Chains & Bands Can Double Your 1RM Strength Gains on the Bench and in the Squat Rack, Meta-Analysis Shows

Chains & Bands Can Double Your 1RM Strength Gains on the Bench and in the Squat Rack, Meta-Analysis Shows

athletes bands build strength chains performance resistance band training techniques

Dude, it won't suffice to just bring your chains to the gym to show them off, you will also have to attach them to the barbell before squatting and benching to see results... and bro, the science on the benefits of elastic bands is much more solid - even though they are not as "cool"!

I've written about the use of bands and chains in previous SuppVersity articles, but Miguel A. Soria-Gila recent paper is the first meta-analysis that aggregates the available data to answer the important question, whether the use of "variable resistance" training (VRT), as the use of bands and chains is usually referred to in the literature, is generally advisable, or if the existing positive results are nothing but outliers.

Now, from the headline of today's SuppVersity article you already know that Sotia-Gila's analysis yielded positive results, or as the authors have it: " Long-term VRT training using chains or elastic bands attached to the barbell emerged as an effective evidence-based method of improving maximal strength both in athletes with different sports backgrounds and untrained subjects."

Want to become stronger, bigger, faster and leaner? Periodize appropriately!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What is particularly interesting, though, is whether the statistically significant benefits are practically relevant enough for you to consider bringing your chains and/or resistance bands to the gym.

Figure 1: Relative strength increase in bench press (BP), back squat (BSQ), leg press (LP) and squat (SQ) in response to regular and variable resistance training; if not indicated otherwise, the variable resistance training was done with bands, only the study by Ghigarelli, et al. compared bands to chains (Soria-Gila. 2015).

To answer this question we need both, the relative and absolute strength increases in both, the variable resistance training (VRT) and control groups of the four pertinent studies in the meta-analysis - data I've plotted for you in Figure 1 and 2.

Figure 2: Absolute increase in 1-RM strength (all values in kg) in the respective exercises (see Figure 1 for abbreviations) in the seven 7-week plus studies that were part of the meta-analysis (Soria-Gila. 2015).

In five of the studies (indexed with "(T)" in Figure 1) the subjects were trained individuals, in the studies by Anderson (basketball and hockey players + wrestlers), Cronin and McCurdy (baseball, Division I) the subjects actually had ~3 or even more years of training experience. The results of these studies may thus be of particular interest for the average SuppVersity reader of whom I know that he / she is not a total foreigner to gym. If we assume that they / you would see the same benfits, the extra-increases on the bench and in the squat would be:

• An extra 5% increase in 1RM and thus 2x greater strength gains on the bench.
• An extra 11% increase in 1RM and thus 2.6x greater strength gains for squats.

In relative terms the benefits you may achieve after only 10-13 weeks are thus quite impressive. But can the same be said for the absolute extra-gains? Soria-Gila et al. report an extra strength gain of 5.03 kg (95% confidence interval: 2.26–7.80 kg) for all studies and all exercises. If we, again, consider only the bench press and the squat and eliminate the studies with untrained participants, the absolute values are much smaller: 1.8 kg and 2.7 kg, respectively.

Are you looking for more ways to maximize your strength gains? Find out if training to failure or modifying your rest times can help in this SuppVersity article.

Variable resistance training for explosive gains? In relative terms, the effects are huge. Two-fold larger increases in 1-RM strength in trained subjects speak for themselves. The absolute strength gains, on the other hand, are - and that's typical for people who have been training for several years - relatively small. Accordingly, you should not expect to start gaining strength like a rookie again, when you incorporate bands (which are better researched than chains) in your training regimen. What you can expect, though, is that your progress will accelerate significantly. For the next 2-3 months this would mean that you may be able to add 4 kg to your bench instead of just 2 kg. That's not exactly earth-shatteringly much, but it's still a 100% increase in 1-RM strength and in my humble opinion worth the effort... no? | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Anderson, Corey E., Gary A. Sforzo, and John A. Sigg. "The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.2 (2008): 567-574.
• Bellar, David M., et al. "The effects of combined elastic-and free-weight tension vs. free-weight tension on one-repetition maximum strength in the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.2 (2011): 459-463.
• Cronin, John, Peter Mcnair, and Robert Marshall. "The effects of bungy weight training on muscle function and functional performance." Journal of sports sciences 21.1 (2003): 59-71.
• Ghigiarelli, Jamie J., et al. "The effects of a 7-week heavy elastic band and weight chain program on upper-body strength and upper-body power in a sample of division 1-AA football players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.3 (2009): 756-764.
• McCurdy, Kevin, et al. "Comparison of chain-and plate-loaded bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 187-195.
• Rhea, Matthew R., Joseph G. Kenn, and Bryan M. Dermody. "Alterations in speed of squat movement and the use of accommodated resistance among college athletes training for power." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.9 (2009): 2645-2650.
• Shoepe, Todd, et al. "The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular performance of novice lifters." Journal of human kinetics 29 (2011): 93-106.
• Soria-gila, Miguel A., et al. "Effects of variable resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis." Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2015): Accepted article.

Cardio After Weights! Doing Resistance Before Endurance Training Has More Beneficial Effects on Leptin, Cortisol, Testosterone and Body Composition in Young Men

Cardio After Weights! Doing Resistance Before Endurance Training Has More Beneficial Effects on Leptin, Cortisol, Testosterone and Body Composition in Young Men

build muscle cardio cortisol endurance endurance training exercise order leptin lose fat resistance training testosterone weight training weights

I can almost guarantee that the results of this study are not sex-specific. Ladies, pick up the weights fater you hit the treadmill, stairmaster, elliptical or other torture instrument you like to use!

It has been a while since the last study on exercise order (cardio or weights first) has been published. Now, scientists from the University of Kurdistan have conducted another study to investigate the effects of intrasession sequencing of concurrent resistance and endurance training on the serum leptin, testosterone, cortisol responses and body composition in obese men.

And don't worry, we are not talking about useless acute-phase data that shows no correlation with either strength or muscle gains, or fat loss (West. 2012). Sheikholeslami-Vatani and colleagues conducted an eight-week study on thirty obese young male students without continuous exercise history (age: 23.2±1.4 year, BMI: 31.8±1.6 kg/m²).

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order and Leptin Levels

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

Combine Cardio & Strength, Right

Exercise Order Reloaded

The subjects were randomly divided into three groups: concurrent resistance-endurance (CRE, n = 10) group, concurrent endurance-resistance (CER, n = 10) group and control (C, n = 10) group (no training program). The concurrent training groups (CER and CRE) trained three times a week on alternate days for 8 weeks. The training itself consisted of which consisted of ...

"running with 70—75% of maximal heart rate (HRmax) for 10 minutes which gradually increased to 80% HRmax for 21.5 minutes [plus] resistance training consisted of 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in 5 resistance exercises (leg extensions, lying leg curl, triceps pushdown, bench press and lateral pull down)" (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015). 

In-between the endurance and resistance (or vice versa) training parts of the workouts, the subjects rested for 5 minutes. Blood sampling and skin-fold measurements to asses the body composition was conducted 48 hours before the start of the course and again 48 hours after the last training session (learn why waiting longer for the body comp test may have been better, but no study does that).

Figure 1: Relative changes in hormone levels (left) and absolute and relative changes in body fat fat free mass and body fat % (right) after 8 weeks of doing nothing (C) or doing cardio (CER) or weights (CRE) first (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015).

I've plotted the most important results in Figure 1a & b. So, let's take a look: The first thing that everyone should see is that both workout regimen had relevant health and physique effects:

• 

  Similar gains w/ weights vs. cardio first in trained men | more.

  normalization of leptin levels (health)
• slight increases in testosterone (health)
• increases in cortisol (which are benign | learn why)
• significant reductions in body fat (health + physique)
• increases in fat free mass (health and physique)

In that, the resistance training first (CER) group came off slightly better in all tested study outcomes. Statistical significant inter-group differences, however, were observed only in comparison to the control group. In view of the fact that the body fat (total and %) improvement reached statistical significance compared to control only in the endurance first, group, yet not in the strength first group, one may still argue that the difference between cardio first (CER) and weights first (CRE) was "almost significant" ;-)

Weights or Cardio? What's the Best Visceral Fat Burner + How Often, Long and Intense Do You Have to Train | Learn more!

So, weights first is the way to go? Well, I assume I should write that doing both on separate days and thus doing having 5-6 workout days per week may have even more pronounced effects on the body composition of obese young men. In the end, though, I have no evidence to prove that doing the same amount of cardio on a separate day would actually have yielded greater improvements in body composition. Against that background and in view of the fact that three workouts per week is everything that fits into the busy schedules of the average trainee, we are left with the confirmation that (a) doing (intense) cardio and weights in one session feasible and effective when the goal are health and physique improvements and that (b) if you or your clients combine both, you better start with the weights, not the cardio part | Comment!

References:

• Sheikholeslami-Vatani, D., et al. "The effect of concurrent training order on hormonal responses and body composition in obese men." Science & Sports (2015).
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

Breakfast: Eat it or Skip it? Making it High Protein Will Have Habitually Skipping Teens Lose Fat & Curbs Their Hunger

Breakfast: Eat it or Skip it? Making it High Protein Will Have Habitually Skipping Teens Lose Fat & Curbs Their Hunger

adolescents Body Fat breakfast dieting high protein lose body fat lose fat normal protein teens

This could have been the HP breakfast. Egg-based pancakes + ham.

It is almost like the question "to carb" or "not to carb" and the almost religiously maddish discussions between carb-eaters and ketophiles: The debate revolving around the useful- or uselessness of breakfast, when it comes to health and physique issues.

In my more recent articles about the topic I have repeatedly exposed the claim that "not having breakfast is bad for everyone" is total bogus; and while I am not going to go back on that I am about to discuss a study that demonstrates that the right breakfast, i.e. one that's high in protein, may be extremely better than having no breakfast at all.

Learn more about fasting and eating / skipping breakfast at the SuppVersity

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

Does Meal Timing Matter?

Breakfast & Glucose Metab.

Break the Fast, Cardio & the Brain

Does the Break- Fast-Myth Break?

Breakfast? (Un?) Biased Review

Said study has been conducted by scientists from the University of Missouri and the Purdue University (Leidy. 2015). It's an investigation into the effects of normal-protein (NP) vs. high-protein (HP) breakfast meals on appetite control, food intake, and body composition in “breakfast skipping” young people with overweight/obesity.

As a SuppVersity reader you'll know that previous studies suggest that as habitual breakfast skippers, the youths are actually not the ideal study object for a study to show beneficial effects of breakfast. After all, a recent study by Thomas et al. showed quite convincingly that "Whether Skipping Breakfast Increases Insulin, Hunger and Blood Lipids Depends on One's Breakfast Habits" (read the article). Is this a problem? Well, it could be if the new study yielded negative results. After all, we'd have to argue that this was to be expected if the subjects were habitual breakfast skippers.

Table 1: Subject characteristics at baseline (Leidy. 2015). As you can see the subjects were randomly assigned to the three groups at a ratio of 1:2:2 to breakfast skipping, normal protein (NP) and high protein (HP) breakfast.

Luckily, the results were positive and the study with its 12-week study period probably long enough to overcome the effects of habituation which mess with the results of all studies which test the effect of having vs. skipping breakfast on only one or two occasions.

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition (g) of the test meals used in the study (Leidy. 2015)

The study at hand, however, had its fifty-seven adolescent subjects (age: 19 +/- years; BMI: 29.7 +/- 4.6 kg/m²) complete a 12-week randomized controlled trial in which the adolescents consumed either a 1,464 kJ NP breakfast (13 g protein), an isocaloric breakfast with a high protein content (HP | 35 g protein), or continued to skip breakfast (CON). The main outcome variables were the subjects' pre- and post-study appetite, their food intake, body weight, and body composition, which was assessed assessed via DXA scans (which are as you know still the "gold standard" for measuring the body composition of subjects in scientific studies)

In Schlundt's 12-week study in which the subjects had to follow the same energy reduced diet pattern one time with, one time without breakfast the marginal differences in weight loss and fat loss (the former favors breakfast, the latter skipping it) were just as statistically non-significant as the other inter-group differences the US scientists observed (Schlundt. 1992).

In the long run, calories count. So if you are counting calories it doesn't matter if you have breakfast or don't. There are bazillions of "breakfast eating vs. skipping"-studies, but this is only study #3 to test the long-term effects. Yes, sometimes science is pathetic and stupid - and trying to elucidate the health effects of eating vs. skipping breakfast in studies on three testing days is both: pathetic and stupid.

One of the two non-pathetic studies comes from Schlundt et al. who examined the effects of consuming breakfast vs. breakfast skipping during a 12-week energy restriction weight loss diet in 52 adult women with obesity without finding significant differences.

More recently, Dhurandhar et al. completed a 16-week study in 309 adults with obesity and included a general recommendation to either "eat breakfast" or "skip breakfast". As it was to be expected when energy intake is controlled for, again, no differences in weight loss were observed in those who began eating breakfast compared to those who continued to skip breakfast.

The NP and HP groups were provided with specific breakfast meals to consume between 6:00 and 9:45am each day, while the CON group continued to skip breakfast (with nothing to eat/drink, besides water) before 10:00am - with significant consequences as the in parts significant inter-group differences in Figure 2 can tell you.

Figure 2: Comparison of the changes in fat mass, the daily food intake, hunger and fullness ratings in the subjects from the CON (=kept skipping breakfast), NP (normal protein) and HP (high protein) breakfast groups (Leidy. 2015).

The superiority of (a) having breakfast and (b) consuming a high protein breakfast are not debatable. With its 12-week study duration, the study at hand obviously allowed for a full habituation and did thus - much in contrast to many short-term studies - yield all the benefits that are usually ascribed to having breakfast. In particular, having breakfast...

• 

  "Breakfast!? An (Un-)Biased (?) Review of the Breakfast Myth" | read it!

  made the subjects magically lose (HP) or at least not gain (NP) superfluous body fat.
• significantly reduced the daily energy intake in the high protein condition and buffered the significant increase in energy intake in the no breakfast condition if the breakfast had a normal protein content,
• reduced the total time during which the subjects were hungry not just in the morning, but 24/7, and
• increased the subjects' fullness, especially in the morning.

In that it's important to highlight that the high protein breakfast outperformed the normal protein breakfast in all relevant categories, i.e. change in body fat, change in daily energy intake and change in hunger ratings, Accordingly, Leidy et al. are right when they highlight only the high protein breakfast in their conclusion which says that

"daily addition of a HP breakfast improved indices of weight management as illustrated by the prevention of body fat gain, voluntary reductions in daily intake, and reductions in daily hunger in breakfast skipping adolescents with overweight/obesity." (Leidy. 2015)

In spite of that, we should not forget that even a regular breakfast which contained 15% protein, 65% carbohydrates, and 20% fat and consisted of (you guessed it) ready-to-eat cereals with milk outperformed not having breakfast at all. That's in contrast to some previous studies, most of which used shorter study durations and didn't allow for the habituation that's necessary for breakfast to have effects on the total energy intake, for example, to take place.

The study at hand is an excellent example that shows that the previously observed effects of habitation can be overcome if you adhere to your new breakfast protocol meticulously. 

So what? If you have a teenage son or daughter, serve him / her a high protein breakfast containing 40% protein, 40% carbohydrates, and 20% fat, like an egg-based pancakes and ham; egg-based waffles with pork-sausage; egg and pork scramble; and an egg and pork burrito (all these were options the subjects in the study at hand were provided with on a weekly basis. It's going to help them manage their weight, food cravings, and hunger pangs and it's not going to take you an hour to prepare (rather 15 min - max). The scientists assertion that "it is unclear as to whether the daily consumption of a high-protein breakfast, containing 35 g of protein, is feasible in a free-living environment" (Leidy. 2015) is just more pathetic evidence that people care so little about their health that they'd rather die from eating ready-made cereals than to invest the 10-15 minutes to prepare delicious and healthy protein pancakes into their health.

If you are now contemplating to switch back to having breakfast, yourself, let me remind you that it is not possible to extrapolate study results that were generated with a specific group of subjects, in this case overweight, but still healthy adolescents to whomever you want. If you are on an energy controlled diet and skipping breakfast as a means to do intermittent fasting and reduce your overall energy intake, you won't reduce your 24h energy intake (after all, you're eating X kcal everyday, anyway).  It is thus unlikely that you'd lose more weight than you'd do without breakfast and if you are like many people you will probably even feel hungrier now that you're able to eat only 3 small vs. 1-2 large(r) meals | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Dhurandhar, Emily J., et al. "The effectiveness of breakfast recommendations on weight loss: a randomized controlled trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 100.2 (2014): 507-513.
• Leidy, Heather J., et al. "A high‐protein breakfast prevents body fat gain, through reductions in daily intake and hunger, in “Breakfast skipping” adolescents." Obesity (2015).
• Schlundt, David G., et al. "The role of breakfast in the treatment of obesity: a randomized clinical trial." The American journal of clinical nutrition 55.3 (1992): 645-651.
• Thomas, Elizabeth A., et al. "Usual breakfast eating habits affect response to breakfast skipping in overweight women." Obesity 23.4 (2015): 750-759.

First Study to Demonstrate Ergogenic Effects of Metformin - 14% Increased Time to Exhaustion in Standardized Supra-Maximal Cycling Test With 500mg of Ordinary Metformin

First Study to Demonstrate Ergogenic Effects of Metformin - 14% Increased Time to Exhaustion in Standardized Supra-Maximal Cycling Test With 500mg of Ordinary Metformin

AMPK cycling doping endurance metformin performance time to exhaustion

With the publication of Learsi's latest paper the list of things metformin can do for you has just gotten been expanded with another item: Doping!

You will probably remember my article about the potential, but unproven ergogenic effects of AMPK mimetics (read it). Well, as it is often the case, a new study is released only days after you've published a review of the existing literature. Oftentimes that's not really relevant, but in the case of the latest study from the Federal University of Alagoas this may be different. After all, we are dealing with a human study in  ten healthy, physically active, but non-athletic subjects with a mean (±SD) maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) o 38.6 ± 4.5 mL/kg per min who performed (i) an incremental test; (ii) six submaximal constant workload tests at 40%-90% V O2max; and (iii) two supramaximal tests (110% V O2max).

All tests were performed twice once with a placebo supplement and once with 500mg of metformin. Both, the placebo and the metformin supplement were ingested 60 minutes before the supramaximal test, in order to investigate the hypothesis that metformin would increase anaerobic capacity and performance during high-intensity, short-duration exercise.

Like antioxidants metformin could blunt the hormetic response & long-term(!) adaptation

Is Vitamin E Good for the Sedentary Slob, Only?

Even Ice-Baths Impair the Adapt. Process

Vit C+E Impair Muscle Gains in Older Men

C+E Useless or Detrimental for Healthy People

Vitamin C and Glucose Management?

Antiox. & Health Benefits Don't Correlate

The authors, Learsi et al. (2015), based this hypothesis on the fact that metformin inhibits aerobic pathway energy production and so the glycolytic energy system could be overloaded during ATP production for muscle contraction.

Figure 1: Overview of the study design. The active / placebo treatment, i.e. 500mg of metformin or an identically looking placebo were administered 60 min before the supramaximal tests. The whole procedure was repeated twice, with at least 72h between the first and the second testing session (Learsi. 2015).

The aim was thus to to determine the effects of metformin on anaerobic capacity and to elucidate whether metformin has any ergogenic effect in intense, short-duration exercise in healthy, physically active men.

Is this really the first study? Yes, it is the first to prove metformin's ergogenic effects in humans. It's yet not the first human study to test the ergogenic effects of metformin. 2008 Johnson et al. made the mistake to assume that taking metformin would affect the VO2max, or ventilatory threshold. Just like Gudat et al. before them, Johnson et al. simply missed the most straight forward practical measure of exercise performance, i.e. total time to exhaustion, while focusing on things like VO2 (Johnson et al. 2008) or lactate (Gudat et al. 1997) which are nice to explain increases in performance, but - if we are honest - still irrelevant, when all that really counts is how fast you run, how long you cycle or how hard you hit.

While many of the variables they assessed didn't change, the already hinted at 14% increase in maximal endurance (see headline) is something that may make the difference between winning an Olympic medal and placing fourth or worse.

Figure 2: Changes in time to exhaustion and EPOC, both stat. significantly w/ metformin (Learsi. 2015).

What is also noteworthy is that the subjects excess post-exercise energy consumption, which was measured for (unfortunately) only 10 min, increased significantly, as well (see Figure 2, right). In contrast to what some bro-scientists may tell you that does not necessarily equal increased fat loss, but it's still interesting, because it may suggest that metformin improved the subjects' performance by increasing the supply of energy via the anaerobic alactic system, i.e. by boosting the efficacy of non-glucose- and thus non-lactic-acid-dependent energy pathways - in short: fat oxidation.

Alpha Lipoic Acid, GABA, Taurine, Green Tea, Gooseberry & Fenugreek. Plus: Metformin the No.1 Drug? Supplements to Improve and Restore Insulin Sensitivity - Read the First Installment of This Series | read more

Bottom line: This is the first human study to confirm that the AMPK-booster and frequently prescribed diabetes drug can trigger statistically and practically relevant increases in endurance performance during a supra-maximal VO2 max test. If we assume that a similar performance increase occurs in trained athletes, the Learsi study makes taking a bunch of grandma's metformin pills before the next race quite attractive. For the WADA, however, it means that they will have to watch and test for yet another commonly prescribed and readily available medication. And last but not least, for the "wonder-drug" metformin, it is yet another area of application: athletic performance enhancement or as we usually call it "doping" | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Gudat, U., G. Convent, and L. Heinemann. "Metformin and exercise: no additive effect on blood lactate levels in healthy volunteers." Diabetic medicine 14.2 (1997): 138-142.
• Johnson, S. T., et al. "Acute effect of metformin on exercise capacity in active males." Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 10.9 (2008): 747-754.
• Learsi, et al. "Metformin improves performance in high-intensity exercise, but not anaerobic capacity." in healthy male subjects." Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2015 Aug 7. doi: 10.1111/1440-1681.12474. [Epub ahead of print]

Silicon-Powered Anti-Heart Disease Sausages / High Protein Breakfast, High Satiety, No Change in Food Intake / 49% Higher Chance of Healthy Aging Depends on Moderation

Silicon-Powered Anti-Heart Disease Sausages / High Protein Breakfast, High Satiety, No Change in Food Intake / 49% Higher Chance of Healthy Aging Depends on Moderation

aging atherosclerosis cholesterol health healthy aging healthy diet healthy eating lose fat nutrition on short notice silicon VLDL

Can you pump them up w/ silicon and to negate their atherosclerotic effects!? 

In today's installment of the Nutrition Research Update in the Short News, I am going to tackle three studies that deal with the surprisingly pronounced, yet practically potentially irrelevant benefits of eating a high protein breakfast, silicon... not in breasts, but sausages as a means to protect you from heart disease and the fact that calories count so much that even on a "healthy diet" only those who eat in moderation will age healthily.

That sounds interesting? Fine! I am not going to waste any more time and will fast forward to the first study...

Read more short news on various topics here at the SuppVersity

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 1/2

Exercise Research Uptake Nov '14 2/2

Nutrition and (Anti-)Aging News Special

Exercise Supplementation Quickie

Exercise Research Uptake Jan 12, 2015

Read the Latest Ex. Science Update

• Breakfasts Higher in Protein Increase Postprandial Energy Expenditure, Increase Fat Oxidation, and Reduce Hunger in Overweight Children from 8 to 12 Years of Age - In the eponymous study, Baum et al. determined whether consumption of a protein-based breakfast (PRO) increases postprandial energy metabolism and substrate oxidation, reduces hunger, and reduces food intake at lunch compared with a carbohydrate-based breakfast (CHO) in normal weight (NW) vs. overweight/obese (OW) children. Both, the normal and over-weight children participated in the same randomized, crossover protocol that arranged for all participants to be served a
  • high PRO [344 kcal, 21% protein (18 g), 52% carbohydrate, and 27% fat] or 
  • high CHO [327 kcal, 4% protein (3 g), 67% carbohydrate, and 29% fat]
  breakfast, after which the energy expenditure (EE), substrate oxidation, appetite, and blood glucose were measured over a 4 h period. To access whether the high protein intake would also affect the participants appetite, the subjects had free access to a lunch buffet and food intake was recorded.
  

  

  Figure 1: Energy expenditure, fat and carbohydrate oxidation in the 4h post breakfast (Blum. 2015).

  The results were unambiguous: After breakfast, OW children in the PRO group had higher (P < 0.0001) EEs and fat oxidation over the 4 h period than did the NW children in the CHO and PRO groups. Of these, the increase in energy expenditure was transient and didn't last for the full 4h period. The increase in fat oxidation in response to the high protein intake, on the other hand, lasted for the full 4 h period (+16%; P < 0.05) and went hand in hand with a surprisingly pronounced 32% increase in carbohydrate oxidation in the PRO vs. CHO (P < 0.01) trial.
  

  

  Table 1: Despite decreased hunger and increased fullness, the protein breakfast did not reduce the total energy intake or modify the macronutrient ratio of the foods the kids selected at the lunch buffet (Baum. 2015).

  Now, all this sounds great, but even though the subjects experienced decreased feelings of hunger (−14%; P < 0.01) and increased fullness (+32%; P < 0.05) after the PRO than the CHO breakfast, the lack of effect on the intake at the subsequent ad-libitum lunch is disappointing to say the least. This and the lack of long-term data make it very difficult to predict if a similar increase in protein during breakfast only would actually help the subjects lose weight.  
• Silicon ... not breasts, but enhanced meat may protect older individuals against atherosclerosis - That's at least what a recent rodent study by Garcimartin et al. (2015) suggests.

  "Research has shown that silicon can play an important role in protecting against degenerative diseases. Restructuring pork by partially disassembling meat would permit the incorporation of active components with potential functional effects. However, there has been no research to date on the impact that silicon, as a functional ingredient in restructured pork (RP), has on lipoprotein composition, metabolism, and oxidation" (Garcimartin. 2015).

  In order to find out whether the addition of silicon would actually have a meaningful effect, the scientists added 1.3g/kg silicon to sausages that were then fed to one group of old rodents while the rest received regular, non-enriched sausages as part of regular and pro-atherogenic cholesterol-enriched diets.
  
  The results were quite astonishing, as is partially normalized the changes induced by the high cholesterol diet. Compared with the rodents who received the regular sausages, those on the silicon sausages had lower VLDL compound concentrations (P < 0.001; e.g., 75% less VLDL cholesterol) and a significantly reduced VLDL oxidation (65% less conjugated dienes and 85% less TBARS) that went hand in hand with an increase in LDL-receptor expression (200% more).
  

  

  Figure 1: The silicon in the sausages increased the LDL receptor density to (almost) normal, the amount of cholesterol protecting AE in the blood and liver, as well as its ratio to the amount of cholesterol. The result is obvious: With as little oxidized VLDL in the blood as the control, we can safely assume that the rodents that consumed the silicon enriched sausages have a sign. lower atherosclerosis risk (Garcimartin. 2015).

  In spite of the fact that there are differences in the susceptibility of mouse and man to the pro-atherogenic diets of the results do - just as the authors point out - still suggest that silicon added to restructure pork can strongly counterbalanced the negative effect of high-cholesterol-ingestion and, as I would like to add, the negative effects of endogenous cholestrol (by increasing its uptake by LDL receptors and decreasing its susceptibility to oxidation) thus "functioning as an active hypocholesterolemic, hypolipemic, and antioxidant dietary ingredient" (Garcimartin. 2015).
• Healthy eating requires a controlled (not restricting) energy intake to increase one's chance of "aging healthily" by almost 50% - If you question if eating "healthy" and not eating everything in sight is even worth it, you will like the results of a recent study from the Sorbonne in Paris (Essmann. 2015).
  
  In her latest study Karen E Essmann and her colleagues analyzed the diets of a subgroup of 2769 participants of the SU.VI.MAX (SUpplémentation en Vitamines et Minéraux AntioXydants) trial. They identified subjects consuming "healthy" and those on the "standard Western diet", adjusted the data for a large number of potential confounders and the influence of high(er) and low(er) energy intakes.
  

  

  Table 2: Overview of the criteria the scientists applied to identify "healthy eating" - CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale; DKTMT, Delis-Kaplan version of the Trail Making Test; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; RI-48, 48-item cued recall test; SF-36, Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery.

  In that, the scientists found that the association between "healthy eating" and "healthy aging" was mediated by low(er) energy intakes. Only in subjects with median or lower energy intakes, the association between "healthy eating" and "healthy aging" reached statistical significance, so that the non-gluttonous "healthy eaters" were 49% more likely to age healthily.
  
  Since we are already talking "healthy eating", let's briefly mention that scientists from the University of Eastern Finland just confirmed the obvious (Haapala. 2015): A poorer diet quality is associated with worse cognition in children. What is a bit surprising, though, is that the relationship was stronger in boys than in girls.

In contrast to Blum's study, a previous study with high fat breakfasts showed sign. reduced 24h food intakes | more

Bottom Line: So what did we learn today? I guess if you want to find a general bottom line it is as simple as "when it comes to nutrition, things are never as straight forward as it is often portrayed in the mainstream media". High protein breakfasts, for example will help you to control your energy intake (by increasing satiety and fullness) and increase your energy expenditure, but they (certainly) won't make you lose weight in a scenario where you simply eat whatever is in sight. The same goes for the link between "eating healthy" and "aging healthy" which is significant (+49%) only in those who don't overeat on their healthy diets (note: a median intake is enough, you don't have to fast!).

And if that was not complex enough, take a look at the silicon sausage study. With the right additives even something as junk-foody as sausages can have almost "medical" effects. Whether silicon supplements have the same effects in men and women, though, would require future (long-term) studies | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Assmann, et al. "A Healthy Dietary Pattern at Midlife, Combined with a Regulated Energy Intake, Is Related to Increased Odds for Healthy Aging." J. Nutr. first published on 5 August 2015 doi:10.3945/jn.115.210740
• Baum, et al. "Breakfasts Higher in Protein Increase Postprandial Energy Expenditure, Increase Fat Oxidation, and Reduce Hunger in Overweight Children from 8 to 12 Years of Age." J. Nutr. first published on 12 August 2015 doi:10.3945/jn.115.214551
• Garcimartín, et al. "Silicon-Enriched Restructured Pork Affects the Lipoprotein Profile, VLDL Oxidation, and LDL Receptor Gene Expression in Aged Rats Fed an Atherogenic Diet." J. Nutr. first published on 5 August 2015 doi:10.3945/jn.115.213934
• Haapala, et al. "Associations of diet quality with cognition in children – the Physical Activity and Nutrition in Children Study." British Journal of Nutrition (2015): FirstView Article.