Ad-Libitum Paleo Diet W/ a Handful of Simple Rules Cuts 5-7 kg of Body Fat in 12 Weeks - Plus: Paleo Research Overview

Ad-Libitum Paleo Diet W/ a Handful of Simple Rules Cuts 5-7 kg of Body Fat in 12 Weeks - Plus: Paleo Research Overview

dieting health insulin resistance lean mass lose fat lose weight muscle loss paleo paleolithic eating whole foods

Yes, these foods were "allowed" - Even nuts, albeit in limited amounts.

Ok, I have to admit that I have repeatedly made fun of "paleo" in the past. Its "cultish", sometimes even "sectarian" appeal is and will remain as hilarious in my eyes as the (for some people life-or-death-)question whether certain foods "are paleo" or not (who cares, as long as they are healthy?). If you happen to have seen my presentation at the Paleo Convention in Berlin, last year, you will know that, despite my apathy against the quasi-religious sides of "paleo", I do appreciate a certain set of "rules" or "principles" (or whatever you may call them) all iterations of "paleo" have in common.

These principles work! And they have just been shown to help middle-aged type II diabetics (age 59±8 years) shed a quite impressive 6.7 kg of body fat (w/out exercise "only 5.7kg) in 12 weeks - without dieting as in not eating, although you're hungry (Otten. 2016).

Meat is an essential part of the "paleo diet" | Learn more about meat at the SuppVersity

You May Eat Pork, too!

You Eat What You Feed!

Meat & Prostate Cancer?

Meat - Is cooking the problem

Meat Packaging = Problem?

Grass-Fed Pork? Is it Worth it?

As the headline already tells you, the subjects, individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within the past 10 years, who had a BMI of 25–40 kg/m2 and were weight stable (i.e. <5% weight loss) for 6 months (that's important, because otherwise the data on the energy deficit in Figure 1, which was calculated as baseline vs. study intake would be inaccurate) were allowed to eat "as-libitum", which practically means "as much as they wanted", as long, as they adhered to (a) "paleo foods", i.e. lean meat, fish, seafood, eggs, vegetables, fruits, berries, and nuts, but no cereals, dairy products, legumes, refined fats, refined sugars, and (extra) salt (canned fish and cold cuts like ham were allowed) and (b) followed the following simple food-specific rules:

• 

  Paleo Goes "Real Science" - First Meta-Analysis of Available RCTs Shows Improvements in Health + Body Composition | learn more

  eggs - maximally 1–2/day, and no more than 5/week,
• potatoes - only 1 medium sized potato per day
• dried fruit - 130 g/day, not more,
• nuts - 60 g/day, so no snacking on almonds 24/7
• rapeseed or olive oil - maximum 15 g/day
• honey and vinegar - only small amounts as flavoring in cooking
• coffee & tea - max 300 ml/day (each, I assume)
• red wine - only one glass per week

Since the participants were also instructed to drink mainly still water, you will probably not be surprised that all subjects, irrespective of whether they had been randomly assigned to the no exercise or exercise group ended up in a significant energy deficit - in spite of being allowed to eat "ad-libitum" (see Figure 1 for the most relevant information about their diet(s)).

Figure 1: Energy and macronutrient intake; differences, rel. + abs. above bars (Otten. 2016).

It is also not surprising that the extra-exercise (1h of exercise, 3x per week | details see blue box below) that was done on top of the (at least) 30 min of moderate intensity exercise like brisk walking all patients had been prescribed as part of their regular T2DM treatment, almost doubled the energy deficit of the subjects in the paleo + exercise, i.e. the PD-EX group (remember: the subjects were allowed to eat more, as long as they stuck to the previously presented rules - since the intake of foods like steak or chicken breast was not limited, they would have been able - within certain limits - to significantly increase their energy intake and still did not fully compensate the energy expended during the workouts; this should remind you of previous articles of mine outlining that "exercise does not just make you hungry" | learn more)

What about compli-ance? Both groups increased their relative intake of protein and their intake of monounsatu-rated and polyunsatu-rated fatty acids. Both groups lowered their intake of carbohydrates and saturated fatty acids. The reduction of sodium intake was only significant in the PD-EX group. Nine of the 14 participants in the PD-EX group completed the 36 exercise sessions according to the study protocol. The remaining five participants completed between 27 and 35 workouts during the study period. The participants in the PD-EX group increased the cumulative weight load (weight × repetitions × sets) with the leg press during one exercise session from 1350 kg (900−1800) to 3000 kg (2700−4000) after 12 weeks.

What did the 1h workouts look like? The PD-EX group underwent a program comprising a combination of aerobic exercise and resistance training in 1-h sessions three times weekly at the Sports Medicine unit at Umeå University. The exercise sessions were performed on weekdays, with at least 1 day of rest between sessions. They were supervised by experienced personal trainers with bachelor’s degrees in Sports Medicine.

All exercise sessions started with aerobic exercise. The first session of each week consisted of low-intensity aerobic training at 70% of the maximum heart rate on a crosstrainer (Monark Prime, XT 50, Vansbro, Sweden). The second session of the week consisted of ten high-intensity sprint intervals at 100% of the maximal workload on a cycle-ergometer (Monark, Ergomedic 839E, Vansbro, Sweden), with low-intensity cycling between the sprints. The third session of each week comprised six moderate-intensity 5-min intervals between 45 and 60% of maximal workload on a cycle-ergometer. The duration/workload of the intervals increased every other week. When necessary, the intensity of the aerobic exercise sessions was adjusted in accordance with the participant’s performance.

After the aerobic exercise, the sessions progressed to resistance training with both upper and lower body exercises, including leg presses, seated leg extensions, leg curls, hip raises, flat and incline bench presses, seated rows, dumbbell rows, lat pull-downs, shoulder raises, back extensions, burpees, sit-ups, step-ups, and wall ball shots. At each training session, the participant performed 3–5 of the aforementioned resistance exercises, with 10–15 repetitions and 2–4 sets. Once participants could complete all repetitions, the workload was increased for the following session.

Still, the main advantage of exercise was not, as you may now falsely expect due to the ~100% increase in energy deficit, a significantly increased loss of body fat (the latter did not double and that must not surprise you!). Neither was it a powerful increase in insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR), which increased in both groups similarly (45% | p<0.001). Yeah, and even the extra 0.2% decrease in HbA1c, the sugar coating on the subjects' red blood cells  (-0.9% in diet only, -1.1% in diet + exercise), is not the main reason you must not miss your workouts while dieting (paleo-style or not ;-).

Figure 2: Fat mass (a), insulin sensitivity (b), and cardiovascular fitness (c and d) during 12 weeks following either a Paleolithic diet with a supervised exercise program (PD-EX) or a Paleolithic diet combined with general exercise recommendations (PD). Boxes represent medians and IQRs, whiskers represent the most extreme values besides outliers, and filled circles represent outliers (>1.5 IQR); **p<0 .01="" 2016="" p="" td="" tten.="">

So why are workouts important, then? It's the increased fitness, as evidenced by the PD-EX exclusive increase in maximum oxygen uptake (0.2 L/min) and the conservation of lean mass, which reached statistical significance (1.2kg in PD-EX vs. 2.6 kg in PD) only in the male subjects (p<0.05 for the difference between intervention groups), however (it is well possible that this is due to a lack of protein in the women's diet, cf. bottom line), that made / makes exercise (esp. resistance training) so valuable while dieting... this and another thing, the abstract of the study does not appreciate, because it did not reach statistical significance: The increase in relative resting energy expenditure (REE), the scientists observed in the PD-EX group (this adds to the extra energy expenditure during workouts, by the way!). While the relative REE didn't change in the PD group, it increased by a(n over the long-term) potentially relevant (but statistically non-significant) 3% in the PD-EX group - an effect that more than countered the nasty reduction in REE scientists still hold responsible for the yoyo-effect most "biggest losers" experience after successfully losing weight.

Is this the first paleo study? Even though, the number is still low, this is not the first one. In 2009, already, Jönssen et al. reported that "a 3-month study period, a paleolithic diet improved glycemic control and several cardiovascular risk factors compared to a diabetes diet in patients with type 2 diabetes" (Jönssen. 2009). In 2013, the same authors found that a "Paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a diabetes diet in patients with type 2 dia-betes [and that t]he Paleolithic diet was seen as instrumental in weight loss, albeit it was difficult to adhere to" (Jönssen. 2013) - a result they had previously observed in patients with heart disease, too, when they compared a paleo to a Mediterranean diet (Jönssen. 2010), which also improve glucose tolerance less effectively than the paleo diet in said subject group (Lindeberg. 2007). Furthermore, studies in healthy individiuals Frassetto et al. (2015) like Österdahl et al. report that even "a short-term intervention showed some favourable effects by the diet" (Österdahl. 2008) such as weight loss, waist reductions and an improved quality of the diet and improved "BP [blood pressure] and glucose tolerance, decreases insulin secretion, increases insulin sensitivity and improves lipid profiles without weight loss" (Frassetto. 2015). In view of the fact that the less than a handful of long-term (>1 year), studies similar benefits when comparing paleo to other recommended diets, such as the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations in Mellbert et al. (2014) also show "greater beneficial effects" (e.g. fat mass, abdominal obesity and triglyceride levels just as they were observed by Ryberg, et al. in 2013) for the paleo diet(s), one could argue that the evidence in favor of paleo dieting in health and disease is slowly accumulating.

Eventually, diet is king, ... and that, just like the fact that doubling the energy deficit you have on paper won't double the loss of fat mass, shouldn't be news to you. That doesn't mean that dieting with exercise would not increase the loss of fat mass, but what is more important is that it helped the subjects - at least the male ones - maintain significantly more lean mass (=muscle and organ mass, which also affects you REE!).

Whether the failure of the workout to produce significant lean mass maintenance in the women was due to their sex, their hormonal status (the females included in the study were postmenopausal) or the fact that they gravitated to eat less protein (this is speculative, since the study does not provides sex-specific intakes) cannot be said. Even in the men, the lean mass loss is yet large enough to speculate that we'd have seen sign. less muscle loss with higher protein intakes. After all, the 79g the subjects in the PED-EX group consumed on a daily basis amount to only 0,84g protein per kg of body weight. This has repeatedly been shown to be too little for older individuals - even if they were not dieting. A follow up to the study which includes (a) simply more protein or (b) an extra protein shake after the workouts that would bump the subjects' total protein intake into the ~1.6-2.0g/kg region would thus be something I'd like to see in the (not so distant) future.

As long as said study will not have been done, though (something tells me that it won't ;-), you can still reference Otten's study as evidence that you can effectively lose weight without cereals, dairy products, and legumes... I have to admit, though, that I suspect that especially the latter two of these "forbidden" foods would rather have augmented, not messed with the improvements in body composition Otten et al. observed in the study at hand | Comment!

References:

• Frassetto, Lynda A., et al. "Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet." European journal of clinical nutrition 63.8 (2009): 947-955.
• Jönsson, Tommy, et al. "Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study." Cardiovasc Diabetol 8.35 (2009): 1-14.
• Jönsson, Tommy, et al. "A paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease." Nutrition & metabolism 7.1 (2010): 1.
• Jönsson, Tommy, et al. "Subjective satiety and other experiences of a Paleolithic diet compared to a diabetes diet in patients with type 2 diabetes." Nutrition journal 12.1 (2013): 1.
• Mellberg, Caroline, et al. "Long-term effects of a palaeolithic-type diet in obese postmenopausal women: a two-year randomized trial." European journal of clinical nutrition 68.3 (2014): 350.
• Lindeberg, Staffan, et al. "A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease." Diabetologia 50.9 (2007): 1795-1807.
• Österdahl, M., et al. "Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers." European journal of clinical nutrition 62.5 (2008): 682-685.
• Otten, J, et al. "Effects of a Paleolithic diet with and without supervised exercise on fat mass, insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control: a randomized controlled trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes." Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews (2016 |Accepted Article). doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2828
• Ryberg, Mats, et al. "A Palaeolithic‐type diet causes strong tissue‐specific effects on ectopic fat deposition in obese postmenopausal women." Journal of Internal medicine 274.1 (2013): 67-76.

Ramadan Fasting Studies Showing Fat, but no Muscle Loss Support Benefits of 'Lean Gains'-Style Intermittent Fasting

Ramadan Fasting Studies Showing Fat, but no Muscle Loss Support Benefits of 'Lean Gains'-Style Intermittent Fasting

fasting fat loss intermittend fasting lean gains lean mass lose fat muslim protein ramadan

Remember, Ramadan fasting is not about eating healthy or dieting, after sundown most Muslims consume at least as much energy as on a non-fasting day.

While scientists usually refer to alternate-day fasting as "intermittent fasting", the average fitness enthusiasts will think of Martin Berkhan's "lean gains" protocol, when he or she hears the words "intermittent fasting" - a protocol that involves fasting for minimally 16h and eating for maximally 8h and is thus somewhat similar to the "eat only after sundown" protocol Muslims follow during Ramadan.

Against that background, it makes sense to assume that the two dozen of peer-reviewed Ramadan fasting studies from the Middle East and the Muslim part of Asia provide an (albeit often uncontrolled) model for intermittent fasting.

Do you have to worry about fasting when your're dieting!?

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

Does Meal Timing Matter?

Habits Determine Effects of Fasting

Breaking the Fast & the Brain

Does the Break- Fast-Myth Break?

Breakfast? (Un?) Biased Review

If we assume that this premise is true, a recent study from the Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital at the Universitas Indonesia, provides intriguing insights into the lean mass conserving effects of "intermittent fasting".

The study aimed to evaluate the effect of Ramadan fasting on body composition in healthy Indonesian medical staff. To this ends, Ari Fahrial Syam et al. (2016) recorded the body composition of healthy medical staff  members of the Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital before, during and after Ramadan fasting in 2013 (August to October).

Figure 1: Changes in body composition during the 28-day Ramadan fast (Syam. 2016).

In conjunction with data on the energy intake of the forty-three subjects, the data the scientists gathered appear to confirm what the proponents and followers of the "lean gains" variety of intermittent fasting say: You will lose body fat, but not muscle and that without significant reductions in energy intake.

According to 24h food recalls, the subjects didn't change their energy intake during Ramadan. The fat loss can thus not be explained by the induction of a caloric deficit.

Yes, the body composition was assessed by BIA, but ... while body impedance analysis (BIA) may not the best method to assess the %fa and % lean mas of trained athletes, but has been shown to have a high accuracy and reliability in "normal" people. Similarly, the 24-hour food recalls that were used to evaluate the subjects' dietary intake are often a bit off, but that's the case for both pre- and post-assessments, which is why it is reasonable to assume that there was indeed no significant change in total energy intake. This doesn't change, though that it's a pity that the scientists don't provide information about individual nutrients intakes. Previous studies suggest increased protein intakes during Ramadan fasting (Frost. 1987; El Ati. 1995) - a potentially highly relevant increase, obviously.

One thing Syam's study adds to the table, however, is that (a) the weight you will lose is not just body fat, it's also a lot of water and even bone (see Figure 1) and that (b) your (fat) weight will bounce back, within 4-5 weeks when you return to your usual eating habits.

Table 1: Overview of pertinent research comparing the results of the study at hand to previous studies (Syam. 2016).

As the research overview in Table 1 shows, some, but not all of the (side) effects are actual news. Hossini et al. (2013), for example, didn't observe changes in mineral or water content. The initially highlighted lack of protein / muscle loss, on the other hand, was observed in all three studies in which the exact body composition was measured. It is thus not unreasonable to assume that this is a characteristic feature of pertinent "intermittent fasting" protocols.

Fears about fat gain are likewise unwarranted | learn more

Bottom line: Don't get all excited, even if the 24h food recall were accurate and the fat loss occurred in the absence of reductions in food intake, the fat loss was statistically significant, but with less than 500g practically negligible.

The more important message of the study at hand is thus that intermittent fasting doesn't trigger a loss of muscle mass - a fear that is still prevalent, especially in male members of the fitness community | Comment!

References:

• El Ati, Jalila, C. H. I. R. A. Z. Beji, and J. A. B. E. R. Danguir. "Increased fat oxidation during Ramadan fasting in healthy women: an adaptative mechanism for body-weight maintenance." The American journal of clinical nutrition 62.2 (1995): 302-307.
• Frost, G., and S. Pirani. "Meal frequency and nutritional intake during Ramadan: a pilot study." Human nutrition. Applied nutrition 41.1 (1987): 47-50.
• Hosseini, Seyyed Reza Attarzadeh, et al. "The effect of ramadan fasting and physical activity on body composition, serum osmolarity levels and some parameters of electrolytes in females." International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 11.2 (2013): 88.
• Faris Mohammed Ahmed, et al. "Impact of Ramadan Intermittent Fasting on Oxidative Stress Measured by Urinary 15-F2t-Isoprostane." Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 2012 (2012).
• Norouzy, A., et al. "Effect of fasting In Ramadan on body composition and nutritional intake: a prospective study." Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 26.s1 (2013): 97-104.
• Sadiya, Amena, et al. "Effect of Ramadan fasting on metabolic markers, body composition, and dietary intake in Emiratis of Ajman (UAE) with metabolic syndrome." Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity: targets and therapy 4 (2011): 409.
• Syam, Ari Fahrial, et al. "Ramadan Fasting Decreases Body Fat but Not Protein Mass." International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 14.1 (2016).

Peri-Workout BCAA + Glutamine + Citrulline Consumption Blunts Muscle & Fat Loss Compared to Powerade Placebo

Peri-Workout BCAA + Glutamine + Citrulline Consumption Blunts Muscle & Fat Loss Compared to Powerade Placebo

anti-catabolic BCAA catabolism citrulline glutamine lean mass lose fat peri-workout post-workout pre-workout supplementation supplements XTend

"Shed the fat, keep the muscle!" That's a promise you will find not literally, but analogously in every ad for BCAAs, but do they actually do that? Help you shed fat and retain muscle? Scientific prove to support this claim is, as of yet, missing.

With BCAAs it is just as it is with 99.9% of the supplements: Ads and product labels are full of scientifically unproven claims. One of these unproven claims is that the consumption of branched-chain amino acids would protect you from losing muscle while you're dieting ... the problem with this notion is - as sound as it may seem in view of the mTOR promoting effects of leucine, there's no study which would prove that guzzling BCAAs all day will in promote fat and blunt lean mass losses when you're cutting.... or I should say "as of now, there was no study...", right? After all, there's this new study by Dudgeon et al.'s the abstract of which tells us that "BCAA supplementation in trained individuals performing resistance training while on a hypocaloric diet can maintain lean mass and preserve skeletal muscle performance while losing fat mass" (Dudgeon. 2015).

Learn more about amino acid and BCAA supplements at the SuppVersity

Glutamine Helps W/ Diabetes

Whey + C Kicks BCAA Ass

Alanyl-Glutamine is it any good?

Glutamine Insted of CHO?

GLU as Intra-Workout BV?

BCAAs deplete neurotransmitters

As we are going to see after taking a look at the design and results of Dudgeon's single-blind study in seventeen resistance-trained males (21–28 years of age) on hypocaloric diets, this is yet a potentially misleading conclusion. Not because it was wrong, but rather because it omits an observation that could be of paramount importance to dieters who have the free choice between the two treatments, the subjects of the study were randomly assigned to, namely...

• 14g of Xtend (BCAA) before after workouts or
• 14 g Powerade (CHO) before and after workouts

The supplements were consumed for a total study time of 8 weeks during which all subjects trained four times per week according to a standardized workout program and consumed a diet that was programmed (but not controlled) to contain roughly 35% less energy than the subjects required on workout days and approximately 10% less energy than required on off-days.

In the strict sense, this is actually no "BCAA study": Some of you may already have realized that the "BCAA supplement" the scientists used, i.e. Scivation XTend, is not really a "BCAA only" supplement. Next to only 7 grams of BCAAs per 14g of powder the subjects ingested before and after the workout, it also contains 1 g citrulline and 2.5 g glutamine and obviously a hell lot of flavorings, fillers and what not. Now, while the latter are not of any importance, both of the former have been heralded as muscle protectors, as well, with citrulline probably having the more convincing scientific data to back it up (it appears to act similar to leucine, by the way | Moinard. 2007; Faure. 2012; Ventura. 2013) outside of scenarios with extremely high glucocorticoid levels where glutamine unquestionably helps (Hickson. 1995 & 1997; Salehian. 2006). It is thus in my humble opinion at least highly imprecise to conclude that the provision of 2x7g of BCAA ameliorated the the fat to muscle loss ratio during the 8-week study.

Now you may be rightly asking yourselves why I am so vague with respect to the energy deficit. Well, everything we learn from the full text of the study is that all subjects were "provided an individualized caloric restricted diet based on individual data (body mass, body composition, resting metabolic rate, etc.)" (Dudgeon. 2015) - a diet the scientists describe as follows:

Table 1: W/ the Harris-Benedict equation you calculate the basal metabolic rate and multiply it with a factor (multiplier) that describes your activity level best to arrive at the "real" estimated energy requirements.

"The caloric-restricted diet was designed as an 8 week “cut diet” for reducing body fat, and used a modified carbohydrate-restricted diet approach (percent of total calories for workout days were 30 % carbohydrates, 35 % protein and 35 % fat and for off days were 25 % carbohydrates, 40 % protein and 35 % fat). Each individual’s daily caloric and macronutrient intake was determined using the Harris Benedict formula with an activity factor of 1.35 (lightly active individual engaging in light exercise 1–3 days/week) for workout days and 1.125 (sedentary individual) for off days" (Dudgeon. 2015).

Since the Harris-Benedict formula is only a really rough estimate of how much energy you actually need, my previous estimations of the energy deficit are as "accurate" as I can possibly be. The 1604kcal that are printed in red bold letters on top of the exemplary meal plan in Figure 2, however, suggest that the deficit on the off days was significantly larger. After all, the subjects' mean weight was >80kg and their daily energy requirements should thus be at least 2,000kcal - even on off days (and the table in which the macronutrient composition is listed actually says that the mean intake was 2046 and 2264kcal/day for the BCAA and CHO group respectively).

Table 2: Sample dietary card for a subject during an off, non-workout, day (Dudgeon. 2015).

In view of the fact that the response I got from the authors to an email in which I asked about the exact kcal deficit only referred me to the previously cited passage about the activity factors, I guess it is futile to further speculate about the energy deficit, of which I would still like to add that it was probably higher in the heavier and taller BCAA group. Why? Well, the BCAA group had plans with 2456 and 2046 kcal on workout and off days, the CHO group on the other hand were fed 2717 and 2264 kcal... Whatever, let's get to the more relevant, but not less confusing changes in body weight, lean mass and fat mass the researchers report for the BCAA and CHO groups:

Figure 1: Pre and post absolute mean body weight, body fat and lean body mass values before and after the 8-week intervention; * p < 0.05 for the difference within groups (no difference between groups | Dudgeon. 2015)

-0.1 kg and -2.3 kg of body weight, +0.4 kg and -0.9 kg of lean mass and 0.6 kg and 1.4 kg fat mass in the BCAA and CHO groups respectively - that's in line with the previously cited conclusion. The BCAA supplement blunted the small loss of lean mass in the CHO group, but if we look at the complete dataset, a somewhat different image emerges; one in which the two classic markers of body composition, namely the relative amount of body fat (aka "body fat percentage") and the lean mass as percentage of the total mass changed in a way that favors CHO over BCAA supplements:

Figure 2: Pre vs. post values for body fat % and lean mass %, the two parameters you would classically use to assess body composition (instead of absolute lean and fat mass); pre-to-post change on top of the post-bars (Dudgeon. 2015).

Now, I am not saying that the consumption of the BCAA (+citrulline + glutamine) supplement did not blunt the loss of lean mass - it obviously did. What I want you to keep in mind, though, is the fact that the consumption of 14g of BCAAs before and after workouts appears to suffocated any dieting efforts - after all, the subjects lost a practically irrelevant (and for whatever reason allegedly statistical significant) amount of 600g body fat; that's in contrast to the 1.4 kg of fat mass the subjects in the control group lost; and that's a practically relevant insight, even if this fat loss was allegedly statistically non-significant, because  it implies that BCAAs practically blunt fat loss.

Whey + Casein - A Superior Post-Workout Shake that Kicks Every Amino Acid Product's Ass | read more

So what do we make of this study? Well, first of all, I would like to come back to something fundamental: This is yet another BCCA study that did not make the practically most relevant comparison of BCAAs and cheap (whey) protein protein supplements, in which BCAAs have hitherto always failed. In my humble opinion that's a problem, after all having a carbohydrate supplement as control in a dieting study is nice, but eventually not relevant for the average trainee who is probably not really considering extra-carbs when he's dieting.  What a real trainee would have been interested in, is whether BCAAs can prevent muscle catabolism to a significantly greater degree than the cheap whey protein he's using anyway...

... and maybe, whether the latter has a similar negative effect on fat loss as the BCAAs in the study at hand - which leads me to the actual take home message of the study, which is, as usually, not as straight forward as the conclusion of the abstract suggested. When all is said and done, the study at hand does after all suggest that someone who is approaching the single-digit body-fat zone, where every gram of muscle that is not lost counts, could benefit from the apparent lean mass protective effects of BCAA the scientists observed in the study at hand. It does yet also indicate that someone who's "making weight" for a competition should take a second look at the data in Figure 1 + 2 and acknowledge that taking a BCAA supplement may be the reason he will fail to achieve his weight loss goal. You don't believe that? Well, let's do some scientifically not exactly kosher extrapolations: If you manage to lose 10 kg in 10 weeks without BCAAs, for example, the data from the study at hand suggests that your weight loss "on BCAAs" over the course of those 10 weeks would be as meager as 434 grams ... whether that's in fact the case (I doubt it ;-) will have to be studied in future studies, just like the effect of BCAAs, citrulline and glutamine, alone and whether using your regular whey protein before and after the workout wouldn't have the exact same, or even better effects | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Dudgeon, WD; Page Kelly, E; Scheett TP. "In a single-blind, matched group design: branched-chain amino acid supplementation and resistance training maintains lean body mass during a caloric restricted diet." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition  (2016) 13:1.
• Faure, Cécile, et al. "Leucine and citrulline modulate muscle function in malnourished aged rats." Amino acids 42.4 (2012): 1425-1433.
• Moinard, Christophe, and Luc Cynober. "Citrulline: a new player in the control of nitrogen homeostasis." The Journal of nutrition 137.6 (2007): 1621S-1625S.
• Hickson, R. C., S. M. Czerwinski, and L. E. Wegrzyn. "Glutamine prevents downregulation of myosin heavy chain synthesis and muscle atrophy from glucocorticoids." American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism 268.4 (1995): E730-E734.
• Hickson, Robert C., et al. "Protective effect of glutamine from glucocorticoid-induced muscle atrophy occurs without alterations in circulating insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein levels." Experimental Biology and Medicine 216.1 (1997): 65-71.
• Salehian, Behrouz, et al. "The effect of glutamine on prevention of glucocorticoid-induced skeletal muscle atrophy is associated with myostatin suppression." Metabolism 55.9 (2006): 1239-1247.
• Ventura, G., et al. "Effect of citrulline on muscle functions during moderate dietary restriction in healthy adult rats." Amino acids 45.5 (2013): 1123-1131.