat
- "you can't handle.." - the protein
Citations:
Heilbronn, L. (2006). Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295 (13), 1539-1548 DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.13.1539
Redman, L., Heilbronn, L., Martin, C., de Jonge, L., Williamson, D., Delany, J., Ravussin, E., & , . (2009). Metabolic and Behavioral Compensations in Response to Caloric Restriction: Implications for the Maintenance of Weight Loss PLoS ONE, 4 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
LARSON-MEYER, D., REDMAN, L., HEILBRONN, L., MARTIN, C., & RAVUSSIN, E. (2010). Caloric Restriction with or without Exercise Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42 (1), 152-159 DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ad7f17 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Friday, February 19, 2010
8lbs of Lean Mass in One Workout - and other surprises Feb 24 - from brad pilon
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Apropos of all this discourse on protein synthesis vs absorption vs muscle mass gain, this just in from brad pilon (yes of eat stop eat fame). How to add 8lbs of lean mass in one workout. i love it
The main idea? Check out the video and register for a teleseminar (it's free) to find out more insider knowledge about how supplement companies make some of the outrageous claims they do - with seeming results.
But get some good tips too. Taken from the teleseminar page:
Aside: as i've said before, colleagues i trust (and now me, too) are blending precision nutrition with eat stop eat for
great nutrition knowledge (overview), and exploration of the benefits/vibes of fasting.
Anyway, the seminar sounds like it's going to be fun. Let me know what you think.
Oh and as one more place to get psyched for what promises to be a fun evening, here's an interview Mike T Neslon did with Mr. Pilon.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
The main idea? Check out the video and register for a teleseminar (it's free) to find out more insider knowledge about how supplement companies make some of the outrageous claims they do - with seeming results.
But get some good tips too. Taken from the teleseminar page:
* How many calories it REALLY takes to build muscleNote: the above link to the seminar links back to me, but the seminar is free, so it seems that it's for counting purposes - but heck if you'd like to buy a copy of eat stop eat from my site (it's a good researched read whether you practice fasting or not) that's lovely, too (more about affiliate links at b2d)
* Why HEIGHT has more to do with the amount of calories you need on a daily basis and how to use the "Rule of 7's and 3's" to determine how BIG you'll actually end up
* A sneaky trick that all marketers use to get you to THINK that you're gaining more muscle than you really are... and how this same sneaky trick is SAPPING you out of your hard earned money in the process
* How adding just 5 lbs of muscle in JUST THE RIGHT PLACES gives the illusion of a 25 lb increase in size... DRUG FREE...
* The TRUTH on testimonials and "before and after" pics and how EVEN YOU can make yourself look super huge in 24 hours... without ever touching the inside of a gym or taking a "magic powder". This is the one secret the supplement companies DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
(here's a preview on the above one from brad's blog, 2007:how to gain 10 pounds of muscle and lose 5 pounds of fat in only 2 days.
Aside: as i've said before, colleagues i trust (and now me, too) are blending precision nutrition with eat stop eat for
great nutrition knowledge (overview), and exploration of the benefits/vibes of fasting.
Anyway, the seminar sounds like it's going to be fun. Let me know what you think.
Oh and as one more place to get psyched for what promises to be a fun evening, here's an interview Mike T Neslon did with Mr. Pilon.
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Curb my protein enthusiasm: single factor thinking fails again
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Yesterday i wrote a piece reviewing an article that showed that 30g of whole protein was all that could be synthesized by resting muscle, so we can all just chill about how much protein we take in at a feeding. And indeed, there's one more reason to spread out one's protein intake over the course of a day. One more reason (not the only reason) Mutliple feedings rock!
I have just finished revising that article to be far more restrained in its celebration. I think it's a much better/fairer piece now, anyway. Dam it. Because now while more accurate, it's far less conclusive.
This revision fervour first started with some interesting conflations i was hearing between absorption and synthesis - how are these related, and conflations between some folks saying one MUST take on 30g of protein every few hours vs what the article suggested - that's the MAX one could utilize - if one is 80kg or thereabouts, not what one *should* take on. Minimums aren't established; only maxs. And only for acute uptake. With the interesting finding that this result seems age and gender independent.
Then i went back to my minute with Mike about the Protein Window and how that doesn't really close in a day - so why would protein only be usable to that max amount in that 3hr window of the study?
Then i checked a few references looking at lean mass over time with one meal vs three meals (no grazing just 1 or 3), and lean muscle maintenance (see revised post for the details)
And then to cap it all off Chris Highcock of conditioning research kindly pointed me at Eat STop Eat Brad Pilons How Much Protein, and well, what's the take away if you don't feel like going back to look at the study (where all the refs to the following points are):
What *is* reinforced in the related work with the study presented is that more likely than not LESS is more - whether at rest or working out. That the 70-120 g range may be just as productive at mass building as any higher amounts, and that if one goes for higher protein amounts (like 160 grams if 80kg), while one's system can safely absorb that, it mayn't be using it for muscle building.
Once again, single factor thinking dun't work - well. Creatine in the mix does. Precision Nutrition (very multi-factor) does; Chris Highcock does. Mike T. Nelson does. Georgie Fear does and so it seems does Brad Pilon. and i'd like to, too, though it may take me a few tries. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
I have just finished revising that article to be far more restrained in its celebration. I think it's a much better/fairer piece now, anyway. Dam it. Because now while more accurate, it's far less conclusive.
This revision fervour first started with some interesting conflations i was hearing between absorption and synthesis - how are these related, and conflations between some folks saying one MUST take on 30g of protein every few hours vs what the article suggested - that's the MAX one could utilize - if one is 80kg or thereabouts, not what one *should* take on. Minimums aren't established; only maxs. And only for acute uptake. With the interesting finding that this result seems age and gender independent.
Then i went back to my minute with Mike about the Protein Window and how that doesn't really close in a day - so why would protein only be usable to that max amount in that 3hr window of the study?
Then i checked a few references looking at lean mass over time with one meal vs three meals (no grazing just 1 or 3), and lean muscle maintenance (see revised post for the details)
And then to cap it all off Chris Highcock of conditioning research kindly pointed me at Eat STop Eat Brad Pilons How Much Protein, and well, what's the take away if you don't feel like going back to look at the study (where all the refs to the following points are):
- Acute responses to muscle protein synthesis are not necessarily the same as lean mass maintenance or growth over time
- If one's thinking mass building thoughts the exercise and creatine may be more critical than protein
- Protein timing may not be an issue for muscle mass. The pluses of nutrient timing may be elsewhere found - like glucose and other hormone regulation/performance.
What *is* reinforced in the related work with the study presented is that more likely than not LESS is more - whether at rest or working out. That the 70-120 g range may be just as productive at mass building as any higher amounts, and that if one goes for higher protein amounts (like 160 grams if 80kg), while one's system can safely absorb that, it mayn't be using it for muscle building.
Once again, single factor thinking dun't work - well. Creatine in the mix does. Precision Nutrition (very multi-factor) does; Chris Highcock does. Mike T. Nelson does. Georgie Fear does and so it seems does Brad Pilon. and i'd like to, too, though it may take me a few tries. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Thursday, February 18, 2010
30g of protein per meal for optimal muscle building? That Depends - a lot
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Less and More? Yes, when talking protein. Have you encountered any of these questions? How much protein can i eat at a sitting? What's the right amount of protein to eat? How much protein can i absorb? These are questions in the fitness world that get asked all the time - especially by folks who want to optimize their muscle growth. The answer seems to be "less than you think, but more often"
We know there's a usual formula (even that's been debated at a Protein Roundtable - but not by much) about how much protein to take in in a day - let's just say for now it's 2-2.5 g per kg (based on work in 2006), or about a g/pound (nice mix of metric and imperial there) which has been pretty much the standard recommendation for some time, newly validated. As the authors note, that's about 176 g of protein a day for an 80kg person " This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d)."
Intriguingly, there's a newish study out to show that 30g of protein derived from real food is about all the protein one can reasonably ingest in a sitting that will support muscle or protein synthesis is 30g. There are certain conditions attached to this statement that we'll discuss below.
Also Note, muscle protein synthesis here is being looked at in a particular context. We're talking about what resting muscle can use to handle the ongoing breakdown and build up of muscle proteins. This is potentially different than a body builder working out to build lots of mass. In other words, we're looking at a kind of baseline max.
SO 30g of whole protein or, in the case of this study, a 113g serving of lean beef (about 4oz). That's pretty close to the traditional portion size of a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards.
We can eat more protein at one meal, but the authors would argue, it ain't doing anything for muscle building/protein synthesis of resting muscles. Here's the overview of the research:
Indeed, in the discussion of their results at 30g the authors also speculate
One Feeding. The authors offer even more caveats: the researchers only looked at the ingestion of the whole protein - not at it mixed up with more food, as we usually get it, or after exercise. They say:
Where's the Beef for Application? What is intriguing to me in this study is how one would balance optimal absorption of protein with the amount of protein we're supposed to ingest - especially if remotely active. so our 80kg guy is going for 180ish grams of protein, at max 30g whole protein a meal.
So, let's say our person has three meals a day. 30g per meal, that's only 90g protein, total. That's half the protein our fella needs, according to the usual saw of .8-1g protein/pound of person.
Or what about folks who eat only one meal a day? That's one more potential problem with the evening feast beyond say glucose effects, then, perhaps? They may pig out on protein, but it's still 30g a shot for muscle synthesis this study would suggest. Read on.
Frequent Feedings for Optimal Muscle Building? Er...
Could this max 30g of whole protein be one more argument for the value of frequent meals during the day(s one eats -one may fast)? Consider one of the core heuristics of Precision Nutrition (discussed here): at each feeding make sure to have
Though there is a 2007 8 week trial that shows that lean mass didn't change to any statistically significant degree, whether people got all their daily protein in one meal or three a day. Whether folks were training or not was not considered. So the question comes up: are acute responses (measures taken at time of ingestion) related to longitudinal responses?
And what if Less is More? May be time to highlight again that we're talking about protein synthesis here, not protein absorption. Absorption amounts (2-2.5g/kg body weight) may be greater than required amounts for protein synthesis. An interesting question still kinda out there is if 30g is the max for resting muscle for a more or less 80kg person, what's the least amount to still get this max effect?
What about Work Outs? Things get really interesting if we consider pre and post training nutrition with carb/protein periworkout nutrition, as in this study where participants were fed slightly more than 30g protein pre AND post workouts (along with creatine and carbs). These researchers didn't test the amounts of protein they used (related work in this 2009 study suggests it's 20g post workout - thanks Kevin Greer for the ref); they just looked at whether there was a better effect with pre and post supplementation than not. They did sorta hit the maximal usable amount, which is cool, but it might be too much too soon to be fully absorbable for muscle synthesis.
Or maybe - maybe - the effect was from the Creatine and Carbs + Protein and not just the protein (another few views on protein+ creatine vs carbs + creatine [one] or pro+cho vs pro+cho+cr[another]). Dang.
Questions? What happens if we OD on protein? Can we? We know that if we're in caloric deficit, protein is getting oxidized for fuel before going to protein synthesis, right? And likewise if we eat too much of it, it gets deaminiated and the amonia gets peed out, which has been a concern/question regarding toxicity of overdoing protein:
Summing Up?
What do we know from this study: that measured over three ours post ingestion, it doesn't matter whether an 80kg person eats 30g or three times that, that 30g of whole protein was the most that could be utilized for muscle protein synthesis in their resting muscle at a feeding.
What the authors are NOT saying: 30g of protein is needed every 2-3 hours for muscle growth. It seems kinda the opposite: less protein may be needed for acute muscle protein synthesis.
Where we mayn't be able to Generalize: While the authors suggest therefore that a strategy is to spread protein intake over the day, the 1 meal a day vs 3 meals a day study suggests that lean mass holds over time whether following this strategy or not. SO why spread out protein uptake??
If we move from protein synthesis at rest to muscle building, other work seems to suggest that even when working out that (a) just working out and (b) creatine may be more important for packing on muscle than protein. This latter point is one that Eat STop Eat author Brad Pilon makes in his ebook How Much Protein (thanks to Chris Highcock for pointing this book out to me).
So what can we say? well, what the authors also say is of note is that there's been concern that elderly eating low protein diets, mixed with other nutrients may have a blunted protein synthesis. This study suggests that there's no age related effect of upping protein to a certain point, regardless of age. Ok. So both elderly and younger types respond the same to acute protein intake when just eating protein. Good to know.
But once again a lovely finding of an acute response and a seeming logical conclusion (spread protein out over the day) doesn't seem to hold on its own in the larger context as a prescription for action. We may find though that benefits of protein supplementation have other functions than just mass related - like recovery and immune function. More food for future thought.
dang.
Related Posts
select citations
Bilsborough S, & Mann N (2006). A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 16 (2), 129-52 PMID: 16779921
Symons, T., Sheffield-Moore, M., Wolfe, R., & Paddon-Jones, D. (2009). A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (9), 1582-1586 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.06.369
CARLSON, O., MARTIN, B., STOTE, K., GOLDEN, E., MAUDSLEY, S., NAJJAR, S., FERRUCCI, L., INGRAM, D., LONGO, D., & RUMPLER, W. (2007). Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women Metabolism, 56 (12), 1729-1734 DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2007.07.018
Cuthbertson, D. (2004). Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of wasting, aging muscle The FASEB Journal DOI: 10.1096/fj.04-2640fje
KERKSICK, C., RASMUSSEN, C., LANCASTER, S., STARKS, M., SMITH, P., MELTON, C., GREENWOOD, M., ALMADA, A., & KREIDER, R. (2007). Impact of differing protein sources and a creatine containing nutritional formula after 12 weeks of resistance training Nutrition, 23 (9), 647-656 DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2007.06.015 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Less and More? Yes, when talking protein. Have you encountered any of these questions? How much protein can i eat at a sitting? What's the right amount of protein to eat? How much protein can i absorb? These are questions in the fitness world that get asked all the time - especially by folks who want to optimize their muscle growth. The answer seems to be "less than you think, but more often"
We know there's a usual formula (even that's been debated at a Protein Roundtable - but not by much) about how much protein to take in in a day - let's just say for now it's 2-2.5 g per kg (based on work in 2006), or about a g/pound (nice mix of metric and imperial there) which has been pretty much the standard recommendation for some time, newly validated. As the authors note, that's about 176 g of protein a day for an 80kg person " This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d)."
Intriguingly, there's a newish study out to show that 30g of protein derived from real food is about all the protein one can reasonably ingest in a sitting that will support muscle or protein synthesis is 30g. There are certain conditions attached to this statement that we'll discuss below.
Also Note, muscle protein synthesis here is being looked at in a particular context. We're talking about what resting muscle can use to handle the ongoing breakdown and build up of muscle proteins. This is potentially different than a body builder working out to build lots of mass. In other words, we're looking at a kind of baseline max.
SO 30g of whole protein or, in the case of this study, a 113g serving of lean beef (about 4oz). That's pretty close to the traditional portion size of a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards.
We can eat more protein at one meal, but the authors would argue, it ain't doing anything for muscle building/protein synthesis of resting muscles. Here's the overview of the research:
A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly SubjectsThe authors cite their motivation for the study in part as a balance to previous work that showed 10g of EAA's at a go was all the body could make use of - that amounts beyond that signalled no greater muscle synthesis (or synthesis of muscle protein, more formally). So what about getting those EAA's from a whole food like "113 g lean beef, 30 g protein, 10 g EAAs, 220 kcal." Turns out that it *seems* it doesn't matter from whence one gets those EAA's, that's the max the body can use for " a maximal acute protein synthetic effect."
T. Brock Symons PhD, Melinda Sheffield-Moore PhD, Robert R. Wolfe PhD and Douglas Paddon-Jones PhDCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
Accepted 30 January 2009.
Available online 21 August 2009.
Abstract
Ingestion of sufficient dietary protein is a fundamental prerequisite for muscle protein synthesis and maintenance of muscle mass and function. Elderly people are often at increased risk for protein-energy malnutrition, sarcopenia, and a diminished quality of life. This study sought to compare changes in muscle protein synthesis and anabolic efficiency in response to a single moderate serving (113 g; 220 kcal; 30 g protein) or large serving (340 g; 660 kcal; 90 g protein) of 90% lean beef. Venous blood and vastus lateralis muscle biopsy samples were obtained during a primed, constant infusion (0.08 μmol/kg/min) of L-[ring-13C6] phenylalanine in healthy young (n=17; 34±3 years) and elderly (n=17; 68±2 years) individuals. Mixed muscle fractional synthesis rate was calculated during a 3-hour postabsorptive period and for 5 hours after meal ingestion. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Tukey's pairwise comparisons. A 113-g serving of lean beef increased muscle protein synthesis by approximately 50% in both young and older volunteers. Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly.
Indeed, in the discussion of their results at 30g the authors also speculate
In terms of stimulating muscle growth, it therefore seems likely that under resting/nonexercising conditions, consumption of more than 30 g protein in a single meal is not justified. Indeed, it may well be the case that a slightly smaller meal would produce a similar protein synthetic responseIn terms of stimulating muscle growth, it therefore seems likely that under resting/nonexercising conditions, consumption of more than 30 g protein in a single meal is not justified. Indeed, it may well be the case that a slightly smaller meal would produce a similar protein synthetic response.Considerations: Could even less protein, in other words, have as much of a protein synthesis response as the 30g? Note the caveats given: if we're talking at rest and without exercise. The authors' participants were people who (a) didn't change their diet for the 72 hours leading up to the study (b) didn't do any activities for that period. THe study notes only that they were healthy people in a range of ages, not whether any were jocks or sedentary. Also, the average weight (plus or minus 7kg) was about 80kg in the "young" group and about 78 in the "elder" group. We also don't know what the lean mass is of any of the participants, or perhaps more fundamentally, how amount of protein might be impacted if one weights 20kg less or more than the study average?
One Feeding. The authors offer even more caveats: the researchers only looked at the ingestion of the whole protein - not at it mixed up with more food, as we usually get it, or after exercise. They say:
Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that a single menu item, such as a serving of lean beef, is seldom eaten alone. As noted, there are some data suggesting that elders may have a less robust protein synthetic response to the combined ingestion of protein and carbohydrate than their younger counterparts (25). This has yet to be explored in the context of an actual mixed-nutrient meal, but warrants further investigation. Further, there is the potential of an added protein synthetic response if protein were to be consumed in close temporal proximity to physical activity (29,30).
25 E. Volpi, B. Mittendorfer, B.B. Rasmussen and R.R. Wolfe, The response of muscle protein anabolism to combined hyperaminoacidemia and glucose-induced hyperinsulinemia is impaired in the elderly, J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85 (2000), pp. 4481–4490.In other words the researchers only tested protein synthesis effects when chewing meat in isolation of other food stuffs. Yes that's right, that's all they got: a 90% lean beef patty. And yes, "this project was supported by funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Checkoff Program" But it was also funded by the NIH center on aging. And considering the findings suggest that less is just as good as more, it's not doing the cattleMEN's association a great service.
29 S.M. Phillips, J.W. Hartman and S.B. Wilkinson, Dietary protein to support anabolism with resistance exercise in young men, J Am Coll Nutr 24 (2005), pp. S134–S139.
30 M. Sheffield-Moore, C.W. Yeckel, E. Volpi, S.E. Wolf, B. Morio, D.L. Chinkes, D. Paddon-Jones and R.R. Wolfe, Postexercise protein metabolism in older and younger men following moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 287 (2004), pp. E513–E522.
Where's the Beef for Application? What is intriguing to me in this study is how one would balance optimal absorption of protein with the amount of protein we're supposed to ingest - especially if remotely active. so our 80kg guy is going for 180ish grams of protein, at max 30g whole protein a meal.
So, let's say our person has three meals a day. 30g per meal, that's only 90g protein, total. That's half the protein our fella needs, according to the usual saw of .8-1g protein/pound of person.
Or what about folks who eat only one meal a day? That's one more potential problem with the evening feast beyond say glucose effects, then, perhaps? They may pig out on protein, but it's still 30g a shot for muscle synthesis this study would suggest. Read on.
Frequent Feedings for Optimal Muscle Building? Er...
Could this max 30g of whole protein be one more argument for the value of frequent meals during the day(s one eats -one may fast)? Consider one of the core heuristics of Precision Nutrition (discussed here): at each feeding make sure to have
- some greens
- some healthy fats
- some protein
- (starchy carbs only post workout).
We suggest that instead of a single, large protein-rich meal, ingestion of multiple moderate-sized servings of high-quality protein-rich foods over the course of a day may represent an effective means of optimizing the potential for muscle growth while permitting greater con- trol over total energy and nutrient intake.Full Disclosure: What the authors do not say is what the minimal times are between feedings such that one can make use of that full 30 again. They do state that the "post-ingestion period" is three hours. They did not however retest meal ingestion at that time to see what would happen with another dose. And that's fine for this study that was looking at size of dose for max possible effect, but it does mean we're speculating about repeats - grounded speculation, but still less tested.
Though there is a 2007 8 week trial that shows that lean mass didn't change to any statistically significant degree, whether people got all their daily protein in one meal or three a day. Whether folks were training or not was not considered. So the question comes up: are acute responses (measures taken at time of ingestion) related to longitudinal responses?
And what if Less is More? May be time to highlight again that we're talking about protein synthesis here, not protein absorption. Absorption amounts (2-2.5g/kg body weight) may be greater than required amounts for protein synthesis. An interesting question still kinda out there is if 30g is the max for resting muscle for a more or less 80kg person, what's the least amount to still get this max effect?
What about Work Outs? Things get really interesting if we consider pre and post training nutrition with carb/protein periworkout nutrition, as in this study where participants were fed slightly more than 30g protein pre AND post workouts (along with creatine and carbs). These researchers didn't test the amounts of protein they used (related work in this 2009 study suggests it's 20g post workout - thanks Kevin Greer for the ref); they just looked at whether there was a better effect with pre and post supplementation than not. They did sorta hit the maximal usable amount, which is cool, but it might be too much too soon to be fully absorbable for muscle synthesis.
Or maybe - maybe - the effect was from the Creatine and Carbs + Protein and not just the protein (another few views on protein+ creatine vs carbs + creatine [one] or pro+cho vs pro+cho+cr[another]). Dang.
Questions? What happens if we OD on protein? Can we? We know that if we're in caloric deficit, protein is getting oxidized for fuel before going to protein synthesis, right? And likewise if we eat too much of it, it gets deaminiated and the amonia gets peed out, which has been a concern/question regarding toxicity of overdoing protein:
High protein diets on the other hand advocate excessive levels of protein intake on the order of 200 to 400 g/d, which can equate to levels of approximately 5 g · kg-1 · d-1, which may exceed the liver’s capacity to convert excess nitrogen to urea. Dangers of excessive protein, defined as when protein constitutes > 35% of total energy intake, include hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia nausea, diarrhea, and even death (the “rabbit starvation syndrome”[link added -mc]).Hence the 2-2.5g/kg recommendation. Other excess ingestion of protein has protein used for glucose conversion, and we know if we don't need all the available sugar, well heck, it's stored as fat.
Summing Up?
What do we know from this study: that measured over three ours post ingestion, it doesn't matter whether an 80kg person eats 30g or three times that, that 30g of whole protein was the most that could be utilized for muscle protein synthesis in their resting muscle at a feeding.
What the authors are NOT saying: 30g of protein is needed every 2-3 hours for muscle growth. It seems kinda the opposite: less protein may be needed for acute muscle protein synthesis.
Where we mayn't be able to Generalize: While the authors suggest therefore that a strategy is to spread protein intake over the day, the 1 meal a day vs 3 meals a day study suggests that lean mass holds over time whether following this strategy or not. SO why spread out protein uptake??
If we move from protein synthesis at rest to muscle building, other work seems to suggest that even when working out that (a) just working out and (b) creatine may be more important for packing on muscle than protein. This latter point is one that Eat STop Eat author Brad Pilon makes in his ebook How Much Protein (thanks to Chris Highcock for pointing this book out to me).
So what can we say? well, what the authors also say is of note is that there's been concern that elderly eating low protein diets, mixed with other nutrients may have a blunted protein synthesis. This study suggests that there's no age related effect of upping protein to a certain point, regardless of age. Ok. So both elderly and younger types respond the same to acute protein intake when just eating protein. Good to know.
But once again a lovely finding of an acute response and a seeming logical conclusion (spread protein out over the day) doesn't seem to hold on its own in the larger context as a prescription for action. We may find though that benefits of protein supplementation have other functions than just mass related - like recovery and immune function. More food for future thought.
dang.
Related Posts
- Optimal Protein Blends for Omnivores and Plant Based Eaters Alike
- A minute with Mike: the Myth of the Post Workout Nutrition Window.
- Set Point Theory is Crap
- General Nutrition Post Index
- Nutrient Timing May be a Good Idea
- Whole Wheat, Whole Protein, Whole Holes?
- supplement curmudgeon: does that DO anything for you?
select citations
Bilsborough S, & Mann N (2006). A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 16 (2), 129-52 PMID: 16779921
Symons, T., Sheffield-Moore, M., Wolfe, R., & Paddon-Jones, D. (2009). A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (9), 1582-1586 DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.06.369
CARLSON, O., MARTIN, B., STOTE, K., GOLDEN, E., MAUDSLEY, S., NAJJAR, S., FERRUCCI, L., INGRAM, D., LONGO, D., & RUMPLER, W. (2007). Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation in healthy, normal-weight middle-aged men and women Metabolism, 56 (12), 1729-1734 DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2007.07.018
Cuthbertson, D. (2004). Anabolic signaling deficits underlie amino acid resistance of wasting, aging muscle The FASEB Journal DOI: 10.1096/fj.04-2640fje
KERKSICK, C., RASMUSSEN, C., LANCASTER, S., STARKS, M., SMITH, P., MELTON, C., GREENWOOD, M., ALMADA, A., & KREIDER, R. (2007). Impact of differing protein sources and a creatine containing nutritional formula after 12 weeks of resistance training Nutrition, 23 (9), 647-656 DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2007.06.015 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
