Taurine Boosts Good Gut Bacteria & Short-Chain Fatty Acid Prod. | 1st Study to Show Natural Beats Synthetic Taurine

Taurine Boosts Good Gut Bacteria & Short-Chain Fatty Acid Prod. | 1st Study to Show Natural Beats Synthetic Taurine

bacteria bacteriodetes bad bacteria firmicutes good bacteria health helicobacter microbiome natural taurine SCFA short-chain fatty acids synthetic taurine synthetic vitamins taurine

The bacteria in our guts are the latest rage in medical sciences... and taurine, especially natural taurine, may be a way to modulate them in beneficial ways.

It has been some time since the last taurine article on the SuppVersity (read all articles). There was simply a lack of interesting studies... until now, or rather until the latest study of scientists from the Zhejiang University of Technology which suggests that taurine "might be of benefit to health by inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria, accelerating the production of SCFA and reducing LPS concentration" (Yu. 2016).

As the authors of the paper point out, taurine is a necessary amino acid that taurine plays an important role in the regulation of neuroendocrine functions and nutrition.

In previous studies, taurine was shown to improve immunity, resist oxidation, delay senility, reduce blood pressure, promote recovery from acute hepatitis, etc. (Averin. 2015; Wang. 2013; De Luca. 2015; Ito. 2012). In addition, taurine can also improve the metabolism of the nutrients and play an important role in the regulation of neuroendocrine (Cuttitta et al. 2013; Camargo et al. 2015).

You can learn more about taurine & other amino acids at the SuppVersity

Taurine Pumps Up Strength & Recovery?

Taurine Improves Insulin + Glucose Metabolism

Taurine ➲ 180% Testosterone Increase

Taurine + BCAA Work Hand in Hand

43% Reduced Performance W/ BCAAs

3g Taurine Boost Glycogen Re-synthesis Sign.

With their latest study, the Chinese scientists Haining Yu, Zhengzhao Guo, Shengrong Shen , an Weiguang Shan were now able to add yet another beneficial health effect of taurine to the previous, impressive list: taurine's effect on gut microbes and metabolism.

Food	Amount	Taurine (mg)
Cheese	3 ounces	1000
Cheese,cottage	1 cup	1700
Milk,whole	1 cup	400
Yogurt	1 cup	400
Wild game	3 ounces	600
Pork	3 ounces	540
Granola	1 cup	650
Oatmeal flakes	1 cup	500
Chocolate	1 cup	400
Meat (luncheon)	1 cup	390
Wheat germ,toasted	1/4 cup	350
Egg	1 (medium size)	350
Turkey	3 ounces	240
Duck	3 ounces	240
Chicken	3 ounces	185
Sausage	3 ounces	185
Avocado	1/2 (medium)	75
Table 1: It doesn't always have to be supplements - Taurine content of selected foods (USDA Handbook #8)

As you'd expect it for a "first of its kind" study, the researchers used a rodent model to evaluate the effects of a human equivalent dose of ~1g of taurine in BALB/C who were randomly divided into three experimental groups:

• the first group was administered saline (CK),
• the second group was administered 165 mg/kg natural taurine (NE) and
• the third group one administered 165 mg/kg synthetic taurine (CS).

With the NE and CS group, this is also one of the few studies to distinguish between "natural" and "synthetic" taurine, which is obtained from isethionic acid (2-hydroxyethanesulfonic acid) and not extracted from animal bile, usually that of the ox, and subjected to a series of purification procedures by several different methods (Gioacchini. 1995).

Figure 1: Effects of taurine on gut bacteria abundance (Yu. 2016).

To assess the effects, the gut microbiota composition in mice feces was analyzed by metagenomics technology, and the content of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) in mice feces was detected by gas chromatography (GC), while the concentrations of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were detected by a LPS ELISA kit and a SOD assay kit, respectively.

Studies Confirm: Natural and Synthetic Vitamins Can Differ in Quantity & Quality of Effects! Vitamins A-E, B's & More | read more

Is "natural taurine" the "better taurine"? In the study at hand, it seems as if this was the case. The only evidence from other studies that suggests that the source of taurine matters, however, is 1995 paper by Gioacchini et al. who developed a method to distinguish the two and may thus have a vested interest in stating that "[n]atural taurine is an essential constituent of formula milk for infants and, because of the inferior nutritional value (δ), of synthetic forms, it is important to discriminate between these and taurines derived from a natural source" (Gioacchini. 1995). Another study shows that the allergy risk for synthetic taurine appears to be elevated (Lee. 2013).

Why this is the case or what triggers any differences in the effect on the microbiome is something I cannot tell you: if the molecules were structurally different, Gioacchini et al. would after all not have had to use the 13C/12C ratio that is also used to date bones and other relicts. It could eventually be solely a question of dosage - with "inferior nutritional value" the synthetic taurine may have to be dosed much higher... as high as in most previously published human studies which generated the most impressive results with 3-6g and thus 3-6x more taurine per day than the human equivalent dose (learn more about the HED concept) of the study at hand.

As the data in Figure 1 indicates, taurine had profound effects on gut microbiota could reduce the abundance of Proteobacteria, especially Helicobacter (see Figure 1, bottom right). In that, it is interesting to see that the natural taurine ...

• had more pronounced beneficial effects on the count of good bacteroidetes and was more potent than the synthetic version when it comes to reducing proteobacteria and helicobacter, and even more intriguingly
• had opposite effects on firmicutes which make up the largest portion of the mouse and human gut microbiome, can't be described as "beneficial" or "bad" as a whole, but have been shown to be involved in energy resorption and obesity

In line with the last-mentioned increase in firmicutes is the scientists' observation that the SCFA content was increased in feces of the NE group, but not the CS group that received the synthetic taurine supplement.

Figure 2: Short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) and Activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels in response to natural (NE), synthetic taurine (CS) and saline control (CK) supplementation in mice (Yu. 2016).

That's interesting, also because this change went hand in hand with a 'natural exclusive' LPS content was decreased, but similar increases in the activity of the antioxidant SOD enzyme in serum and livers of the both taurine groups.

None of the previous taurine studies declared whether the chemical they used was "natural" or "synthetic", I thus suspect that a synthetic version was used in most if not all of them - that this could make a difference is still both surprising and intriguing.

Bottom line: While it is correct that both "natural taurine and the synthetic taurine could regulate the gut micro-ecology, which might be of benefit to health by inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria" (Yu. 2016), it is quite intriguing that only the natural taurine accelerated the production of SCFA and reducing LPS concentration, while the synthetic taurine did not.

Unfortunately, I have no studies to tell you if there's (a) a general advantage of natural over synthetic taurine (see red box, too), or (b) whether your taurine is natural or synthetic. If the previous quote (see red box) from Gioacchini et al. is accurate, though, it would appear that (a) 'natural' was superior and that (b) your taurine supplement was almost certainly nor extracted from ox-bile or another expensive natural source | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• De Luca, Annamaria, Sabata Pierno, and Diana Conte Camerino. "Taurine: the appeal of a safe amino acid for skeletal muscle disorders." Journal of translational medicine 13.1 (2015): 1.
• Gioacchini, Anna Maria, et al. "Differentiation between natural and synthetic taurine using the 13C/12C isotope ratio." Rapid communications in mass spectrometry 9.12 (1995): 1106-1108.
• Ito, Takashi, Stephen W. Schaffer, and Junichi Azuma. "The potential usefulness of taurine on diabetes mellitus and its complications." Amino acids 42.5 (2012): 1529-1539.
• Lee, Seung-Eun, et al. "A case of taurine-containing drink induced anaphylaxis." Asia Pacific Allergy 3.1 (2013): 70.
• Yu, Haining, et al. "Effects of taurine on gut microbiota and metabolism in mice." Amino acids (2016): 1-17.

Creatine Uptake, Bioavailability, and Efficacy - We've Gotten it all Wrong and Low Serum Creatine Levels are Better!?

Creatine Uptake, Bioavailability, and Efficacy - We've Gotten it all Wrong and Low Serum Creatine Levels are Better!?

bioavailability build muscle build strength creatine performance strength supplementation supplements

If you put some faith into the marketing campaigns of supp producers, there's a creatine for everyone: one to get lean, one to get strong and one to get big and buffed... bullocks!

It has been a while since I've discussed the bioavailability of different forms of creatine. On various supplement sites, the notion that there was one form of creatine that was significantly more bioavailable and would thus allow you to 'load' muscle phosphocreatine (PCr) faster and more efficiently is obviously still a matter of constant debate... a debate of which the latest study by Ralf Jäger et al. (2016) indicates that it may argue based on a fundamentally flawed premise, i.e. that higher serum levels of creatine after the ingestion of a given product would signify an increased efficacy in terms of performance / strength / size gains.

How come? Well, the previously mentioned, as of yet unpublished data from a study by Ralf Jäger, Martin Purpura, and Roger C Harris did not just confirm the results of previous studies, which indicate that glucose (75g) and alpha lipoic acid (ALA | 200mg) will increase the bioavailability of creatine, i.e. "the proportion of a drug or other substance [in this case creatine] that enters the circulation when introduced into the body" (Merriam-Webster.com), it also indicates that the practically relevant predictor of creatine's efficacy is - assuming equal dosing and complete absorption - not a high, but rather a low level of creatine in the blood.

You can learn more about creatine at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine Loading = Unnecessary

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

1st Benefits of Creatine-HCL

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

What? Let me explain: Initially, it may be worth pointing out that we are talking about a small scale study the results of which have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed journal. In that study, Jäger et al. aimed to compare the effects of ingesting tricreatine citrate (5g, TCrC),

• in combination with 75g of glucose and 200mg of alpha-lipoic acid, or
• without the former bioavailability enhancers.

on only six subjects. These three men and three women (35.5+/-14.5 yrs, 172.5+/-12.2 cm, 75.3+/-9.0 kg), who were all healthy, normal-weight and non-vegetarian and thus not, with creatine being a deficiency nutrient in vegetarians, extraordinarily susceptible to creatine supplementation (Burke. 2003), participated in two testing sessions during which they received the previously explained two treatments (the powdered supplements were simply dissolved in 450 ml of water).

Adding carbohydrates or cinnamon to creatine may well increase its uptake to the muscle. What it does not do, however, is to enhance creatine's efficacy - at least not in a 2015 3-week creatine loading study Islam et al. conducted in 25 recreational gymrats.

What's the increased absorption worth? If we rely on a a recent study by Islam, et al. (2015) the answer is (unfortunately) nothing. In their 2015 study, the scientists from the Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of Lethbridge in Canada found no (=zero) significant differences in anaerobic power, strength, and endurance when creatine was administered solo, with the same 70 g carbohydrate (CHO) that were used in Jäger et al. (2016), or 500 mg cinnamon extract (CIN), of which the authors believed that its proven ability to improve insulin sensitivity and up-regulate glucose transport in skeletal muscle would likewise enhance the uptake of creatine in the muscle and thus make it more effective.

With their cross-over after the initial test and a 7 day break between the tests, the scientists would have been able to compare the effect of adding glucose and alpha lipoic acid to the tricreatine citrate (Creapure™ Citrate, AlzChem, Trostberg, Germany | 65% w/w creatine) on an individual level. Corresponding data, however, is not (yet?) available. Instead, we get the likewise interesting statistical averages (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Mean plasma creatine concentration over 8 hours following ingestion of 5g tricreatine citrate (TCrC) and 5g tricreatine citrate + 75g glucose + 200mg alpha-lipoic acid (TCrC+Glu+ALA | Jäger. 2016).

And these data present a quite intriguing result. More specifically, they indicate that the increase in peak concentration and the area under the curve (indicative of the total amount of creatine that appeared in the blood of the subjects) were significantly lower in the TCrC+Glu+ALA group in comparison to TCrC (75.3%, p<0.05, and 82.2% respectively).

Less creatine in the blood with sugar + ALA? That's bad, right? No that's good!

Just as the likewise lower 0.5 and 1h plasma concentrations of creatine, in the TCrC+Glu+ALA group (in comparison to TCrC), these reductions do not indicate a reduced efficacy of the supplement. On the contrary! The significantly elevated mean 8h urinary creatine elimination in the control group (TCrC | 26.5 ± 13.9% of the dose administered  vs. 17.2 ± 13.0% for TCrC+Glu+Ala) rather indicates that the addition of glucose and ALA "enhanced rate of creatine uptake into the muscle" - as previous studies indicate probably due to the presence of raised insulin (by glucose) and / or an increased insulin sensitivity (by ALA / Koszalka. 1972; Steenge. 1998; Pittas. 2010).

Figure 2: The study on creatine + glucose and creatine + cinammon by Islam et al. (red box) is not the only one that shows that the increased deposition of creatine in the muscle doesn't give you athletic advantages. The exact same results have been observed in an 8-week study comparing 70 g of a dextrose placebo (PL), 5 g creatine/70 g of dextrose (CRD) or 3.5 g creatine/900 mg fenugreek extract (CRF) by Taylor et al. (2011)

Why's this study relevant? Well, the answer should be obvious. The few allegedly 'advanced creatine products' on the market that actually have scientific back-up of their efficacy often refer to studies showing increases in plasma creatine of which the study at hand shows that they are no valid predictor of the actual efficacy of the supplement. The latter obviously depends on muscle creatine uptake, not serum peak levels or AUC. Don't be a fool, though: This does not mean that lower serum levels after ingestion were automatically better. After all, those lower levels of creatine in the blood may well be a mere result of an impaired / incomplete absorption in the gut.

Confusing? Well, let's summarize: By measuring the creatine level in the blood and the excretion of creatine in urine, Jäger et al. were able to refute the (ostensibly) logical assumption that higher serum creatine levels would indicate an improved efficacy. What they did not prove conclusively, however, is that the creatine levels in the muscle were in fact significantly higher (no biopsies) and, most importantly, that this makes a performance difference. The latter has after all been refuted in previous studies, such as Islam et al. (2015 | see red box and Figure 2). The hunt for the "best form" of creatine will thus probably go on, albeit with different experimental means, i.e. either the measurement of serum and urinary creatine as it was done in the study at hand or (even better) the direct assessment of muscle creatine stores and the actual performance benefits | Comment!

References:

• Burke, Darren G., et al. "Effect of creatine and weight training on muscle creatine and performance in vegetarians." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 35.11 (2003): 1946-1955.
• Jäger, Ralf, Martin Purpura and Roger C Harris. "Reduction of Plasma Creatine Concentrations as an Indicator of Improved Bioavailability." Upublished data from privatt conversation (2016).
• Koszalka, Thomas R., and Carole L. Andrew. "Effect of insulin on the uptake of creatine-1-14C by skeletal muscle in normal and X-irradiated rats." Experimental Biology and Medicine 139.4 (1972): 1265-1271.
• Pittas, G., et al. "Optimization of insulin-mediated creatine retention during creatine feeding in humans." Journal of sports sciences 28.1 (2010): 67-74.
• Steenge, G. R., et al. "Stimulatory effect of insulin on creatine accumulation in human skeletal muscle." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism 275.6 (1998): E974-E979.
• Taylor, Lem, et al. "Effects of combined creatine plus fenugreek extract vs. creatine plus carbohydrate supplementation on resistance training adaptations." Journal of sports science & medicine 10.2 (2011): 254.

Strength Plateau? Try Daily Changing Loads: In Advanced Trainees, A, B, C-Days W/ 15, 10, 5 Reps at 70, 80, 90% 1RM Boost 6-Week Strength Gains on All Major Lifts by ~40%

Strength Plateau? Try Daily Changing Loads: In Advanced Trainees, A, B, C-Days W/ 15, 10, 5 Reps at 70, 80, 90% 1RM Boost 6-Week Strength Gains on All Major Lifts by ~40%

advanced trainees advanced training techniques build muscle build strength linear periodization periodization training undulating periodization workout

DCL, i.e. using daily changing loards worked for both, men and women.

The object of today's SuppVersity article comes almost from around the corner: a study conducted by Christoph Eifler, a scientist from the Department of Applied Training Science at the German University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management (DHfPG) in Saarbrücken (Germany) that is supposed to provide "evidence based training recommendations to the 8.55 million recreational athletes [who] perform fitness-related resistance training in German [gyms]" (Eifler. 2016) - advice that's valid for US boys & girls, Frenchmen & -women and even the Brexiters, too ;-)

As the relatively unspectacular abstract says, "[t]he purpose of this investigation was to analyze the short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training and to identify the most effective loading method for advanced recreational athletes" (Eifler. 2016)... not exactly something other studies hadn't done before, right? Well, I agree, but...

Learn more about training for "gainz" in both strength and size...

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study: Over-training Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

Not only was the study "designed as a longitudinal field-test study", it also included two hundred healthy mature subjects with at least 12 months experience in resistance training and 4 groups of 50 subjects, each (equal gender distribution), who were randomly assigned to train according to the following four load-schemes for six weeks (see Table 1 for a detailed breakdown):

• constant load (CL) with constant volume of repetitions, 
• increasing load (IL) with decreasing volume of repetitions, 
• decreasing load (DL) with increasing volume of repetitions, 
• daily changing load (DCL), and volume of repetitions 

As Eifel highlights, "[a]ll participants performed a standardized resistance training protocol" which comprised an entire resistance training protocol with 8 resistance training exercises for different muscle groups in a systematic and standardized order.

Table 1: Study design: constant and variable loading parameters | *TS = training session; CL = constant load; IL = increasing load; DL = decreasing load; DCL = daily changing load; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum (Eifel. 2016).

Exercise collocation and exercise order in pretest, posttest, and training period were, as Eifel highlights, chosen to be "representative as possible for a recreational resistance training program at commercial fitness clubs" (Eifel. 2016).

Where's the DEXA scanner? That's exactly the question Eifler probably asked himself when he did this field study... all jokes aside: Germany is a rich country, but we still don't have a DEXA at each gym. This is why "[i]n this investigation, training effects were exclusively quantified by testing strength performance (10RM, 1RM)", even though the author knows that "[m]ost clients of a commercial fitness club perform resistance training for preventive or aesthetic aspects" (Eifler. 2016). Ah,... and before you start complaining, I should remind you of the number and training experience of the subjects: N=200 advanced trainees - that gives the study an almost unique statistical power and high practical relevance for trainees like you and me.

More specifically, both, in testing and training, the following resistance training exercises were performed (in the given order): horizontal leg press, chest press, butterfly, lat pull-down, horizontal row, dumbbell shoulder press, cable triceps push-downs, and dumbbell biceps curls - all done on standard gym equipment from various manufacturers (Gym80, Technogym, Lifefitness, Panatta, Nautilus, Precor, David, Schnell, MedX by Delphex, Cybex, Ergofit, and Matrix) and/or with customary dumbbells.

Figure 1: Cumulated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) in 10RM & 1RM (Eifel. 2016); %-ages = rel. difference to DCL | * p < 0.05 for DCL vs. DL and IL & p < 0.001 for DCL vs. CL; p < 0.001 for the mean difference of DCL vs. others (Eifel. 2016).

Unsurprisingly, significant effects on muscle strength gains (p < 0.001) "could be noted for all resistance training exercises" (Eifel. 2016). What may not be that self-evident, on the other hand, is that Eifel also observed significant inter-group differences for both dependent variables (10RM, 1RM), with daily changing load (DCL, EDIT of which I previously falsely claimed that it was fundamentally different from undulating periodization, as it was assessed in e.g. Foschini. 2010; Monteiro. 2009; Rhea. 2002; Simão. 2012 - it's obviously the same, but with the order of the three workouts being reversed every week) in which the analysis of the effect sizes indicates "significantly higher strength gains (p < 0.001) than CL, IL, and DL.

It is furthermore worth mentioning that a comparison of constant, increased and decreasing load patterns did not yield any statistically significant differences. This is likewise an important result, because it explains why most previous studies indicate that changing the load scheme will not significantly affect the performance outcomes of resistance training protocols. After all, said studies mostly lacked a DCL scheme, i.e. a training program in which the loading patterns changed according to Table 1 on a daily basis (or rather from session to session).

Another alternative to try is classic pyramid training, I suggest that you (re-)read my 2012 article "Up & Down The Rack: Study Compares Strength & Size Gains from Good Old Double-Pyramid and Reverse Loading" which discusses a study that confirms its efficacy and suggests that especially the thighs will benefit.

"No gainz, bro?" I am quite certain that there were muscle gains in all subjects. They were just not evaluated in the study at hand (cf. red box). With that being said, the evidence that "resistance training following DCL is more effective for advanced recreational athletes than CL, IL, or DL" (Eifel. 2016), is conclusive enough to assume a similar advantage will exist for other study outcomes, including your beloved "gainz". After all, this well-powered study leaves no doubt that with DCL, which "is widely unknown in fitness-related resistance training", there's "potential for improving resistance training in commercial fitness clubs" (Eifel. 2016) - and let's be honest: isn't training w/ different reps / intensities sets (increasing load) on each workout and reversing the order of the days every week also more fun than classic linear periodization? Comment!

References:

• Foschini, Denis, et al. "Treatment of obese adolescents: the influence of periodization models and ACE genotype." Obesity 18.4 (2010): 766-772.
• Eifler, C. Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 1880–1889, 2016
• 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.
• 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 (2002): 250-255.
• Simão, Roberto, et al. "Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance training: hypertrophic and strength effects." The Journal of strength & conditioning research 26.5 (2012): 1389-1395.

Cables or Machines: Muscle Activity, Angle & ROM of Arms, Abs, Chest & Shoulders on Chest & Overhead P. & Curls

Cables or Machines: Muscle Activity, Angle & ROM of Arms, Abs, Chest & Shoulders on Chest & Overhead P. & Curls

abs arms bench press biceps build muscle cable training cables chest chest press curls emg machine training machines overhead press range of motion ROM shoulders triceps triceps brachii

This is the cable curl as it was performed in the study at hand (Signorile. 2016)

As Joseph F. Signorile et al. point out in their latest paper, "cable resistance training machines are showing resurgent popularity and allow greater number of degrees of freedom than typical selectorized equipment" (Signorile. 2016). Ok, the "freedom" maybe not as absolute as it is with our beloved free weights, but cables come sign. closer than the average rigid Cybex machine. It is thus only logical that the scientists assume that "given that specific kinetic chains are used during distinct activities of daily living (ADL), cable machines may provide more effective interventions for some ADL" and eventually certain athletic endeavors (Signorile. 2016).

To identify these activities and corresponding exercise equipment, the scientists from the University of Miami came up with a study that examined differences in activity levels (rmsEMG) of six major muscles (Pectoralis major, PM; Anterior deltoid, AD; Biceps brachii, BB; Rectus abdominis, RA; External obliques, EO; and Triceps brachii; TB) and kinematics of multiple joints between a cable and standard selectorized machines (sounds special, but means the average rigid, plate-loaded resistance training equipment you will find in every gym). The exercises that were performed were the biceps curl, the chest press and the overhead press, all performed at 1.5s per contractile stage.

Free weights will always remain the most versatile muscle builder & fat shredder

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Cut the Weight, Add the Vibe - Vibration Plates

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

For their study, the scientists recruited healthy, but only recreationally active 15 participants (9 men, 6 women; mean age ±SD, 24.33 ± 4.88 y) on a voluntary basis through personal contacts from an opportunity sample students in a university research program. The 15 subjects were then randomly assigned to do 5 reps of the previously listed exercises at their pre-determined 8-RM (less reps than maxto maintain optimal form) on either ...

• cable-based towers (Cybex Bravo Pro, multi-functional tower) or 
• rigid, plate-loaded machines (selectorized) from Cybex International.

To ensure optimal comparability, subjects in both groups did the same exercises, i.e. the bicep curl, chest press, and overhead press ... albeit with different motion sequences due to the restraints of the machines. 

Figure 1: Relative EMG acitivity (expressed as increase / decrease with using plates vs. cable-loaded machines) for  pectoralis major (PM), the anterior deltoid (AD), the biceps brachii (BB), the rectus abdominis (RA), the external obliques (EO) and the triceps brachii (TB) during chest press, overhead press and biceps exercises (Signorile. 2016).

The EMG values the scientists measured with electrodes that were attached to the pectoralis major (PM), the anterior deltoid (AD), the biceps brachii (BB), the rectus abdominis (RA), the external obliques (EO) and the triceps brachii (TB) speak for themselves:

• significant benefits favoring cable training were seen for all values beneath the x-axes of Figure 1 that are marked with the p < 0.05 asterisk (*), namely the pecs and the anterior deltaoid (=front delts) for curl exercises, the biceps, rectus abdominis (abs) and the external obliques for the chest press exercises with cables and the external obliques for the overhead press with cables
• significant benefits favoring plate-loaded machines, on the other hand, were observed only for the biceps on the curl machine (vs. cable curls) and the triceps that did half of the job during the chest press on the corresponding machine machine 

If we go by the number of significant benefits, cables do thus appear to be the better choice in many, but not all cases.

SuppVersity Suggested Read for those of you who are interested in learning more: "Angle, Grip Width, Free Weight or Ma-chine, Failure & More - What Really Works for Building A Bigger Bench & Pecs" - Click here to read this article from Monday, February 9, 2015, now!

Wait!? Aren't free weights always better? The number of studies conducting respective comparisons is limited. A study by Silvester and Bryce, however, may be seen as exemplary of the existing evidence and it shows quite conclusively that "exercises performed with variable resis-tance machines and free-weights [are] equally effective at developing strength" (Silvester. 1981)". Eventually, I would yet suggest to follow an advise you can find in a 2002 paper by Stone et al. who say that "the majority of resistance exercises making up a training programme should include free weight exercises with emphasis on mechanical specificity (i.e. large muscle mass exercises, appropriate velocity, contraction type etc.)[, while] machines should be used as [a sports- and goal-specific] adjunct to free weight training" (Stone. 2002).

Based on the results of study at hand, this recommendation could be extended with another half-sentence that reads: '... in that, cable machines are the legitimate link between the totally free regular weights and the very guided movements on regular, plate-loaded machines which should both be part of your (generally free-weight based) training regimen.'

Not all cases? Yes, if we go by the ranges of motion the scientists measured for all of the exercises as well, the ...

• greater starting and ending angles were seen for the elbow and shoulder joints during selectorized biceps curl speak in favor enforcing a certain motion sequence and range of motion by the means of of the plate-loaded machines, while ...
• the higher hip and knee starting and ending angles for cable machines during chest and overhead presses (p<.0001), as well as the overall greater range of motion (ROM) the subjects covered with the cable machines (p<.0001), on the other hand would argue in favor of increasing the degrees of freedom with cable machines.

With the study at hand being an acute EMS study, the bad news, however, is the fact that the ultimate litmus test, i.e. the effect on lean mass and strength gains differences that occur with chronic cable vs. machine training (and additional free weights), will have to be determined in another study. Thus, the probably most significant and eventually only relevant conclusion of the study at hand reads: 

"The major finding of this study was that the activities of selected muscles during comparative exercises varied by machine use as did beginning and ending angles and ROM for specific joints. In examining muscle activity levels, it should be noted that the differences recorded between machines were seen primarily in accessory, rather than the muscles commonly targeted during each exercise" (Signorile. 2016).

On the other hand, it is questionable whether it even makes sense to ask a classic gym-question like 'what is better cables or plate-based machines' even makes sense without specifying the purpose. I believe the answer is 'no!' and thus follow-up studies with sports-specific outcomes will have to show which athletes benefit most from using cables instead of rigid machines and, eventually, how they compare to the good old free weights, we all love so much. 

Full ROM = More Growth, More Strength, More Structural Changes & More Sustainable Gains & Fat Loss - Insights from Realistic 8 Weeks Leg Training + 4 Weeks Detraining | more

Bottom line: Unfortunately, the focus of the study at hand was not on 'gains'. Accordingly, the scientists own conclusion discusses the possible transfer of training into activities of daily living (ADL) and here, "the higher activation levels of the core muscles during the chest press and overhead press exercises during cable versus selectorized machine use indicate that cable machines may be more effective when targeting sport and ADL activities that depend heavily on serape-dominated movements (transitions employing rotational movements that transfer force from the lower to upper body through the core)" (Signorile. 2016). In other words: Cables may help you sweep or transfer an object from one counter to another, or with groundstrokes in tennis or driving a golf ball. In contrast, more linear movements like the biceps curl or training of the front delts appear to benefit from limiting the degree of freedom and thus isolating the body segments on plate-loaded machines | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Signorile, Joseph F., et al. "Differences In Muscle Activation And Kinematics Between Cable-Based And Selectorized Weight Training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2016).
• Silvester, L. Jay, and G. Rex Bryce. "The Effect of Variable Resistance and Free-Weight Training Programs on Strength and Vertical Jump." Strength & Conditioning Journal 3.6 (1981): 30-33.
• Stone, M., S. Plisk, and D. Collins. "Training principles: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training--a coaching perspective." Sports biomechanics/International Society of Biomechanics in Sports 1.1 (2002): 79-103.

Can Stevia Help You Ward Off Type II Diabetes? A Review

Can Stevia Help You Ward Off Type II Diabetes? A Review

anti-diabetes artificial sweeteners diabetes diabetes cure glucose glycemia hyperglycemia hypoglycemia hypoglycemic lose fat stevia sweetener sweeteners

Unfortunately, it is not even clear if you need the "white stuff", i.e. pure steviosides, whole leaves of leaf-extracts to maximize the anti-diabetic effects of stevia. What is clear, though, is that there's still a lot of research to be done.

"Can Stevia Help You Ward Off Type II Diabetes?" That's not just the title of today's SuppVersity article, it is also the research question of a recent paper by Esteves A.F. dos Santos from Farmácia Progresso (dos Santos. 2016). An interesting question with an obvious answer: if you replace sugar in your diet with stevia, it will help.

Now, you know that this would not be worth discussing in a SuppVersity article of its own. What is worth discussing, though, is that stevia contains "compounds and other substance obtained from stevioside hydrolyses" (dos Santos. 2016) such as isoteviol of which studies show that they can be used as 'active' diabetes treatments - meaning: they help, even if you take them on top of sugar / your regular diet.

You can learn more about sweeteners at the SuppVersity

Aspartame & Your Microbiome - Not a Problem?

Will Artificial Sweeteners Spike Insulin?

Sweeteners & the Gut Microbiome Each is Diff.

Chronic Sweeten-er Intake Won't Effect Microbiome

Stevia, the Healthy Sweetener?

Sweeteners In- crease Sweet- ness Threshold

To understand how stevia may help you to ward off diabetes, you will first have to understand how the latter actually develops. In the previously references review, dos Santos writes about the consequences of life-style induced weight gain and concomitant increases in body fat and insulin resistance (IR):

Figure 1: Illustration of the etiology of type II diabetes from a secondary source (in dos Santos. 2016)

"After an initial increase of insulin production as a response to IR in peripheral tissue, pancreatic β cells no longer have the ability to control glucose homeostasis, leading to endocrine sys-tem imbalances. Under glucagon influ-ence, the liver contributes significantly in glucose homeostasis because liver makes the balance between capture / storage of glucose, via glycogenesis, and the release of glucose by glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis. 

Constant, prolonged state of hypergly-cemia enables the formation of Advanced Glycation End-Products (AGEs). AGEs are responsible for the onset of diabetic complications, such as neurological and kidney complications (diabetic nephropathy), aging and cardiovascular complications: dyslipidemia, hyperten-sion, [etc.]" (dos Santos. 2016).

The previously referenced AGEs and the significant increase of reactive oxygen specimen (ROS), which leads to decreased levels of antioxidants enzymes, increase lipid peroxidation, will increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases and exacerbate the state of the disease, which has - at this point - started to self-propel its own progression.

If using stevia could break this vicious cycle, this would obviously be awesome!

Initial evidence that suggests that stevia could do what the subheading suggests, and decrease blood glucose levels comes from ... you guessed it: rodents. In a 4 week supplementation study, rats who were fed Stevia rebaudiana extract - combined with high-carbohydrate and high-fat diets - exhibited a sign. lower increase in glucose and worsening of their glucose tolerance in an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) - a result that was soon confirmed in human beings who ingested an infusion of 5 Stevia rebaudiana leaves for 3 days, every 6 hours (see Figure 2):

Figure 2: Effect of stevia leaf extract (5g) blood glucose of 16 healthy subjects on oral glucose tolerance test (Curi. 1986).

Similar results have been observed by Anton et al. (2010) who compared the effect of preloads of stevia with preloads of other sweeteners, such as aspartame or sucrose in obese and normal subjects. As the data in Figure 3 shows, these preloads, which were consumed by study participants 20 minutes before their test lunch and dinner meals, decreased postprandial insulin significantly.

Figure 3: Blood glucose response in man with preloads of either sucrose, aspartame or stevia (Anton. 2010)

Now, the obvious question we have to answer is: how did that work? There are different speculative and proven mechanisms that could contribute to the anti-diabetic effects of stevia:

• one study showed that Stevia rebaudiana will inhibit the pancreatic enzyme alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase and thus the breakdown of carbs in the intestine (Adisakwattana. 2010),

• 

  Figure 4: Effects of Stevia extracts on glucose transport activity compared to the effect of insulin. SH-SY5Y (a) and HL-60 (b) cells were treated with steviol glycosides (1 mg/mL), with 100 nM insulin (I), with steviol glycosides and insulin simultaneously, or 1 mM standard compounds (StReb, StStev | Rizzo. 2013).

  stevia rebaudiana extracts may also act similar to insulin and are equally effective in increasing glucose uptake,because the co-treatment with insulin and stevia extracts increase glucose uptake significantly higher than the increase due to insulin alone (Rizzo. 2013), , similar results were reported by Akbarzadeh et al. (2015) in STZ-induced diabetic rats
• various studies provide evidence for the anti-oxidant effects of stevia and respective extracts, which will - in view of the inflammatory nature of type II diabetes - obviously contribute to its anti-diabetic effects
• at least one study shows that isostevial, one of the stevia glycosides, appears to work part of its magic via activating the PPAR receptor alpha (Xu. 2012)

Whether there is one specific agent that is responsible for the previously listed effects is still debated. Among the "suspects" are primarily steviol glycosides for which anti-hyperglycemic effect has been observed in doses ranging from 5 mg / kg to 200mg/kg (González. 2014)

Is stevia even safe? You will be surprised to hear that, but the safety of the chronic consumption of stevia, the "natural sweetener", cannot be guaranteed (see possible ill effects on fertility). While studies in adult hypertensive patients show that it is "likely safe" when taken orally (250-500mg stevioside) thrice daily for up to two years, scientists argue that it could be "possibly unsafe, [...w]hen taken [by] children, or pregnant or lactating women or for periods longer than two years, due to insufficient available evidence" (Ulbricht. 2010). The same goes for its use by patients with hypotension, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, or impaired kidney function. In view of what we know about the possibility of allergy/hypersensitivity to other members the daisy family (Asteraceae/ Compositae), one may also suspect that allergic reactions, which have not been reported in the literature, yet, are not likely.

More specifically, these compounds have been observed to offset "the glucagon hypersecretion by pancreas α cells that's usually caused by prolonged exposure to fatty acids, and changed genes expression responsible for the metabolism of fatty acids" (dos Santos. 2016). They have also been shown to increase the glucose uptake of pancreatic cells, thus rendering them more sensitive to (small) changes in blood glucose levels; and Gonzalez et al. found them to be capable of increasing proinsulin mRNA concentration and insulin in pancreas INS-1 cells - with the result being a sign. increase the content of insulin in cells.

Figure 5: Glucose (left) and lipid (right) levels in rodents after 14 days on a high fat diet w/ different amounts of isosteviol in the diet - the effects are sign., but the effect size is small (Xu. 2012)

Of the various steviosides, dos Santos highlights isosteviol, a stevioside hydrolyzate, in particular, because it has been shown to have especially pronounced influence on glucose metabolism (Xu. 2012) in a 14-day rodent study in which the animals were fed high-fat chow and the oral administration of  isosteviol orally administrated at doses from 1 to 5 mg/kg/day led to a statistically significant decrease in insulin levels, accelerated glucose clearance and improved insulin sensitivity while simultaneously lowering total and LDL cholesterol and increasing HDL - not bad even if the effect size is relatively small, right?

"The mechanism underlying these effects may be related to the expression of PPARα, since this has changed in the treatment with isosteviol. Furthermore, the pretreatment with isoteviol improves antiapoptosis factor Bcl-2 expression and inhibits the NF-kB expression, and increases SOD and GSH-PX activity. Isosteviol has anti-inflammatory effects, which may possibly be related to hypoglycemic effect and the ability to change lipid profile" (dos Santos. 2016).

Unfortunately, the results Xu et al. presented 4 years ago still await confirmation in human studies. The same goes for the first stevia based anti-diabetes "drugs" which seek to increase the bioavailability (in serum) of steviosides by bioconjugating them on biodegradable Pluronic-F-68 copolymer based PLA nanoparticles by the means of nanoprecipitation (Barwal. 2013). These studies exist, like a recent study by Kassi et al. who introduced low glycemic load snacks based on Stevia to a low calorie diet in patients with metabolic syndrome and found this to be a safe and highly efficient means to "further reduc[e] BP [blood pressure], fasting glucose, ox[idized] LDL and leptin compared to a hypocaloric diet alone, decreasing, thus, further the risk of atherosclerosis and DMT2" (Kassi. 2016) - as part of a regular diet and in place of high sugar foods, stevia is thus the most effective.

Figure 6: One of the few long(er) term studies in (diabetic) humans found no effect of 1g rebaudioside on glycemia (Maki. 2008) - so, don't get too excited about stevia being the new metformin.

So what's the verdict then? Well, I guess you won't be happy if I say that more research is, as usually, necessary. Dos Santos is yet right that "Stevia rebaudiana is a good option to be included in the group of nutraceuticals", in view of its "action and its main compounds (stevioside and rebaudioside A) concerning glycaemia control, diabetes consequences, and early development of IR" (dos Sanots. 2016).

In as much as it can be considered a "medicinal herb," though, its safety of and necessity of higher dosages, as well as the exact mechanism of action require further investigation. Whether it makes sense to develop sustained released, high bioavailability 'stevia drugs' does yet appear questionable to me. - in particularly, because isosteviol "is not subject to intestinal hydrolysis and has shown results as therapeutic agent for type 2 diabetes and its consequences" (dos Santos. 2016), without being chemically / molecularly altered - using "regular" stevia and that to replace sugar does therefore still appear to be the best 'anti-diabetic' use for this sweetener which is up to 150 times sweeter than sugar, heat- and pH-stable, and not fermentable | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Adisakwattana, Sirichai, et al. "Evaluation of α-glucosidase, α-amylase and protein glycation inhibitory activities of edible plants." International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 61.3 (2010): 295-305.
• Akbarzadeh, Samad, et al. "The Effect of Stevia Rebaudiana on Serum Omentin and Visfatin Level in STZ-Induced Diabetic Rats." Journal of dietary supplements 12.1 (2015): 11-22.
• Anton, Stephen D., et al. "Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels." Appetite 55.1 (2010): 37-43.
• Barwal, Indu, et al. "Development of stevioside Pluronic-F-68 copolymer based PLA-nanoparticles as an antidiabetic nanomedicine." Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 101 (2013): 510-516.
• Curi, R., et al. "Effect Of Stev/A Reba Ud/Ana On Glucose Tolerance. In Normal Adult Humans." Braz. j. med. biol. res (1986).
• González, et al. "Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni: a potencial adjuvant in the treatment of diabetes mellitus." CyTa – Journal of Food 12.3 (2014): 218- 226.
• Kassi, Eva, et al. "Long-term effects of Stevia rebaduiana on glucose and lipid profile, adipocytokines, markers of inflammation and oxidation status in patients with metabolic syndrome." (2016).
• Maki, K. C., et al. "Chronic consumption of rebaudioside A, a steviol glycoside, in men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus." Food and Chemical Toxicology 46.7 (2008): S47-S53.
• Rizzo, Benedetta, et al. "Steviol glycosides modulate glucose transport in different cell types." Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity 2013 (2013).
• Ulbricht, Catherine, et al. "An evidence-based systematic review of stevia by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration." Cardiovascular & Hematological Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (Formerly Current Medicinal Chemistry-Cardiovascular & Hematological Agents) 8.2 (2010): 113-127.