HMB 'Likely' Protects 'Muscle Quality' & 'Possibly' to 'Likely' Cuts Inflammation During 23-Day Intense Military Training

HMB 'Likely' Protects 'Muscle Quality' & 'Possibly' to 'Likely' Cuts Inflammation During 23-Day Intense Military Training

build muscle high intensity HMB HMB-FA military training muscle damage performance

Unfortunately, the study at hand provides insufficient evidence to decide whether you should buy (free acid) HMB if you are about to participate in a military bootcamp.

The idea that HMB is the rather anticatabolic version of leucine, I've mentioned in previous articles, obviously occurred to an international group of scientists from the University of Central Florida, the Israel Defense Forces as well as associated universities, too (Hoffman. 2016).

In their recent study, the scientists examined whether HMB supplementation can attenuate muscle loss and the inflammatory response during highly intense, sustained military training. A study, of which Hoffman et al. point out, that it is "to the best of [their] knowledge" the first study to "have examined HMB supplementation in soldiers during intense military operations" (Hoffman. 2016).

Learn more about the potential beneficial effects of HMB at the SuppVersity:

HMB For Fat Loss?

Hica & HMB in Yogurt

More on HMB Free Acid

Breakthrough HMB Science

HMB + Whey = Useless?!

HMB Lower Body Fat, Higher T?

The authors examined the effect of 23-days of HMB supplementation on the immune and inflammatory response, and changes in muscle mass in combat soldiers during highly intense military training duringn which they consumed eiather with three servings (1 gram per serving) per day (at meal time | BetaTor®), or a placebo (PL) consisted of a similar amount of Litesse® polydextrose, reverse osmosis water, corn syrup, debittering agent, orange flavoring, stevia extract, citric acid, potassium sorbate, and xanthine gum powder (both sponsored by Metabolic Technologies Inc.):

• During the 23-day study period all soldiers performed the same daily protocol. 
• On days 1 – 10 soldiers were garrisoned on base and participated in the same advanced military training tasks that included combat skill development and conditioning. 
• During days 11 – 17 soldiers were released for a week of rest and recovery. Upon reporting back for duty, soldiers were then subjected to a week (days 18 – 23) of extreme training with minimal recovery. 
• On days 18 through 20, soldiers navigated 23.3 km per evening in difficult terrain carrying approximately 35 kg of equipment on their back (equating to approximately 40% of participant’s body mass). The duration of the navigational exercise lasted between 6 – 8 hours per evening. During daylight TED 
• On day 21-23, the soldiers were subjected to excessive physical training that included 90-min of intense hand-to-hand combat (krav-maga training), 60-min of endurance training and an additional 60-min of resistance training. 

As the scientists point out, the soldiers slept of only 22.5 h (3.8 ±3.0 h per night) during the six days of intense training, which including two evenings of no sleep (days 18 and 22). Blood draws and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures were conducted in a single day prior to (PRE) and approximately 18-hours following the final supplement consumption (on day 24) (POST). All
blood draws and MRI measures were performed at Soroka Medical Center.

Table 1: Circulating cytokine concentrations (pg/ml) and muscle damage markers in HMB and PL in response to intense military training (Hoffman. 2016) | All data are reported as means ± SD.

Due to injuries and compliance issues, only 13 of the 27 participants were included in the final analysis (HMB = 6 and PL = 7), and even those subjects consumed only 89.3 ± 6.8% of the possible servings. I doubt, however, that the scientists didn't observe significant interactions were observed between HMB and PL for body mass (F=3.36, p=0.094) from pre (72.6 ± 7.1 kg and 70.7 ± 6.6 kg, respectively) to post (71.7 ± 6.4 kg and 71.2 ± 6.9 kg, respectively).

Why is HMB-FA supposed to be better than calcium HMB (Ca-HMB)? While some people say that the producers make false marketing claims about the bioavailability of HMB-FA, the reality is that the patent holder's claim that "BetaTOR [HMB-FA] is more rapidly absorbed so you get a higher peak and sustained concentration in the blood" (Manufacturer claim) has been proven in both, rodent (Shreeram. 2014) and human studies (Fuller. 2011). The former, however, also reveal that the bioavailability, i.e. the amount of HMB that actually hits the circulation - or, as scientists say the area under the curve (AUC) from t = 0 to t = ∞ - is actually 49%, 54%, and 27% lower (with increasing doses reducing the difference) than for Ca-HMB (Shreeram. 2014). The often-heard claim that the AUC doesn't matter as much as the speed may be in analogy to the comparison of whey vs. steaks, where the speed at which whey protein is absorbed and its leucine content enters your bloodstream is supposed to make all the difference, but is as of yet unproven.

On the other hand, the scientists observed potentially meaningful effects of HMB on markers of inflammation. More specifically, HMB ingestion, based on magnitude analysis (see Table 1 for an overview of all results), ...

• likely attenuated (78% likelihood effect) response compared with the effect of PL (a difference ± 90% CI of -38 ± 43.7 pg/ml between he Δ HMB – Δ PL)
• likely(87.2% likelihood effect) attenuated the INFγ response compared with the effect of the placebo (a difference ± 90% CI of -42 ± 47.3 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL)
• possibly attenuated (74% likelihood effect) the IL-1ra response compared to PL (a difference ± 90% CI of -11 ± 18.9 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL).
• possibly (74.5% likelihood effect) attenuated the IL-6 response compared to PL (a difference ± 90% CI of -6.6 ± 11.2 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL).
• possibly attenuated (63% likelihood effect) the GM-CSF response compared with the effect of PL (a difference ± 90% CI of -8.1 ± 20.0 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL).
• likely decreased (80.5% likelihood effect) the IL-8 response compared to PL (a difference ± 90% CI of -6.7 ± 10.0 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL).
• very likely (92% likelihood effect) attenuated the TNF-α response compared to PL (a difference ± 90% CI of - 10.8 ± 7.2 pg/ml between the Δ HMB – Δ PL).

As the authors point out, "[t]he remaining cytokines demonstrated no significant pre and post changes between HMB and PL for IL-1b (F=0.04, p=0.84), and MCP-1(F=0.58, p=0.46) [and,  more importantly] the magnitude based inference analyses indicated that comparisons between HMB and PL on these inflammatory markers were unclear" (Hoffman. 2016).

Figure 1: There's a 77% chance the rel. increase in adductor magnus MRI muscle volume is significant (Hoffman. 2016). In view of the likely increased CK and LDH levels this could be a result of cell swelling in response to muscle damage.

Unfortunately, we have to eyeball the trend (F=4.30, p=0.062) towards HMB's effects on plasma CK with the same skepticism as the "likely", "possible" and even "very likely" effects on markers of inflammation. Ok, the fact that the increased CK levels in the HMB group were accompanied by "a likely increase (84% likelihood) in the LDH response compared to PL (a difference ± 90% CI of 53 ± 5.8 IU·L-1 between the ∆ HMB - ∆ PL)" (Hoffman. 2016), is what you'd expect in response to exercise. Usually, though, CK and LDH are considered markers of muscle damage and IIRC the scientists thought to demonstrate that HMB has a muscle protective effect.

To even complicate things, in previous studies both acute increases and chronic decreases in CK have been observed in studies by Wilson et al. (2009 | acute data) and Panton et al. (2000 | chronic data), respectively. Whether there was an increased muscle damage or whether HMB had protective effect as the "likely [...] increase muscle volume for the adductor magnus (77% likelihood [see Figure 1]) compared to PL" (Hoffman. 2016), the scientists appears to suggest, is thus impossible to say.

More HMB Free Acid Science: Now It's Also Good For High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) Says the Latest Spon-sored Trial W/Out Calcium HMB Con-trol in Young Men & Women | more!

Bottom line: Even though I cannot debate that the scientists' magnitude analyses provide, as they say in the conclusion, "evidence that HMB supplementation may attenuate the inflammatory response to high intense military training, and maintain muscle quality" (Hoffman. 2016). The study is seriously under-powered (remember they had 14 dropouts).

Due to the high number of dropouts, it was more or less impossible to produce significant results. In a situation like that, the use of magnitude analyses to "save" the study makes sense, but reliability of the results is even lower than "likely" and "possibly" would suggest.

So why did I discuss the study, then? Well, let's say I sense that either Metabolic Technologies Inc., who are mentioned in the acknowledgements, which also declare that the authors have "no conflict of interests to report"(Hoffman. 2016), or licensees of HMB free acid are going to cite this study in write-ups and on product packages without mentioning words like "possibly" or "likely" or any of the other problems discussed above | Comment on Facebook! 

References:

• Fuller, John C., et al. "Free acid gel form of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) improves HMB clearance from plasma in human subjects compared with the calcium HMB salt." British journal of nutrition 105.03 (2011): 367-372.
• Hoffman, Jay R., et al. "HMB attenuates the cytokine response during sustained military training." Nutrition Research (2016).
• Panton, Lynn B., et al. "Nutritional supplementation of the leucine metabolite β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) during resistance training." Nutrition 16.9 (2000): 734-739.
• Shreeram, Sathyavageeswaran, et al. "The Relative Bioavailability of the Calcium Salt of β-Hydroxy-β-Methylbutyrate Is Greater Than That of the Free Fatty Acid Form in Rats." The Journal of nutrition 144.10 (2014): 1549-1555.
• Wilson, J.M., et al. "Acute and timing effects of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) on indirect markers of skeletal muscle damage." Nutrition & metabolism 6.1 (2009): 1.

Mo, We, Fr - Sequence of Hypertrophy, Power & Strength Will Up Your Gains on the Big Three (Squat, Bench, Deadlift)

Mo, We, Fr - Sequence of Hypertrophy, Power & Strength Will Up Your Gains on the Big Three (Squat, Bench, Deadlift)

ADP athletes bench press build strength deadlift DUP performance periodization powerlifting resistance training squat training programming training programs UDP

Squat, bench press, deadlift - All major three benefit from the right order in your daily undulating periodization program (DUP) - This is how it works...

As a SuppVersity reader you are familiar with the term "undulating periodization". In contrast to regular periodization schemes, undulating schemes will have you train in different rep ranges on a weekly or - as in the latest study by Zourdos et al. (2016), even daily (as in every workout) basis.

As Zourdos, et al. point out, the available research shows mixed results with the respect to the efficacy of regular linear vs. undulating periodization schemes. While some studies report no differences among training models (Baker. 1994; Buford. 2007; Kok. 2009), others suggest that the more frequent changes of the rep ranges in an undulating periodization scheme are more advantageous for strength development (Miranda. 2011; Monteiro. 2009; Peterson. 2008; Prestes. 2009; Rhea. 2002).

The method used int he study is an alternative to classic periodization schemes.

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

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

When you take a closer look at the data, one of the potential confounding factors that emerges is the subjects' training experience with no significantly distinct advantages in untrained or recreationally trained individuals (Baker. 1994; Buford. 2007; Herrick. 1999; Kok. 2009) and a significantly greater degree of muscular strength development when using a DUP design compared with LP (Miranda. 2011; Monteiro. 2009; Peterson. 2008; Prestes. 2009; Rhea. 2002). An alternative difference, the effects of which have not been investigated yet, are programming variations within the daily undulating periodization (DUP) framework in experienced athletes. More specifically, ...

"[i]t is reasonable to speculate that the program design and practical implementation of DUP can be further optimized. A possible area of improvement in the DUP design is the temporal configuration of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power/speedcentric sessions within a given week. Previous research demonstrating the effectiveness of DUP over LP implemented a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power-centric bouts (e.g., hypertrophy training on Monday, strength training on Wednesday, and power training on Friday) (Peterson. 2008). However, this design calls for a strength-centric bout to be performed just 48–72 hours after a hypertrophy-centric bout each week. Hypertrophy training is characterized by sessions of high volume of exercise, a condition shown to result in heightened muscle damage, and compromised neuromuscular performance for up to 48-hour postexercise (Flann. 2011; Rhea. 2002b). In the context of traditional DUP formatting, this may conceivably hinder performance (i.e., total volume [TV] performed) during the subsequent strength-centric bout, thereby precluding strength athletes from maximizing their training potential" (Zourdos. 2016).

To investigate the potential negative effects of hypertrophy training induced muscle damage on the subsequent strength training bout, Zourdos et al. (2016) compared the effects of a modified DUP format with a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric (H), power-centric (P), and strength-centric bouts (S | H-P-S) on total training volume (i.e., sets 3 reps 3 weightlifted) and muscular strength in comparison with a traditional DUP model (i.e., HSP) in resistance-trained men for 6 weeks (see Figure 1).

Table 1: Experimental training periodization - Traditional Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, strength, and then power focused bouts (HSP). Modified DUP involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength focused bouts. Each protocol spans 6 weeks and consists of three exercises: back squat, bench press, and deadlift (only performed during strength-centric bouts | Zourdos. 2016).

In order to find out what could be responsible for any potentially observable differences in their study, the authors also tested the total training volume as measured by the total poundage the subjects moved during the strength sessions, in which the subjects trained to failure, and the temporal secretion patterns of testosterone and cortisol in response to both DUP training programs.

Understanding the benefits: Since I've already received questions about how the benefits came about, let me briefly elaborate on the idea of HPS vs. HSP. The notion was that <48h of recovery, from Monday to Wednesday, after a higher volume hypertophy (H) training program would not be enough to hit personal bests on the strength day on which - and that's important - the subjects had to perform each set to full failure. If you train to failure, recovery is a crucial determinant of the number of reps you will master and thus the total volume. The latter, in turn, appears to be one of the central determinants of the strength / hypertrophy response to resistance training, which in turn makes you stronger and will allow you to lift even more weight. So, postponing the strength (S) day to Friday instead of Wednesday will have both, direct and indirect beneficial effects on your gains.

In that, Zourdos, et al. hypothesized that "HPS (i.e., modified DUP) would yield greater volume and strength gains in the 3 exercises performed during training" (Zourdos. 2016).

Figure 1: Rel. change in strength and abs. Cohen’s d effect size in HSP and HPS groups (N = 9 for both; Zourdos. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, the scientists were right, the effects of the otherwise identical training protocols, which involved 3 exercises (squats + bench presses in every, deadlifts only in the strength sessions) during training, of which the subjects did ..

• 5 sets of 8 reps at 75% 1RM during H = hypertrophy,
• 5 sets of 1 rep at 80%-90% increased every 2 weeks during P = power and
• 3 sets to failure at 85% during S = strength raining

differed significantly, with a statistical significant advantage on the bench and meaningfully higher effect sizes for all three exercises in the HPS group - an effect that could be mediated by the increased total volume and Wilk's coefficient, a measure that can be used to measure the strength of a powerlifter against other powerlifters despite the different weights of the lifters (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Rel. change in powerlifting volume and Will's coefficient + effect sizes in HSP and HPS groups (Zourdos. 2016).

An alternative explanation of which previous studies do yet not confirm that it may explain the difference is the differential cortisol / testosterone response (learn more) - in view of the fact that the difference you see in Table 2 is not statistically significant, though, it is even more unlikely that the meager difference in testosterone and cortisol the scientists observed had any effect.

Table 1: Pre- and post-training serum testosterone and cortisol level (Zourdos. 2016).

Against that background, we're back to the "usual" subject, when it comes to determinants of the degree of adaptation to resistance training: volume - the same parameter reviews and studies by Schoenfeld et al. (2010; 2011; 2014) have previously singled out as the (most important) determinant of training success.

Again: The differences in the cortisol / testosterone levels were not just statistically non-significant. At least the latter has also been shown to have no effect on your gains, anyways | more.

Bottom line: As the authors point out, "[t]hese findings demonstrate 2 important factors in accordance with the previous literature: (a). Total training volume seems to be a determinant of increased strength performance, and (b). Daily undulating periodization is an effective model to
enhance 1RM strength during short-term training protocols in well-trained men" (Zourdos. 2016).

Zourdos et al. are yet also right to point out that few training studies exist regarding various training designs. This alone warrants further "research examining further DUP configurations is necessary" - studies in less trained individuals, and studies investigating the size gains, too could after all both yield different results for the same H-S-P to H-P-S comparison | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Baker, Daniel, Greg Wilson, and Robert Carlyon. "Periodization: The Effect on Strength of Manipulating Volume and Intensity." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 8.4 (1994): 235-242.
• Buford, Thomas W., et al. "A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 21.4 (2007): 1245-1250.
• Flann, Kyle L., et al. "Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain?." The Journal of experimental biology 214.4 (2011): 674-679.
• Herrick, Andrew B., and William J. Stone. "The Effects of Periodization Versus Progressive Resistance Exercise on Upper and Lower Body Strength in Women." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 10.2 (1996): 72-76.
• Kok, Lian-Yee, Peter W. Hamer, and David J. Bishop. "Enhancing muscular qualities in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodization." Med Sci Sports Exerc 41.9 (2009): 1797-807.
• Miranda, Fabrício, et al. "Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.7 (2011): 1824-1830.
• Monteiro, Artur G., et al. "Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.4 (2009): 1321-1326.
• Peterson, Mark D., et al. "Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.5 (2008): 1683-1695.
• Prestes, Jonato, et al. "Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.1 (2009): 266-274.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.2 (2002a): 250-255.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.4 (2002b): 525-529.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010): 2857-2872.
• Schoenfeld, Brad. "The use of specialized training techniques to maximize muscle hypertrophy." Strength & Conditioning Journal 33.4 (2011): 60-65.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.10 (2014): 2909-2918.

Theanine + Caffeine - A Natural and Powerful Combination to Increase Your Attention and Reaction Speed (+6-10%)

Theanine + Caffeine - A Natural and Powerful Combination to Increase Your Attention and Reaction Speed (+6-10%)

attention caffeine cognition cognitive performance l-theanine performance tea theanine

Tea will naturally contain both theanine and caffeine, but will it work, as well as supplemental theanine and caffeine?

While everybody knows caffeine (see last SV article comparing caffeine to coffee), theanine aka L-γ-glutamylethylamide or N5-ethyl-L-glutamine, an amino acid analogue of the proteinogenic amino acids L-glutamate and L-glutamine, is less well known, but as a recent study shows not less potent when it comes to its effects on cognition and neurophysiological measures of selective attention aka "focus" on a task / object (Kahathuduwa. 2016).

You want to know why the researchers from the Universities of Peradeniya, Kelaniya and the Texas Tech University know that? Let's take a look at what the researchers did and why they conclude that the effects of caffeine & theanine add up.

You can learn more about caffeine at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

Coffee - The Good, Bad & Interesting

Three Cups of Coffee Keep Insulin At Bay

Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG

The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood

Caffeine Resis- tance - Does It Even Exist?

In a placebo-controlled, five-way crossover trial in 20 healthy male volunteers, Chanaka N. Kahathuduwa et al. compared the effects of l-theanine (200 mg), caffeine (160 mg), their combination, black tea (one cup) and a placebo (distilled water) on cognitive and neurophysiological measures of attention.

Figure 1: Theanine and caffeine contents of 37 commercial white, green, oolong, black, and pu-erh tea samples were quantified by high-performance is a liquid chromatography-diode array detector (Boros. 2016).

To get practically relevant results, the authors used simple [SVRT] and recognition visual reaction time tests, as well as neurophysiological (event-related potentials [ERPs]) measures of attention and recorded the visual (VEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of their subjects after ingesting each of the three treatments.

Mean ± SE amounts of l-theanine in cups (200 ml) of commercially-available teas. Mean amounts of l-theanine (mg/200 ml) are also shown in brackets (Keenan. 2011) | rel. values for matcha tea are in the text.

What else can theanine do for you / how much is in tea? As the authors of a not exactly unbiased 1999 review (Juneja. 1999) conclude, theanine is a "unique amino acid found almost solely in tea plants and the main component responsible for the exotic taste of ‘green’ tea". In the brain, theanine appears to act as an inhibitory neurotransmitter that reduces blood pressure; probably by modulating α-waves, which are associated with relaxation. In humans these effects have been shown to occur 40 min after the oral administration of theanine (50–200 mg), without causing drowsiness, however. It should be obvious that this makes theanine the perfect adjunct to caffeine which is known for making people jittery when consumed in doses large enough to elicit significant ergogenic and/or nootropic effects.

On the left hand side, you can see an overview of the theanine content of various commercial teas; in this context it is also worth pointing out that high grate matcha tea contains ~56% more than std. sencha green tea (for low grade gree tea, it's even more than 100% extra theanine in matcha vs. sencha | Goto. 1996).

Lastly, I would like to point out that theanine is not just the "calming" partner of caffeine, more recent research shows that l-theanine has neuroprotective, nootropic, immune-modulating, anti-fatigue, anti-diabetic and anti-depressant effects that are almost on par with caffeine. If you want to learn more about these, check out Liang's latest review (Liang. 2015)

What they found were statistically significant improvements in recognition visual reaction time (RVRT) in response to by theanine (P = 0.019), caffeine (P = 0.043), and theanine–caffeine combination (P = 0.001), but not by tea (P = 0.429) or placebo (P = 0.822). A result that is in line with previous research by Haskell, et al. form 2008.

Figure 2: Pre- ad post recognition visual reaction time (RVRT) latency and P110 visual evoked potential latencies, a measure of the reaction speed of your brain; abs. values in ms, rel. changes in % above the bars (Kahathuduwa. 2016).

Additive benefits for the combination of caffeine and theanine were observed not just for the recognition visual reaction time, but also for other parameters - including the P300 event-related potential amplitudes, an objective measure brain activity of the subjects that refutes the sometimes heard claim that theanine calm down your brain activity too much. At least in combination with caffeine, it's quite clear that the opposite is the case.

Caffeinated soft drink, coffee or tea, caffeine alone or caffeine + l-theanine what's going to yield the desired afterburner effect for your brain? The answer to this question came out probably less straight forward than you'd expected | learn more

Bottom line: For the authors their observations are evidence enough to prove "that high doses of theanine and caffeine have acute [beneficial effects on] attention" (Kahathuduwa. 2016). The authors do yet also point out that further research is necessary to figure out the dose–response relationship, as well as the time-course of theanine supplementation on objective measures of attention.

What I personally find even more interesting, though, is the fact that the evidence clearly indicates that "theanine and caffeine have additive effects" (Kahathuduwa. 2016)... ok, you probably expected that, in view of the fact that they are natural synergists in tea. Against that background, it appears strange that the scientists found no improvements in attention when they gave their subjects tea. The reason for the lack of effects is yet simple: the amount of theanine and caffeine used in the study are equivalent to the amounts found in 6–10 and 2-4 cups of tea, respectively.

Due to the relatively low theanine content of regular tea, even two cups of green, white or black tea will thus only cut it, if you add extra theanine (and a sprinkle of caffeine) to it | Comment!

References:

• Boros, Klára, Nikoletta Jedlinszki, and Dezső Csupor. "Theanine and Caffeine content of infusions prepared from commercial tea samples." Pharmacognosy Magazine 12.45 (2016): 75.
• Goto T., Yoshida Y., Amano I., Horie H., Foods Food Ingredients J. 170 (1996): 46-51. 
• Juneja, Lekh Raj, et al. "L-theanine—a unique amino acid of green tea and its relaxation effect in humans." Trends in Food Science & Technology 10.6 (1999): 199-204.
• Haskell, Crystal F., et al. "The effects of L-theanine, caffeine and their combination on cognition and mood." Biological psychology 77.2 (2008): 113-122.
• Kahathuduwa, Chanaka N., et al. "Acute effects of theanine, caffeine and theanine–caffeine combination on attention." Nutritional Neuroscience (2016): 1-9.
• Keenan, Emma K., et al. "How much theanine in a cup of tea? Effects of tea type and method of preparation." Food chemistry 125.2 (2011): 588-594.
• Liang, Yue-Rong, et al. "Health Benefits of Theanine in Green Tea: A Review." Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 14.10 (2015): 1943-1949.

Coffee Beats Caffeine in the Gym: More Reps + Higher Total Volume on Squats Due to Ingredients Other Than Caffeine

Coffee Beats Caffeine in the Gym: More Reps + Higher Total Volume on Squats Due to Ingredients Other Than Caffeine

bench press caffeine chest coffee decaf decaffeinated decaffeinated coffee leg traning performance squats

You don't necessarily have to bring fresh beans to the gym. A simple Nescafé instant coffee will serve the purpose, study shows. And it's going to work better than equal doses of straight caffeine.

As a SuppVersity reader you will know that coffee is much more than a brown liquid that contains caffeine. Many of its proven health effects I have discussed here and in shorter news items on Facebook are after all related to the combination of anti-oxidant and stimulant agents in coffee - a brew that is so much more than just the sum of it parts.

Against that background it is only logical that Darren L. Richardson and Neil D. Clarke from the Department of Applied Sciences and  at the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences of the Coventry University in the UK wanted to expand on the previously reported results by Trexler et al. (2015 | previously mentioned at the SuppVersity).

You can learn more about coffee at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

Caffeine Helps PWO Glycogen Loading

Three Cups of Coffee Keep Insulin At Bay

Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG

The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood

Caffeine Resis- tance - Does It Even Exist?

Trexler et al. found that coffee improved leg press 1-RM performance to a greater extent than caffeine, while both coffee and caffeine attenuated the reduction in total work performed compared with placebo. Accordingly, Richardson and Clarke started their research, which was a randomised, latin-square, crossover, placebo-controlled trial, in which each subject attended the strength and conditioning suite on six occasions, with the hypothesis that the ingestion of coffee would exhibit at least some advantages over a equally dosed caffeine "placebo".

Figure 1: Graphical illustration of the experimental protocol on all five test occasions (Richardson. 2016).

To test this hypothesis, the researchers recruited nine resistance trained males [(Mean±SD age: 24±2 years, weight: 84±8 kg, height: 180±8 cm, 1-RM for the squat (135±28 kg) and bench press (102±20 kg)]. Each subject attended the strength and conditioning suite on six occasions, the first being a familiarisation session to establish one repetition maximum (1-RM) for the squat and bench press, before they completed five sessions of the same the experimental resistance training protocols.

"Trials were performed within half an hour on separate days to ensure an accurate comparison of strength and to limit strength fluctuations due to the effects of circadian variation (Duncan. 2011). Trials were separated by at least two days in order to allow recovery and to ensure complete caffeine washout. As caffeine has a highly variable half-life in healthy individuals of between 1.5-9 hours (Syed. 2005) subjects were instructed to avoid caffeine ingestion for a minimum of 12 hours and strenuous exercise for 24 hours prior to each trial to avoid fatigue (Beaven. 2013).

The actual exercise protocol consisted of squats and bench presses at 60% 1-RM until failure.  Each subject performed the exercise protocol following the ingestion of...

• 0.15 g/kg caffeinated coffee (COF; 3.4g per 100g coffee = 5.1g/kg body weight), 
• 0.15 g/kg decaffeinated coffee (DEC; 5mg caffeine per kg coffee = almost zero), 
• 0.15 g/kg decaffeinated coffee plus 5 mg/kg anhydrous caffeine (D+C), 
• 5 mg/kg anhydrous caffeine (CAF), or 
• a placebo (PLA; 5 mg·kg-1 maltodextrin from MyProtein, Manchester, UK).

Decaf? Well, the reason the scientists did use both, straight caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee with caffeine should be obvious: Unlike the comparison of Nescafé original (3.4g of caffeine per 100g) vs. its decaffeinated version coffee, the comparison of DEC with D+C ensured identical polyphenol concentrations in the decaf-base.

How to make the most of coffee or caffeine pills... time them correctly. If you haven't done so or cannot remember the conclusions I have drawn in my article on caffeine / coffee timing, I highly suggest you head over to this SuppVersity Classic to (re-)read it!

That's something which cannot be guaranteed for the caffeinated vs. decaffeinated versions of the same brand of coffee.

"[In all] trials [coffee poweder and caffeine] were dissolved in 600 ml of hot water (68.9±2.5ºC) and served in mugs. The anhydrous caffeine and placebo trials were provided in capsule form (two opaque gelatine capsules) and ingested with 600 ml of water (16.4±3.8ºC). At the start of each trial, subjects had a maximum of 15 minutes to fully consume either the treatment beverage or capsules and water and were then required to rest for the remainder of the hour, after this time the warm up began. [...]  A 24-hour dietary recall was completed by each subject during the familiarisation session, and was photocopied and handed back to the subjects in order for the same diet to be followed prior to subsequent trials" (Richardson. 2016).

Let me briefly do the math for you: With the dosages and body weights mentioned before, subjects in all caffeine groups ended up receiving roughly the same amount of caffeine (when there was caffeine in the beverage), namely: COF: 433±40 mg, DEC: 2±0 mg, D=C: 425±39 mg, CAF: 425±39 mg.

Figure 2: Changes in total weight lifted in response to the 5 treatments (Richardson. 2016).

Against that background it is all the more interesting that the coffee and decaf + caffeine group had a significant edge during squats (see Figure 2, right). "Isn't it strange, then that we don't see the same benefit on the bench?", you may be asking yourself, now... No, it isn't! Neither Beck, et al. (2008) nor Hendrix et al. (2010, bench press was part of a circuit training her) found benefits of caffeine supplementation on bench press performance in trained individuals, in similarly designed studies.

Total flavonoid and nonflavonoid contents of all coffee and instant cappuccino brews, prepared only with water. Results are expressed as mg GAE/L ± SD (Niseteo. 2012).

How healthy is decaffeinated coffee? The chemicals that were originally used to remove the caffeine from the beans are no longer a problem. Furthermore, studies show that decaffeinated coffee contains on average (there are differences between brands, obviously) about as many anti-oxidants as its regular cousin (Niseteo. 2012). Decaf has also been shown to have dose-dependent beneficial effects of decaffeinated coffee on endothelial function in healthy subjects (Buscemi. 2009) and similar effects on T2DM risk markers in experimental (Wedick. 2011) and epidemiological studies (Huxley. 2009).

Yet, even though decaffeinated coffee is much better than its reputation, buying it only to reintroduce caffeine for performance purposes doesn't really make sense if it's not done in a scientific study to differentiate the effects of caffeine and other coffee ingredients.

Duncan, et al. (2011) who conducted a very similar study 3 years later, however, found performance increments for the upper body, too (~10% increased total volume in the caffeine trial). Whether this difference to the previously mentioned studies by Beck et al. and Hendrix, et al. can be explained by the fact that Duncan et al. required their likewise trained subjects to be "only moderate caffeine users (ingesting approximately 200 mg·d-1, range 169-250 mg·d-1)" (Duncan. 2011), remains to be seen. While this is in fact ~100mg less than the average intake of the subjects in the study at hand, i.e. Richardson & Clarke (2016), other studies appear to suggest that the habitual caffeine intake has less influence on the performance effects than you would think.

Figure 3: Individual effect on weight lifted during both trials (left) and mean felt arousal (right | Richardson. 2016).

An alternative, but similarly speculative explanation for the differences may be that the effects of caffeine on upper body and eventually less taxing exercises is not as relevant as it is for squats. Thus the overall effect could be more pronounced during leg exercises and the benefits for bench presses and co too small to reach statistical significance in view of the fact that all studies appear to suggest that there are hyper- (like the guy on top of Figure 3, left) and almost-non-responder which mess with the statistical significance of the data.

Caffeine-Resistance? Genetic & Environmental Factors Determine If You Feel or Don't Feel the "Boost" | Plus: 11 Non-Genetic Factors That In- & Decrease Caffeine's Effect | more

Whatever the reason, performance increase is performance increase! "Coffee and decaffeinated coffee plus caffeine have", as Richardson & Clarke point out "the ability to improve performance during a resistance exercise protocol, although possibly not over multiple bouts" (Richardson. 2016). What they forget to mention, though are the important differences between the effects of coffee or re-caffeinated decaf, on the one, and caffeine, alone, on the other hand. If we 'correct' that, we have to conclude that Richardson and Clark have been able to show that the real deal, i.e. coffee with all its original or reintroduced ingredients, and not its distilled main ingredient, caffeine, in pill or powder form should be a resistance trainee's stimulant of choice | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Beaven, C. Martyn, et al. "Effects of caffeine and carbohydrate mouth rinses on repeated sprint performance." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 38.6 (2013): 633-637.
• Beck, Travis W., et al. "The acute effects of a caffeine-containing supplement on bench press strength and time to running exhaustion." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.5 (2008): 1654-1658.
• Buscemi, S. I. L. V. I. O., et al. "Dose-dependent effects of decaffeinated coffee on endothelial function in healthy subjects." European journal of clinical nutrition 63.10 (2009): 1200-1205.
• Duncan, Michael J., and Samuel W. Oxford. "The effect of caffeine ingestion on mood state and bench press performance to failure." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.1 (2011): 178-185.
• Hendrix, C. Russell, et al. "Acute effects of a caffeine-containing supplement on bench press and leg extension strength and time to exhaustion during cycle ergometry." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.3 (2010): 859-865.
• Huxley, Rachel, et al. "Coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea consumption in relation to incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analysis." Archives of internal medicine 169.22 (2009): 2053-2063.
• Niseteo, Tena, et al. "Bioactive composition and antioxidant potential of different commonly consumed coffee brews affected by their preparation technique and milk addition." Food chemistry 134.4 (2012): 1870-1877.
• Syed, Shariq A., et al. "Multiple dose pharmacokinetics of caffeine administered in chewing gum to normal healthy volunteers." Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition 26.9 (2005): 403-409.
• Trexler, Eric T. Effects of creatine, coffee, and caffeine anhydrous on strength and sprint performance. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, 2015.
• Wedick, Nicole M., et al. "Effects of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee on biological risk factors for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial." Nutrition journal 10.1 (2011): 1.

How Chewing (Gum/Food) Affects Your Energy Expenditure: Gum + Slow Eating Triple 3h Diet Induced Thermogenesis

How Chewing (Gum/Food) Affects Your Energy Expenditure: Gum + Slow Eating Triple 3h Diet Induced Thermogenesis

chewing chewing gum diet diet induced thermogenesis eat slowly lose fat slow eating thermogenesis

If chewing gums can help triple the diet-induced thermogenesis. Does this mean that your doctor will soon prescribe chewing gums instead of diet and exercise or even weight loss surgery?

Slow eating, which involves chewing food slowly and thoroughly, is - according to most research, at least - an effective strategy for controlling hunger level and energy intake in overweight or obesity (Andrade. 2008; Smit. 2011). And the fact that slow eating / chewing more frequently aids weight management even in the people who don't tend to overeat, may - as a recent study from the Tokyo Institute of Technology shows - be a consequence of more than just a reduction in energy intake.

As Hamada et al. show in two recent studies in Obesity, eating slowly will also ramp up the postprandial energy expenditure and fat oxidation aka the "diet-induced thermogenesis" (DIT) of healthy, normal-weight men and women without one of the pertinent eating disorders.

You can find more True or False articles at the SuppVersity

Pasta "Al Dente" = Anti-Diabetic

Vinegar & Gums for Weight Loss

Teflon Pans Will Kill You!

Yohimbine Burns Stubborn Fat

You Can Wash Pesticides Away

High Volume Diet = Success

From their previous research, the authors knew that "increasing DIT by slowing the eating speed can be difficult for individuals to accomplish, since the natural eating speed is acquired over a long period of time" (Hamada. 2016). In the latest follow up, the scientists sought to investigate, whether the postprandial gum chewing increases DIT via an increase in the splanchnic circulation in eleven healthy, normal-weight subjects [7 males and 4 females; age, 24 ± 1 years (mean ± SD); height, 164 ± 10 cm; weight, 56 ± 6 kg; and body fat, 18 ± 8%].

Figure 1: Diagram for outline of study protocol. VAS, measurement of visual analog scale (Hamada. 2016).

As the illustration of the study design in Figure 1 tells you, Hamada et al. chose a randomized crossover design. The subjects completed four trials on four different days, with consecutive trials separated by more than 3 days (see Figure 1).

Nicotine gums are made for smokers. Smokers are leaner than no-smokers. Chewing nicotine gums helps you lean out... broscience? Logic? Or bullshit? Learn more in this SV Classic!

"The subjects arrived at the laboratory at 9:00 a.m. after having abstained from eating, consuming caffeinated or alcoholic beverages, and intense exercise since dinner on the previous night (i.e., they had fasted for more than 10 h). Each subject was seated on a chair in a semisupine position in a quiet room in which the temperature and humidity were controlled to within 25.0 +/- 0.48C and 50 +/- 4%, respectively. After allowing the subjects to adjust to the experimental setup for 20 min, baseline data of gas-exchange variables and the splanchnic circulation were recorded while resting for 20 min. The subjects completed a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire to assess their hunger before the test meal.

After the previously described baseline data measurements, the subjects chewed the 621-kcal test meal for as long as possible and as many times as possible in the slow-eating trials, while they consumed the same meal as rapidly as possible in the rapid-eating trials (details from Hamada. 2016):

• In the gum-chewing trials, they started chewing 1.5 g (3 kcal) of sugarless gum with a lime-mint flavor (Lotte, Japan) immediately after the meal and chewed this gum at a natural pace for 15 min. 
• In the non-gum-chewing control trials, they consumed 3 kcal of sugar with the meal instead of chewing the gum. 
• In each rapid-eating and slow-eating trial, they were instructed to eat the meal at a similar speed in the non-gum-chewing and gum-chewing trials. Gasexchange variables and the splanchnic circulation were recorded until 180 min after the meal (note: I am not going to discuss this data in detail, but if the scientists are right the increase in the amount of blood that's circulating in the organs of the splachnic bed, is more than a correlate of the increase in energy expenditure).

The four trials of combinations of rapid eating and non-gum chewing, rapid eating and gum chewing, slow eating and non-gum chewing, and slow eating and gum chewing were labeled as RN, RG, SN, and SG, respectively.

The test meal (photos are not from the study, but show the products that are listed in the methods section) had a macro composition of 13% protein, 28% fat, and 59% carbohydrate and was spaghetti carbonara with orange juice and a regular yogurt.

What was the test meal? Test meal The 621-kcal test meal (energy proportions: 13% protein, 28% fat, and 59% carbohydrate) consisted of carbonara spaghetti (452 kcal; Nippon Flour Mills, Japan), yogurt (59 kcal; Meiji, Japan), and orange juice (110 kcal; Kirin Beverage, Japan). The temperature of the meal was measured using an infrared thermometer (A&D, Japan), and the meal was provided at a controlled temperature (spaghetti, 58 +/- 1*C; yogurt, 7 +/- 1°C; orange juice, 7 +/- 1°C | You're wondering about the temperatures? Well, we know that cold food has a thermogenic effect. Accordingly, you have to tightly control the food temperature to avoid temperature differences to mess with your results.).

To make sure the number of chews was measured accurately, the scientists went so far to determine the number from a videotape recording of the subject’s face and from recordings of the electromyographic (EMG) activities of the chewing muscles obtained using a standard electrocardiograph (MEG-2100, Nihon Kohden, Japan).

"The chewing duration of the meal was assessed as the duration from the first bite to swallowing after the last bite of the meal. The number of chews was counted using a hand tally counter while watching the videotape recording. The obtained numbers were double-checked using the EMG recordings. The chewing duration and the number of chews were measured twice. There was a small difference (less than 2.8%) between the measurements, and so they were averaged. The total chewing duration and the total number of chews were defined as the summed data obtained during the periods of meal and gum chewing" (Hamada. 2016).

The accurate measurement of the eating speed and chewing frequency, along with the rigid control of hunger, when the subjects arrived at the lab (pre-hunger values did not differ), and the sophisticated analysis of the gas-exchange variables and DIT, are certainly strengths of the study at hand - a study, the results of which confirmed the researchers expectations: the diet induced thermogenesis (DIT) was significantly greater in the gum-chewing trials than in the non-gum-chewing trials for both rapid-eating and slow-eating trials.

Figure 2: Time courses of changes in gas-exchange variables and DIT in rapid-eating trials (RN vs. RG, left panels) and slow-eating trials (SN vs. SG, right panels). Hatched bars indicate the duration of gum chewing. Filled and open circles denote data for the non-gum-chewing and gum-chewing trials, respectively. VO _ 2, oxygen uptake; *P < 0.05, vs. resting baseline in each trial. # P < 0.05, difference between trials (Hamada. 2016).

Even though these results are good news for chewing gum producers, the revelation that the difference in DIT between rapid-eating and slow-eating trials was greater than that between non-gum-chewing and gum-chewing (compare left vs. right graphs in Figure 2) suggests that only a combination of both: slow eating (high number of chews) and post-meal chewing gum will maximize the thermogenic effect of (low protein) meals.

To chew or not to chew, that is not the question! While it appears to be out of question that deliberately chewing more thoroughly and thus eating slower will increase your respiratory exchange ratio (RER, a marker of fat oxidation) and diet induced thermogenesis (DIT) compared to bolting your food (compare left hand vs. right hand graphs in Figure 2), the important question we still have to answer is: How practically relevant is this statistically significant difference?

Figure 3: Diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) and postprandial splanchnic blood flow (BF) accumulated over the 180-min period immediately after the meal. Filled and open bars indicate data for non-gum-chewing and gum-chewing trials, respectively. *P < 0.05, non-gum-chewing vs. gum-chewing trials. #P < 0.05, rapid-eating vs. slow-eating trials (Hamada. 2016).

To answer this question, we need the data in Figure 3, data which reveals that the difference between eating rapidly and chewing no gum, on the one, and eating slowly and chewing gum, on the other hand, is 350 cal/kg over 3h. That sounds huge, but only if you are not looking at the units closely. Since we're talking about calories, not kilocalories, the average 80 kg man would burn less than 30 kcal extra - that's bull? Well, that's about the same increase in DIT you can expect from a high protein vs. high carbohydrate meal if you extrapolate the data from a 2002 study by Carol Johnston et al. - an effect of which future studies must determine whether it adds to the effect of chewing more thoroughly and using a gum after your meals | Comment!

References:

• Andrade, Ana M., Geoffrey W. Greene, and Kathleen J. Melanson. "Eating slowly led to decreases in energy intake within meals in healthy women." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 108.7 (2008): 1186-1191.
• Hamada, Yuka, Hideaki Kashima, and Naoyuki Hayashi. "The number of chews and meal duration affect diet‐induced thermogenesis and splanchnic circulation." Obesity 22.5 (2014): E62-E69.
• Hamada, Yuka, Akane Miyaji, and Naoyuki Hayashi. "Effect of postprandial gum chewing on diet‐induced thermogenesis." Obesity (2016).
• Johnston, Carol S., Carol S. Day, and Pamela D. Swan. "Postprandial thermogenesis is increased 100% on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in healthy, young women." Journal of the American College of Nutrition 21.1 (2002): 55-61.
• Smit, Hendrik Jan, et al. "Does prolonged chewing reduce food intake? Fletcherism revisited." Appetite 57.1 (2011): 295-298.