Creatine and Bicarbonate - A Worthwhile Combination: Supplements Exert Great Individual and Small Combined Effects on HIIT Performance Test in Nine Well-Trained Men

Creatine and Bicarbonate - A Worthwhile Combination: Supplements Exert Great Individual and Small Combined Effects on HIIT Performance Test in Nine Well-Trained Men

baking soda bicarbonate creatine high volume mean power peak power performance sodium bicarbonate total volume total work volume

The results of a Wingate test cannot be translated 1:1 to any sports.

You will probably remember my article about the combination of creatine and bicarbonate. Mixing both is basically what the producers of "buffered creatine" supplements do. Albeit with amounts of bicarbonate that may affect the uptake of the latter and offer benefits if you have to load as fast as possible, but won't have individual performance effects (learn more).

Other studies I've likewise covered in the SuppVersity News in the past showed both significant as well as borderline significant and non-significant beneficial effects of combining creatine and bicarbonate for a performance enhancing double-whammy in trained individuals.

You can learn more about bicarbonate and pH-buffers at the SuppVersity

The Hazards of Acidosis

Build Bigger Legs W/ Bicarbonate

HIIT it Hard W/ NaCHO3

Creatine + BA = Perfect Match

Bicarb Buffers Creatine

Bicarbonate Works for Most(!) Athletes

Against that background it is not surprising that a recent study by Griffen et al. (2015) found similarly ambiguous results. The study investigated the effects of creatine and sodium bicarbonate coingestion on mechanical power during repeated sprints. To this ends, nine well-trained men (age = 21.6 ± 0.9 yr, stature = 1.82 ± 0.05 m, body mass = 80.1 ± 12.8 kg) participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, counterbalanced, crossover study using six 10-s repeated Wingate tests.

Before each of the performance tests, the participants ingested either a placebo (0.5 g/kg of maltodextrin), 20 g/d of creatine monohydrate + placebo (Cre), 0.3 g/kg of sodium bicarbonate + placebo (Bi), or coingestion  (Cre + Bi) for 7 days, with a 7-day washout between conditions. Participants were randomized into two groups with a differential counterbalanced order. Creatine conditions were ordered first and last. The participants individual mechanical power output (W), total work (J) and fatigue index (W/s) were measured during each test and analyzed using the magnitude of differences between groups in relation to the smallest worthwhile change in performance.

Figure 1: Subject allocation.

Yes, the washout period could be a problem: With only nine participants you have to do crossover study, but in view of the results of previous studies (McKenna. 1999), which report washout times of 4 weeks, the scientists would have been on the safer side if they had planned for a washout of 28, not just 7 days. Now you may argue that not all subjects started "on" creatine, so that the residual effect could average out. The problem, however, is that the significance of the results of a study with only nine participants gets impaired with every subject who was in a creatine group before being randomly assigned to one of the placebo + X groups, so that the researchers would have had to order all the creatine conditions last, not one first and the other last, as it is depicted in Figure 1 and described in the full text of the study.

As the data in Figure 2 tells you, both, the creatine (effect size (ES) = 0.37–0.83) and sodium bicarbonate (ES = 0.22–0.46) supplementation, resulted in meaningful improvements of all three indices of mechanical power output compared to placebo. Now what we are really interested in, though, is what the combination of the two did...

• In general, the coingestion provided "small meaningful improvements on indices of mechanical power output (W)" (Griffen. 2015) 
• The previously mentioned advantage was yet only seen when comparing sodium bicarbonate (ES = 0.28–0.41) with the combination treatment; a similar beneficial effect was not seen compared to creatine alone

This does obviously mean that the addition of bicarbonate to creatine did not result in meaningful increases in power output in this particular exercise test.

Figure 2: The only relevant advantage of combining both creatine and bicarbonate was seen for the total work done (orange bars, see orange arrow); this however is also among the most relevant measures for real athletes (Griffin. 2015).

What it did do and that's what we actually take bicarbonate for is to "provided a small meaningful improvement in total work (J; ES = 0.24) compared with creatine" (Griffin. 2015) - or, in other words, anyone who does not just one, but several all-out sprints (and that's almost every athlete) will see a small but meaningful performance increase, one that may make the difference between victory and defeat (see Figure 1, orange bars).

The increase in PGC-1a expression you get if you do HIIT w/ sodium bicarbonate and the correspondingly increased stimulus for mitochondrial biogenenesis is a hitherto often overlooked benefit of "baking soda" supplementation | learn more

Disappointing? I would not say so, which significant improvements in response to both supplements and a potential "game changing" increase in the total work the subjects were able to perform on the cycle ergometer during the repeated Wingate tests, both supplements have proven their efficacy and the potential benefits of combining them. Benefits the Griffin et al rightly call "small", but "meaningful" in the conclusion to their recently published paper.

The fact that these benefits may not be as exorbitant as some of you may have hoped for does not imply that the combination of creatine and bicarbonate supplements is useless. In view of the overall small study size (low number of subjects even for a crossover study), the problem with the washout and the specificity of the exercise - who knows what the results in the gym or on a football field would have looked like, thus, future studies are warranted | Comment!

References:

• Barber, James J., et al. "Effects of combined creatine and sodium bicarbonate supplementation on repeated sprint performance in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27.1 (2013): 252-258.
• Griffen, C., et al. "Effects of Creatine and Sodium Bicarbonate Co-Ingestion on Multiple Indices of Mechanical Power Output During Repeated Wingate Tests in Trained Men." International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2015, 25, 298-306.
• McKenna, Michael J., et al. "Creatine supplementation increases muscle total creatine but not maximal intermittent exercise performance." Journal of Applied Physiology 87.6 (1999): 2244-2252.

True or False? 'Low Fat' for the Lean, 'Low Carb' for the Obese and Insulin Resistant - Pilot Study Confirms Often Heard Dieting Advise on a Surface Level , However, ...

True or False? 'Low Fat' for the Lean, 'Low Carb' for the Obese and Insulin Resistant - Pilot Study Confirms Often Heard Dieting Advise on a Surface Level , However, ...

become healthy dieting get healthy health lose fat lose weight low carb low carbohydrate low fat metabolic syndrome obesity TOF

Low carb, or fat? Left or right?  Which one should you chose and why? Shall you go by your body weight, your insulin sensitivity or your personal food preferences?

"Low Fat for the Lean, Low Carb for the Obese and Insulin Resistant," this quote from the headline sounds like a reasonable advise if you look at the existing evidence on low carbohydrate dieting, which appears to excel whenever the subjects are significantly overweight and insulin resistant. Studies that would do a head-to-head comparison of the two to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis that "because they are insulin resistant, avoiding carbohydrates will aid people with (pre-)diabetes in losing weight" are non-existent... well, I should probably say they "were" nonexistent; a recent pilot study by Gardner et al does after all just that: compare the weight loss response of insulin sensitive vs. resistant individuals who consume either a low fat or a low carbohydrate diet over 6 months.

You can learn more about improving your body composition at the SuppVersity

Long-Term Dieting Makes Gymnasts Fat!

Minimal Carb Reduction, Max. Results?

HIT Circuit + Plyos for Glucose Management

How Much Carbs Before Fat is Unhealthy?

5 Tips to Improve & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity

Weight Must be Lost Slowly? Busted!?

The results of Gardner's study have recently been published ahead of print in the venerable scientific journal  Obesity; and they are... interesting, but as it was to be expected for a pilot study with "only" 61 participants in four groups, more research will be needed to make definite conclusions.

Figure 1: Weight loss (kg) after 6 months on the respective in insulin resistant and sensitive subjects (Gardner. 2015).

If you look at the main study outcome, i.e. the weight loss in Figure 1, for example, it would appear as if the previously cited statement from the headline of today's SuppVersity article was confirmed. Due to the large intra-group (=between individuals in one group) differences in all four diet groups (see error bars in Figure 1, they are about as long as the mean difference, we may speak of a trend or a tendency, that appears to confirm the previously stated hypothesis that an insulin resistant individual is better off avoiding carbs when dieting while an insulin sensitive one should stick to the mainstream low-fat recommendations (remember all subjects were overweight, none of the was athletic).

Figure 2: Proportions of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins for each diet at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months (Gardner. 2015).

This wouldn't be a SuppVersity article, though, if a brief glimpse at the main result was everything it had to offer. Let's first take a look at the reported energy- and macronutrient intakes (Figure 2) of the healthy, premenopausal women and men (age 18-50) with stable (>2 months) BMIs and an age between 28 years and 40 years (aside from the increased number of subjects with metabolic syndrome in the insulin resistant group, there were no noteworthy inter-group differences at baseline).

Limbo-Titrate-Quality: The dietary strategy that was used is quite interesting and actually something worth copying for yourself or your clients. There was the "Limbo" phase where the fat or carb intake had to be cut back drastically to 20 g/day of total fat or digestible carbohydrates. The goal of this phase was, as the scientists point out "to achieve the lowest level of fat or carbohydrate intake within the first 8 weeks" (Gardner. 2015). In the second stage, the scientists labeled as the "Titrate" phase the subjects slowly added fat or carbohydrate back to their diet - in increments of 5 g/day (e.g., from 20 to 25 g/day). With each increase, the intake had to be maintained stable for at least 1, maximally 5 weeks before adding another 5 g/day. The (good) idea was to allow each of the participants (in what the researchers call stage 3 of the intervention, although 2 + 3 appear to depend on each other) to find his or her specific level of fat or carbohydrate intake he / sheh "could be maintained long term, potentially for the rest of their lives" (ibid). The fourth and last stage eventually focused on diet quality. In the "Quality" phase the subjects had to maximize the nutrient density of their foods by selecting whole foods, buying organic, grass-fed, etc.

As you can see significant inter-group differences were observed only for the macronutrient composition; and even though these differences were significant, we are nor talking about a ketogenic vs. no-fat diet. Rather than that, both diets had a relatively balanced macronutrient profile, albeit with different main energy sources (carbs vs. fat). What did not differ for the groups, though was the total energy intake (Figure 2). This is interesting, because, in theory, the subjects were allowed ot eat as much as they wanted; and still, the data in Figure 2 tells you that they restricted their energy intake by noteworthy 30% on average (the ~600kcal-deficit also explains why the subjects even lost weight), with no difference between the subjects on the allegedly more satiating low carb vs. low fat diet.

Figure 3: Fiber, added sugar and saturated fat intake in g/1000kcal (Gardner. 2015).

Visible differences existed, obviously, for the intake of fiber, added sugars and saturated fats (Figure 3). These differences, which are characteristic of low fat vs. low carb diets, may also be the reason a recent study by Mansoor et al. (see red box below) found differences in the effects on triglycerides (increases with high CHO and even more so sugar intake), HDL and LDL (both increase w/ high saturated fat intakes) when they compiled the results of the contemporary low fat vs. low carb trials.

So, what's healthier, then? Low carb or low fat? To answer this question, researchers from the University of Oslo have recently conducted a meta-analysis that yielded quite interesting results, when the individual findings from the studies were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) using a random effect model: Compared with participants on LF diets, participants on LC diets experienced a greater reduction in body weight (WMD –2·17 kg; 95 % CI –3·36, –0·99) and triglicerides (WMD –0·26 mmol/l; 95 % CI –0·37, –0·15), as well as a greater increase in HDL-cholesterol (WMD 0·14 mmol/l; 95 % CI 0·09, 0·19) - that's good. Unfortunately, they also saw signficant increases in LDL-cholesterol. With 0·16 mmol/l, the mean difference in LDL was larger than the mean HDL increase, which could suggest an increase in CVD risk and has the authors conclude that their "findings suggest that the beneficial changes of LC diets must be weighed against the possible detrimental effects of increased LDL-cholesterol" (Mansoor. 2015). Personally, I would say, though, that for the mostly obese subjects in the studies, the weight loss and reduction in triglycerides (likewise a marker of CVD risk) are more important than the increase in LDL-C - future studies should try to elucidate if the particle size and LDL oxidation worsened as well and what the actual long-term (years, not months) effects are.

It is thus no wonder that the data from  blood analysis of the study at hand (Figure 4) mirrors the results of the studies Mansoor et al. (2015) analyzed for their meta-analysis that is about to be published in the British Journal of Nutrition (see red box):

Figure 4: Changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, Trigs and fasting glucose after 3 & 6 months (Gardner. 2015).

With the most significant differences being observed for triglycerides and LDL, the situation is very similar to the one the Mansoor et al. describe in their review. In this regard, it is also worth mentioning that the differences between the groups were reduced, when the subjects started to increase their fat or carbohydrate intake by 5g on a 1-4 week basis to eventually end up at their individual "that's how I could eat for the rest of my life"-level (compare the 3 months with the 6 months data).

This doesn't solve the dilemma we're in, though: without further data on particle sizes and oxidative status of the LDL molecules, etc. it is virtually impossible to make a reliable prediction which of the two diets is going to have the higher long-term health benefits. What may be even more important, though, is that we must not forget that it is not debatable that both diets triggered significant weight loss and measurable health improvements, especially in the subjects with pre-existing insulin resistance (blue and orange bars in Figure 4).

Figure 5: Changes in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome after 3 and 6 months (Gardner. 2015).

Bottom Line: So, it doesn't matter how you diet as long as you diet? Well, as previously pointed out, the absolute weight-loss values in Figure 1 appear to confirm the hypothesis that "low carb" is for the sick, while "low fat" for the healthy overweight individuals.

The significant intra-group differences, however, tell us that whether you are or aren't insulin resistant is not the only determinant of your response to the different diets. Especially for healthy individuals experimentation and finding what suits you, your lifestyle and sports best does therefore still appear to be the way to go.

In those with pre-existing metabolic syndrome (which is more than just insulin resistance, by the way), the generally higher relative reduction in MetSyn prevalence Gardner et al. observed in their study (Figure 5) do yet appear to confirm the general trend towards low-carbohydrate diets for people with serious metabolic issue; and maybe that's actually the main take-home message of a study that must be seen as a first attempt to identify one of the variables that determine whether an individual thrives on a low carb, a low fat or maybe just a completely balanced diet | Comment!

References:

• Gardner, et al. "Weight Loss on Low-Fat vs. Low-Carbohydrate Diets by Insulin Resistance Status Among Overweight Adults and Adults with Obesity: A Randomized Pilot Trial" Obesity (2015): Ahead of print.
• Mansoor, et al. "Effects of low-carbohydrate diets v. low-fat diets on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials." British Journal of Nutrition (2015): First view article.

Cacao, Delicious + Ergogenic - Performance Up and Muscle Damage Down After 7d on 21g/d of Hershey's 100% Cacao

Cacao, Delicious + Ergogenic - Performance Up and Muscle Damage Down After 7d on 21g/d of Hershey's 100% Cacao

cacao chocolate CK cooper test ergogenic ergogenics LDH muscle damage natural ergogenic performance

Hershey's 100% Cacao, soon also available at your local GNC? If you look at the results of the study at hand, it does appear likely that a regular "food item" can compete with sign. more expensive sport supplements.

From previous SuppVersity articles you know that several studies have demonstrated the protective effects of cocoa consumption, due to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. From the news and my critical evaluations of the study results, you do yet also know that (a) regular chocolate lacks most of these beneficial effects and that the effects have (b) often been hilariously exaggerated in the laypress. Furthermore, studies that probe the efficacy of cacao or high cacao chocolate on exercise performance are, unlike studies on its anti-oxidant effects (e.g. Berry. 2010; Davison. 2012), something in-between "rare" and "quasi non-existent".

In spite of its relatively small size (fifteen 15-18 year old soccer players), a recent study González-Garrido et al's latest study that examined the effect of cocoa consumption on the markers of muscle damage, oxidative stress and physical fitness in professional soccer players, is thus still worth being discussed in the SuppVersity news.

You can learn more about chocolate and cacao at the SuppVersity

Chocolicious Statin 4 Women

Real Cacao Delicious + More

The Chocolate Diet for Women

Cacao for the Gut Microbiome

Cacao as Anti-Cancer "Drug"?

Don't Fall for Chocolate Myths

Furthermore, the fifteen players (15-18 years old) were part of a case-control study in which the which subjects acted as their own control - a means of making the results more significant in spite of a relatively low number of subjects.

Table 1: Nutritional profile of 25g of the cocoa "supplement", Hershey's 100% cacao powder.

A study in which the researchers analyzed the biochemical parameters, markers of muscle damage and oxidative stress, and physical performance before and 24h after consuming 0.375 g/kg body mass of Hershey's 100% cacao powder in 300 mL water for 7 days.

Figure 1: Rel. changes (%) of markers of lipid and protein per-oxidation and anti-oxidant defenses (González-Garrido. 2015).

For the average study subject that was a dosage of roughly 25.1 g of cocoa per day - not exactly mass and certainly not enough to be afraid that the additional 162.5 kcal/day could have negative effects on your body composition, but obviously enough to trigger significant decreases in all the relevant markers of oxidative damage MDA + 4-HNE (lipid per-oxidation), carbonyl groups (protein per-oxidation), and improvements in all relevant markers of antioxidant defenses, i.e. GSH, TAC (increased) and thiols (decreased).

So what? Now the obvious question is: "Couldn't this impair the adaptation to exercise?" This question cannot be answered based on an acute response study, but with the acute increases in exercise performance (Cooper test, see Figure 2) and in spite of the significant reductions in CK and LDH (see Figure 2), which are usually interpreted as markers of muscle damage, this appears generally unlikely - yet not impossible.

Figure 2: Copper test (test of physical fitness | more) performance and creatine kinase (CK | more) and lactate dehydro- genase (LDH) levels after the 12-minute Cooper test before and after 7-days of supplementing with ~21g/d of 100% cacao powder (González-Garrido. 2015).

On the other hand, it is important to note that only the increased Cooper test performance (Figure 2), but none of the other markers has at least a non-significant predictive value with respect to the possible long-term effects on exercise performance - an effect that will have to be tested in future longer-term studies. A conclusion that would go beyond the scientists' statement that they "have shown the potential that cocoa consumption has on endurance performance and its role in recovery from muscle damage in athletes" (González-Garrido. 2015) would thus be unwarranted... as unwarranted as any speculations about the underlying mechanisms: yes, it is likely that the high polyphenol content of 100% cacao is what does the trick, but to prove that we'd need a low polyphenol chocolate control we don't have. If you want to benefit, though, I highly suggest to pick a 100% cacao powder with a low degree of processing | Comment!

References:

• Berry, Narelle M., et al. "Impact of cocoa flavanol consumption on blood pressure responsiveness to exercise." British Journal of Nutrition 103.10 (2010): 1480-1484.
• Davison, Glen, et al. "The effect of acute pre-exercise dark chocolate consumption on plasma antioxidant status, oxidative stress and immunoendocrine responses to prolonged exercise." European journal of nutrition 51.1 (2012): 69-79.
• González-Garrido, et al. "An association of cocoa consumption with improved physical fitness and decreased muscle damage and oxidative stress in athletes." The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness (2015): Epub ahead of pring Dec 02, 2015.

Caffeine + Green Tea = Plus 10% Fat Oxidation & Energy Expenditure at Rest and During Sprint Interval Exercise

Caffeine + Green Tea = Plus 10% Fat Oxidation & Energy Expenditure at Rest and During Sprint Interval Exercise

caffeine coffee EGCG energy expenditure fat burner fat oxidation green tea GTE lose fat metabolic rate REE

From a health perspective it may be good that green tea does not contain all-too much caffeine. From a fat loss perspective, it clearly lacks caffeine.

When it comes to dietary supplements, people like to pay tons of money for unproven ingredients with funky names and dubious or non-existent safety profiles; agents that have been scientifically proven to work, are safe and cheap, on the other hand, are non-sellers or at least considered to be non-effective.

Obviously, I cannot really explain why that is the case (I suspect it is because people effect drug-like effects without drug-like side-effects from supps and are thus always on the lookout for the "next big"... hoax), I can tell you, though, that a recent study that is going to be published in one of the upcoming issues of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Jo. 2015) shows that caffeine and green tea, two supplements that belong to the previously described category, are everything but useless.

You can learn more about coffee 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 said study, Edward Jo and colleagues investigated the effects of a caffeine + green tea polyphenol mix (250mg caffeine + 400mg of a green tea extract with 50% EGCG and 5mg of caffeine per serving) on (a) metabolic rate and fat oxidation at rest, as well as following a bout of sprint interval exercise (SIE) and (b) the performance during a standardized sprint-interval test.

The study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study that involvd 12 subjects (male: n=11; female:1 n=1) whose antroprometric data, i.e "body mass=76.1±2.2 kg; height= 169.8±1.6 cm; BMI= 22.7±3.0 kg/m2; body fat %= 21.6±2.0% [DXA data]" (Jo. 2015), already tell you that they were healthy recreationally active, but not necessarily athletic (it may be worth mentioning that they were relatively stim-naive with an intake of < 201mg of caffeine per day).

Figure 1: Energy expenditure (kcal/h) and fat oxidation (g/day) measure before (at rest) and during (during SIE) the sprint interval exercise 10 and 55 minutes after the ingestion of caffeine + GTE or placebo (Jo. 2015).

During the two testing sessions at the Human Performance Research Laboratory of the California State Polytechnic University, the subjects' resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured for 45 minutes starting 10 minutes after the ingestion of the aforementioned caffeine + polyphenol mix - a mix that was consumed on an empty stomach after an 8-h overnight fast (don't be fooled by the way the scientists report their data in "g/day" and kcal/day - I changed the latter, already but the values for fat in g would have become to small - we are talking about 45 + 30 min and a 24h measurement here).

Don't confuse increases in fat oxidation w/ fat loss: I guess we have to credit the supplement industry for propagating the myth that the ratio of fat to glucose you were burning was in anyway directly related to losing body fat. I am not sure how often I've written this on this blog or told someone in the gym: that is not the case. You can burn 20% more fat and still store more body fat if you increase your energy intake from exactly enough to already too much. The connection between fatty acid oxidation which would actually be a better term for the phenomenon we are talking about is complicated and a decreasing respiratory exchange ratio, i.e. a reduction of the ratio of glucose to fat that's used to fuel your metabolism is not a reliable predictor of fat loss.

After the initial 45-minutes, during which the subjects' resting energy expenditure had been measured, the subjects were placed on a computer-integrated cycle ergometer on which they performed a standardized 30 minute sprint interval exercise (SIE) protocol., the scientists describe as follows:

"Sprint-Interval Exercise Protocol. The SIE protocol was performed on the Velotron DynaFit Pro cycle ergometer and comprised of four 30-second maximal effort intervals each separated by 5 minutes of low-intensity, constant workload cycling (Figure 2). First, the ergometer was properly adjusted for the subject. Adjustment specifications for each subject was recorded during their familiarization visit and repeated for all experimental trials. Subjects initiated the SIE protocol with a 5-minute interval of low-intensity cycling at a constant workload of 75W. Immediately after, subjects cycled with maximal effort for 30 seconds against an added resistance that is 7.5% of BW for males and 7.2% for females. These two intervals were repeated three additional times. After the last 30-second sprint interval, the subjects performed an additional low-intensity 75W interval plus an extra 3 minutes of cool-down at a constant workload of 30W. The total duration of the SIE protocol was 30 minutes" (Jo. 2015).

A workout that had little effect on the effect of the caffeine + green tea combo which did, as you can see, when you compare the "at rest" and "during SIE" values in Figure 1, increase the energy at rest and during sprint interval training to a similar extent. More specifically, the increase in energy expenditure and fat oxidation was - within the margin of inter-individual variability - in the range of +10% during both conditions.

Figure 2: Illustration of the sprint interval exercise test performed 55 min after ingesting the supplement (Jo. 2015).

In view of the fact that we may safely assume that this effect should last for at least 2-3h this can be a practically relevant effect if it is complemented by a reduced energy intake and a caloric deficit. If the latter is not present, even the extremest increases in fat oxidation and energy expenditure will fizzle out and be as irrelevant as the effect of the caffeine + green tea combination on exercise average and peak power (W) during the sprint training, Jo et al. observed in their study... and "Yes!", that is disappointing, but in view of the low dose of caffeine and the non-existent effects of green tea on performance during a test like this not really surprising.

Did you know this SuppVersity Calssic? "Post-Workout Coffee Boosts Glycogen Repletion by Up to 30% and May Even Have Sign. Glucose Partitioning Effects | learn more!

Bottom line: I admit, they certainly sound less exciting as the latest exotic herb from the rain-forest or a substance that is listed only under its funky chemical name on the label, but unlike your average "innovative breakthrough metabolic activator" caffeine and green tea will deliver. The 10% increase in metabolic rate and the accompanying increase in fat oxidation won't make you lose slabs of body fat, but the effects are pronounced enough to expect a measurable effect on the success of your next diet / cut. A cut, by the way, that will still require a significant reduction in energy intake, even if your energy expenditure and fat oxidation. So, don't be a fool and confuse a 10% increase in fat oxidation w/ a 10% increase in fat loss that occurs in the absence of dieting on an ad-libitum diet | Comment!

References:

• Jo et al. "Dietary Caffeine And Polyphenol Supplementation Enhances Overall Metabolic Rate And Lipid Oxidation At Rest And After A Bout Of Sprint Interval Exercise." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: November 23, 2015. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001277

Sodium Bicarbonate a Performance Booster for Only 66% of the Athletes? Study Shows Individual & Variable Responses from Zero to + 30% Increase in Maximal HIIT Workloads

Sodium Bicarbonate a Performance Booster for Only 66% of the Athletes? Study Shows Individual & Variable Responses from Zero to + 30% Increase in Maximal HIIT Workloads

baking soda bicarbonate high intensity high volume HIIT NAHCO3 performance sodium bicarbonate

Even though, the study at hand confirms that NaHCO3 doesn't work for everyone previous studies show it's worth trying.

You will probably have asked yourselves, whether I had already forgotten about sodium bicarbonate and the performance enhancing effects of pH buffers, right? No, I didn't, but unfortunately, many researchers have... well, many, but not all researchers. Gabriela Froio de Araujo Dias and her colleagues from the University of Sao Paulo, for example, have just released a paper in which they describe the intriguing results of the first bicarbonate study that was specifically designed to (a) determine within- and (b) inter-individual variation that could potentially compromise the magnitude of an effect that's determined based on averages (e.g. if you use bicarb three times and have performance increases of 0.4%, 5% and 0.3% it will look less effective).

You can learn more about bicarbonate and pH-buffers at the SuppVersity

The Hazards of Acidosis

Build Bigger Legs W/ Bicarbonate

HIIT it Hard W/ NaCHO3

Creatine + BA = Perfect Match

Bicarb Buffers Creatine

Beta Alanine Fails to HIIT Back

In the corresponding experiment, the scientists had 15 physically active males (age 25±4 y; body mass 76.0±7.3 kg; height 1.77±0.05 m) complete six cycling capacity tests at 110% of maximum power output (CCT110%) following ingestion of either

• 0.3 g/kg body mass of sodium bicarbonate (SB | 4 trials) or
• alcium carbonate placebo (PL, 2 trials).

Just in case you're wondering: Calcium carbonate has no reasonable buffering effect as it will not, as you can see in Figure 1 affect the pH, bicarbonate levels of base excess of the blood in the way bicarbonate does. It is thus the standard choice in corresponding experiments.

Figure 1: Line graphs for blood measurements (mean ± 1SD) at Baseline, Pre-exercise, Post-exercise and 5-min post-exercise. Panel A displays pH; Panel B displays bicarbonate; Panel C displays base excess; Panel D displays lactate. PL trials are represented by dashed lines and SB trials are represented by solid lines (de Araujo Dias. 2015).

As you may already know from previous SuppVersity articles on bicarbonate, the increases in blood pH, bicarbonate, base excess and lactate you see in Figure 1 are important to tell what exactly triggers the net effect of using baking soda as a pH buffer. What every athletes will yet be more interested in, though is whether the buffer allowed the recreationally active men who participated in the study saw statistically significant increases in the total work done (TWD) during the 110% high-intensity cycling capacity test, or not.

Learn more about Serial Loading!

You have problem "stomaching" NaHCO3? If you feelm, like some of the subjects in the study nauseated or even get diarrhea when you ingest a large bolus of sodium bicarbonate at once, try the Serial Loading Protocol from Dreher's 2012 study I discussed in an older SuppVersity article about sodium bicarbonate. That should work even for the most sensitive tummies. That's still no guarantee that it'll work, though, and would - just as the study at hand shows it for the regular bolus administration require some experimentation.

As you can see in Figure 2, the average subject saw the highest improvement in the last of the four trials (7%); an improvement of which statistics tell us that it says that there's 93% chance of general substantial improvement - with lower values for the other trials.

Figure 2: Rel increase (%) in total work (figures over the bars indicate likelihood of relevant benefits and relative increase, e.g. for bar 4: "It's 93% likely that the 7% increase displays a real-world relevant performance increase) - left; Total work done during SB trial as function of total work done during PLA trial - right (de Araujo Dias. 201).

Apropos "other trials", when the scientists removed the subjects who reported sick during trial 1 and trial 3, the results of trial 1 suggest a "likely" benefit (81%) and those of trial 3 a "possible" (50%) benefit. The notion that whether you benefit or not can / will depend on how well you tolerate the bicarbonate solution would also be confirmed by the data in Figure 2, right. The latter is a plot of the ratio of total work done in the sodium bicarbonate trial #4 vs. the control trial; a plot that easily tells us who saw benefits and who didn't because all "winners" are above, while all "losers" are below the transverse line. And since the distance to said line is a marker of the performance increase, you can also see that even among those who did benefit, the benefits ranged from hardly measurable as in subject #7 to a whopping 30% increase in total work done during the high-intensity cycling capacity test in subjects #12.

25g of Baking Soda Will Up Your Squat (+27%) & Bench Press (+6%) Within 60 Min | more

Bottom line: If you belong to the unlucky 33%, who were represented in the study at hand by the 5 subjects the scientists found who didn't benefit in any of the four sodium bicarbonate trials, you could probably still try the serial loading protocol and if that doesn't work either, simply accept that "SB may not always improve exercise" (de Araujo Dias. 2015).

On the flipside, though, you must not give up on baking soda if you didn't see improvements in your first trial, either. Eventually, the data from the study at hand also shows that even in those who benefit the benefit can sometimes be small or even non-existent.

As a trainer or trainee, you should thus keep in mind that sodium bicarbonate, baking soda or NaHCO3 must be taken on multiple occasions in order to categorize yourself or your clients into non-responders and potential responders and excellent responders | Comment on Facebook!

References: