ean

10 Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining

or balanced diets.
Golay A, et al. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000
Apr;24(4):492-6. [Medline]

12 Milk-bashing: a sport for the ignorant.

By Alan Aragon

Copyright © November 1st, 2008 by Alan Aragon

Home: www.alanaragon.com/researchreview
Correspondence: aarrsupport@gmail.com

2 Culking, part 1: great expectations.

By Alan Aragon

6 Female marine recruit training: mood, body

composition, and biochemical changes.
Lieberman HR, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008
Nov;40(11 Suppl):S671-6. [Medline]

7 Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in

response to resistance exercise with heavy and light
loading intensity.
Holm L, et al. J Appl Physiol. 2008 Nov;105(5):1454-61.
Epub 2008 Sep 11. [Medline]

8 The effect of beta-alanine supplementation on

neuromuscular fatigue in elderly (55-92 Years): a
double-blind randomized study.
Stout JR, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Nov 7;5(1):21.
[Medline]

9 Effect of tesofensine on bodyweight loss, body

composition, and quality of life in obese patients: a
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Astrup A, et al. The Lancet. 2008 Oct 22 [Epub ahead of
print] [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008 [Back to Contents] Page 1


Culking, part 1: great expectations.
By Alan Aragon
INTRODUCTION
This article will be a major diversion from my typical reference-
heavy style because I will be drawing heavily from field
experience. Although we’ll see occasional aspects of my
observations validated behind the gates of Medline, many of the
answers to questions pertaining to body composition
improvement do not, and may never, have a research basis.
Ultimately, my hope is that this article will hit home for many of
you, and provide concrete guidelines for both practitioners and
enthusiasts in the area of altering body composition.
Cut, bulk, or both?
I had no idea what sort of buzz I’d create by coining the term
“culking”, which is the simultaneous achievement of fat loss and
muscle gain. The traditional approach to physique development
is an alternation of bulking and cutting phases. Without a doubt,
this is how it’s done in competitive bodybuilding. This approach
is also mirrored to a certain degree in competitive sports, since
they typically involve an off-season and on-season where
distinct weight changes can occur due to an increase of training
variables. However, in competitive bodybuilding, the two phases
have distinctly different purposes, and this sharp delineation is
necessary. Furthermore, a loss of lean mass is unavoidable in
contest prep. Novice trainees will often mistakenly model their
programs after competitive bodybuilders. As such, bulking and
cutting cycles are immediately employed regardless of whether
or not they are involved in contest prep. This is done in the
hopes of achieving the holy grail of more muscle and less fat. In
this first article of the series, I’ll take a look at perhaps the most
important aspect of physique development – setting goals and
having realistic expectations of progress. .
THE GOAL SETS THE FOCUS
The importance of goal specificity
The goal is the critical starting point from which any protocol
can be created. This sounds a bit elementary, but You’d be
surprised (or maybe you wouldn’t) at the number of trainees
who wallow around without a goal. This can be a continual
source of frustration on a winding road to nowhere. Keep in
mind that choosing a goal isn’t easy for everyone. A crucial
consideration is that not all goals have to be black or white in
one direction or the other. Given this, not all goals are simple –
and that’s fine. As long as the goal is defined, steps towards it
can be taken. As I see it, physique-related goals can be
classified as follows:
Continuum of goals  FAT LOSS: STANDARDS & EXPECTATIONS
A. Rapid weight gain (with the acceptance of substantial fat gain). 
B. Muscle gain with a minor emphasis on fat retention or loss. 
C. Maintenance. 
D. Fat loss with a minor emphasis on muscle retention or gain. 
E. Rapid  weight  loss  (with  the  acceptance  of  substantial  muscle  you dig through the scientific literature, you won’t get a
loss).   definitive breakdown of what can be expected in terms of these
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
GOAL SELECTION: THE IMPACT OF TRAINING STATUS
Novice & intermediate mistakes
In my observations, the most common mistake among novices is
the alternation of goals A and E. In online communities, one of
the most common queries is the question of whether one should
cut or bulk. Often these individuals are in their late teens or early
20’s at the oldest. Most have the appearance – or at least the
perception – of being “skinny-fat”. In most cases, the person
making the public query (and bravely posting a shirtless pic) is a
novice with less than a year of consistent training experience.
My recommendation for skinny-fat novices is to quit obsessing
over their absence of a visible six-pack and get started on goal B.
It makes no sense to kick off your efforts with a fat loss-focused
program when you have little to no training experience to begin
with. If someone is a rank beginner (or has been sedentary for
several years), the mere introduction of a strength training
program in and of itself will force the initial adaptations that will
improve body composition. The latter scenario applies to the
majority of the novice training population spanning from the
moderately underweight to moderately overweight.
Most intermediate-level trainees with roughly 2-3 years of
consistent training have figured out that crash dieting is more
sacrifice than it’s worth. They diet carefully enough, but the
bulking phase is typically an opus in blubber-stacking. For
intermediates, bulking remains an opportunity to revolt against
the dieting phase. What separates advanced trainees from the
novices and intermediates is the ability to vacillate between
goals B and D with periodic stints of maintenance. It’s very rare
for pure maintenance to be the goal, regardless of training status.
Not that there’s anything wrong with maintenance of any given
goal – it’s just not as motivating as the pursuit of improvement.
Hats off to anyone reading this humming along and happily
maintaining.
Severely overweight or underweight: more goal flexibility
A case can be built for the severely obese to just do something.
Traditional recommendations would be to head straight for goal
E, but I’d prefer to see the combination of a caloric deficit with
strength training (including bodyweight work), which would put
them on the path to Goal D. In my experience, this lays the
foundation for more lasting results; it builds an infrastructure
that’s more resistant to weight/fat regain. Arguably, it’s also
safer than the typical initiation with an endurance-based program
that involves excessive repetitive force on joints that are already
vulnerable to overuse. The same holds true with the converse. If
someone is severely underweight, a case can be built for gunning
towards goal A. But once again, I prefer a more metered,
methodical approach to gaining weight (goal B), regardless of
how skinny someone is.
I’m often asked what’s the biggest mistake people make trying
to lose fat or gain muscle. The answer is that people tend to have
an unrealistic expectations of either goal’s rate of progress. If
[Back to Contents] Page 2
goals. Fortunately, I can draw reasonable conclusions from over
a decade of client case studies.
Fat & weight loss: my observations
We’ll begin with rates of fat loss, and then move on to lean mass
gain. As a point of clarification, fat loss and weight loss will be
interchangeable, assuming – for simplicity’s sake – that lean
mass will remain static. Keep in mind that in many cases of
obesity, LBM loss is not a major concern as long as fat and
weight loss is occurring. Furthermore, in some cases, extra lean
mass was actually necessary to support the extra fat weight. The
following chart outlines realistic monthly rates of fat loss that
correspond to the current status:
Table 1: Status & corresponding monthly rate of weight/fat loss
                
                                     Status        Monthly Decrease (% of Total BW)
                                    Obese         4-6%  
 
 Moderately overweight         3-4%    quantitative bodyfat percent thresholds are inherently imprecise.
                  Average         2-3%
Lean      1-2%           magazines, or close to that. Picture a sharply visible set of
                               Very lean         0.5‐1%   abs from top to bottom, even without optimal lighting or
Crunching the numbers
I’ve learned to assume that the figures on the above chart don’t
mean jack without some specific examples. Take note that
higher rates of weight loss are possible, but these are the rates
that tend to keep muscle loss to a minimum. In the following
examples, I’ll base the calculations on the mean (average) of the
ranges. Keep in mind that the following bodyweights are chosen
at random. Given a high level of compliance to the diet and
training program, an obese individual weighing 250 lbs can
expect to lose roughly 5% (12.5 lb; 5.7 kg) of total body-
weight in their first month. A moderately overweight person
weighing 200 lb can lose appx 4% (8 lb; 3.6 kg) of total
bodyweight in the first month. An average (normal-weight)
individual weighing 180 can lose roughly 3% (5 lb; 2.2 kg) in
the first month. A 170 lb lean person can expect to keep most of
his muscle mass if monthly weight loss is limited to 1% (1.7
lb; 0.8 kg) per month. A very lean 160 lb person who wants to
retain muscle under hypocaloric conditions is really shooting for
a pie in the sky unless weight loss is kept at a barely perceptible
0.5% (0.8 lbs; 0.36 kg) per month. The leaner you are, the
greater your chance of losing lean mass with rapid weight loss.
Since weekly progress assessments are common in fitness
settings and clinical practice, it can help to have a realistic
weekly outlook. Here’s a simpler look at realistic rates minus
the need to do any percentage calculations:
Table 2: Status & corresponding weekly rate of weight/fat loss
                                     Status         Weekly Decrease (lb; kg)
                                     Obese         2-3 lb; 0.9‐1.4 kg  
 Moderately overweight         1.5-2 lb; 0.7‐0.9 kg  
                  Average         1‐1.5 lb; 0.5‐0.7 kg  up on the numerical ranges which are highly subject to variation
     Lean          0.5‐1.0 lb; 0.2‐0.5 kg            across different methods. Furthermore, the numbers are also
                               Very lean      0.2‐0.5 lb; 0.1-0.2 kg  
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
Definition dilemmas
Tables 1 and 2 warrant a few points of clarification. First of all, I
allowed some overlap in each range (as opposed to listing the
ranges as 1-1.9%, 2-3.9%, etc). This denotes that there is not,
nor can there be, an absolute delineation between categories.
Secondly, the definitions of each status (from morbidly obese to
very lean) are unavoidably subjective. So, I’d like to establish a
clear distinction between my definitions versus how the
“official” literature does it. I’ll describe the different bodyfat
qualitatively as well as quantitatively. I’ll speak from personal
experience with the digital calipers, for which I opted to have the
3-site Jackson-Pollock equation built in. The following are my
own definitions of the strata, which are probably as valid as any,
since the thresholds are subjective any way you slice it. I was
hesitant to include the numerical ranges because they are by no
means standard codes to live by, and people have a tendency to
obsess over numerical goals. I can’t stress enough the
importance of focusing on the qualitative descriptions since the
ƒ Very lean is what you would see on the cover of fitness
photo treatments. My calipers typically get these physiques at
5-8% (men) and 12-16% (women). At this point it’s worth
mentioning that there is a stupid lean category; the extreme
of precontest bodybuilders, whose caliper readings can dip
into lower numbers than the aforementioned.
ƒ Lean is somewhat of a limbo range between very lean and
average; picture visible abs for the most part, with noticeably
more subcutaneous fat over the bottom row near the navel.
Caliper readings are roughly 9-12% (men) and 17-22%
(women).
ƒ Average describes a physique that would simply be classified
as “normal”. It doesn’t necessarily look athletic, but doesn’t
look unhealthy or excessively couch-bound either. There can
be a semblance of abs in men, but this area is more prone to
being described as having the absence of a gut rather than the
presence of abdominal definition. Calipers see about 13-17%
(men) and 23-27% (women).
ƒ Moderately overweight is any bodyfat level indicative of an
absence of exercise, but not necessarily in combination with
massive overeating. Picture someone who’s in the moderate
stages of being just plain out of shape, but nothing to panic
over – like most “before” pictures you see in transformation
contests. Calipers will show roughly 19-24% (men) and 28-
34% in women.
ƒ Obese describes a population with marked physical
manifestations of inactivity combined with truly excessive
overeating. Calipers see 25% or more (men) and 35% or
more (women).
Regarding the above, let me reiterate that it’s actually the
qualitative description that’s more important than getting hung
variation within those methods. As we segue into the standards
espoused by the larger organizations, it’s important to maintain
[Back to Contents] Page 3
the perspective that these figures are merely guidelines that must
allow individual goals and circumstances to take precedent.
“OFFICIAL” BODYFAT & BODYWEIGHT STANDARDS
Bodyfat percent standards are rarely discussed in the scientific
literature. In one example, Abernathy and Black suggested that
healthy bodyfat percentages are 12-20% for men and 20-30%
for women.1 Recognizing the pitfalls inherent with quantitative
standards, the authors emphasize the following sentiment, which
I wholeheartedly agree with (bear in mind that I consider this
one of the most noteworthy quotes I’ve seen):
“Although persons with BMIs and percentages of bodyfat above       18.5      16.7                    1.8                10.8
these  values  have  an  increased  likelihood  of  being  functionally 
obese,  not  everyone  will  be.  Equally  important,  many  within  Women
these ranges will be functionally obese”       30.0      18.2                  11.8                40.0
Perhaps the most “official” set of standards of weight status is
published by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI), a subsidiary of the National Institutes of Health. These
guidelines are based on body mass index (BMI), which is
calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in meters
squared. Since it’s based on weight-height ratio, I consider the
NHLBI’s classification thresholds invalid for a large segment of
the athletic population. Before getting into that, here’s the
NHLBI’s guidelines:2
▪ Underweight = <18.5
▪ Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
▪ Overweight = 25-29.9
▪ Obesity, Class 1 = 30-34.9; Class 2 = 35-39.9; Class 3 = ≥ 40
To illustrate my annoyance with BMI-based standards, most of
my male clients would love to attain the physique of a top
professional MMA athlete. I examined the list of the top guys
starting from the welterweight division (170 lb; 77 kg) all the
way through the light-heavies (205 lb; 93 kg). Most of the
athletes have physiques that I would classify as very lean. Ny
NHLBI standards, the vast majority of them fall squarely in the
“overweight” category. For example, the “normal” weight range
for someone 6 ft (184 cm) tall is 137-183 lbs (62-83 kg).
Anything more is overweight, anything less is underweight. For
the fun of seeing just how inapplicable BMI is to athletic
populations, go ahead and plug your favorite welterweight (or
heavier) fighter (or similar athlete) into this BMI calculator, and
note that there are tabs to select either standard or metric units.
A recent scientific attempt to rectify BMI limitations
The limitations of BMI are significant enough to have prompted
researchers to determine appropriate fat-free mass and body fat
mass indexes (FFMI and BFMI, respectively) that were
independent of height.3 Kyle and colleagues recognized that
BMI alone is insufficient to provide data regarding the relative
contribution of fat mass or lean mass to total bodyweight. So,
using a sample consisting of 2986 healthy white men and 2649
white women, age 15-98, they were able to generate FFMI and
BFMI for each BMI bracket based on a DEXA-validated
bioelectrical impedance equation. They were also able to
generate corresponding bodyfat percentages. Normal/acceptable
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
ranges for bodyfat percent were 10.8-21.7 for men and 21.7-
33.2 for women. These ranges are strikingly close to those
suggested by Abernathy and Black.1 Table 3 lists the full
stratification of parameters by Kyle et al: 3
Table 3: BMI, FFMI, BFMI, and %BF in healthy white Caucasian adults*
                
BMI (kg/m2) FFMI (kg/m2) BFMI (kg/m2) % BF           
  Men 
     30.0      21.7      8.3                28.8 
     27.8      20.9      6.9                25.8 
     25.0      19.8      5.2                21.7 
     20.0      17.5       2.5                13.4 
 
 
 
 
     27.3      17.5      9.8                36.5  
     25.0      16.8      8.2                33.2 
     20.0      15.1      4.9                24.6 
      18.5 
    14.6      3.9                21.7    
*Bold = within normal/acceptable limits     
LEAN MASS GAIN: REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Once again, the biggest mistake people make trying to gain lean
body mass (LBM) is an unrealistic expectation of rate of
progress. In the scientific literature, the tracking of LBM gain is
rare in the healthy population. This is perhaps because there’s no
concrete clinical benefit to gaining more lean mass than what’s
required to function normally. In fact, the pursuit of supernormal
levels of LBM is almost exclusively beneficial to a narrow range
of sports and vanity-based objectives. The acquisition of massive
levels of LBM can often be more risky than it’s worth for the
majority of healthy populations. But alas, individual goals are
what they are, and I’ll leave the judgmental burden to the
ethicists. Once again, in the scientific literature, you won’t get a
definitive breakdown of what can be expected in terms of LBM
gain across the strata of training status. Here’s what I’ve
observed in private practice with a wide range of athletes
(overlap of the ranges is intentional):
Table 4: Realistic rates of LBM ga                
in based on training status*
Monthly gain
_  Training Status Definition (% of total BW) 
___________________________________________________        
 Novice   Less than 2 years of        1.0‐1.5% (1.5-2.0 lb)  
 consistent training 
   Intermediate   2‐4 years of            0.5‐1.0% (0.8‐1.5 lb) 
     consistent training 
 
   Advanced   More than 4 years of      0.25‐0.5% (0.4-0.8 lb)  
      consistent training 
  *Women can expect to achieve the lower end of these ranges 
TRACKING PROGRESS
Tracking progress serves a dual purpose. It maintains the
awareness of what adjustments need to be made if progress
stalls, and it’s also a means to stay motivated. One of the big
killers of motivation is seeing a lack of progress. This is why the
[Back to Contents] Page 4
tracking method must at least be consistent, since it’s given that
all methods are inherently inaccurate. A full-length paper can be
written on different body composition measuring instruments,
but for now I’ll give you the fat-free rundown, along with some
practical suggestions that tend to trump the formal devices.
A case for calipers
Digital skinfold calipers (Skyndex System 1 with the
Jackson/Pollock formula) are what I currently use in private
practice (here is where I get my stuff). An overlooked benefit of
caliper is that you can choose your own pinch sites, going
strictly by the specific areas you care about seeing change. In the
end, it’s the change or the trend direction that counts. I used to
use a Lange manual caliper, but I prefer the speed of the digital
device. I’ve also used bioelectrical impedance (BIA) devices,
but have come to dislike their inconsistency. While it’s true that
the skinfold measurements are subject to my own manual
imprecision, as least I’m in control of that imprecision. BIA, on
the other hand, is subject to hydration flux, which for the most
part is out of my hands. I can still recall the day I decided to
ditch my BIA device. A client showed up with significant weight
loss, and BIA showed that she gained bodyfat. No matter how
much I tried to explain to her that hydration and other factors
can affect BIA readings, her motivation was jeopardized for the
time being – and that’s a bad thing.
Weighty issues
Perhaps the biggest thing that bugs me about BIA and other
methods (including DEXA) is the fact that total bodyweight is
factored into the equation. I recently had an online client do an
experiment for me. She had a high-end scale-combo BIA device
that she had a lot of faith in. I asked her to measure her as she
usually does, and then measure it with a backpack on. Seeing
that the device automatically spit out a higher bodyfat reading
with the (decidedly lean) backpack on illustrated my point that
weight-factored devices have an insidiously unavoidable bias.
Low-tech, highly effective
It bears repeating that there's really no truly accurate way of
measuring body fat. Well, actually, dissection and chemical
analysis are in fact accurate, but death tends to be a prohibitive
prerequisite. Regardless of how sophisticated the method is, they
all are fraught with confounders that make home-based methods
just as effective, and sometimes even more so. The first thing to
keep in mind is that unless you’re going to go around with a
badge on your chest stating your body fat percent, no one’s
going to know nor give a damn about the actual number -- and
frankly, neither should you. It’s a pretty meaningless number to
begin with; you either look good or you don’t. You’re either at
your goal, or you’re not. Tracking progress is an important part
of reaching the goal, but complex means are not necessary.
The most powerful indicators of progress are the mirror and
clothes. A “target” pair of jeans is a brutally frank measure of
progress. Another low-tech, super-effective tool already in most
homes is a tape measure. Strap it around your waist over the
navel and love handles, or at what I call the “equator of love”.
Don’t measure the girth below that at the hips, it’s too low and
you won’t be accurately tracking abdominal fat. Women can
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
track bodyfat with tape around the equator point of the hips
(over the glutes), as well as the waist, since fat deposits there to
a substantially higher degree than in men. A great thing about
tracking waist girth is that if you can maintain an upward trend
in lifting strength while maintaining (or decreasing) your waist
size, it’s a fair indicator that you’re achieving lean gains.
One major caution about tracking limb girth (as opposed to waist
girth) is that unless you’re overweight, a lack of movement in
the tape can be misconstrued as a lack of progress when the rate
of muscle gain and fat loss can be occurring at an equal rate.
This is where the value of pictures comes in. Even the mirror can
be deceiving due to the sheer frequency daily viewing, so take a
picture (front & back) once a month in the same location and
same time of day. These methods (especially pictures) are more
honest than any clinical or lab-based instrument. If you can
handle the truth, high-tech isn’t necessary.
Target bodyweight
In the next part of this series, I will discuss the mechanics of
setting up plans for fat loss and/or muscle gain. But one aspect
of the next series that still fits in well with the current article is
how to calculate your target bodyweight (TBW). Setting a
TBW (by looking roughly 6 months ahead) involves first gaining
a firm grasp of realistic rates of progress, which was the primary
aim of this article. The following calculation has a definite
degree of subjectivity because it assumes that you can get an
accurate body composition measurement in the first place. With
that lofty assumption in mind, here are the steps (note to Euro-
folks, you’ll have to use lbs and convert to kg at the end):
Table 5: Calculating target bodyweight
                
Step 1: Find out your bodyfat percent in order to calculate your 
fat  mass,  subtract  this  number  from  your  total  bodyweight  in 
o
  rder to arrive at your LBM: 
For  example,  let’s  say  you  weigh  200  lbs,  and  your  bodyfat 
was measured at 30%. 200 x .30 = 60 lb fat. 200 ‐ 60 = 140 lb. 
Step  2:  Multiply  your  target  LBM  (in  pounds)  by  100.  I  call  it 
target  LBM,  because  some  folks  want  to  gain  muscle.  In  the 
f  ollowing example, we’re targeting a 10 lb muscle gain: 
140 + 10 lbs muscle  = 150 lb LBM. 150 x 100 = 15000 
 
Step  3:  Choose  a  goal  bodyfat  percent  (expressed  as  a  whole 
number). Subtract this number from 100: 
100 – 15 = 85 
S  tep 4: Divide the answer of Step 2 by the answer of Step 3.  
15000 ÷ 85 = 176.5 lbs (this is your target bodyweight) 
REFERENCES
1. Abernathy RP, Black DR. Healthy body weights: an alternative
perspective. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Mar;63(3 Suppl):448S-
451S. [Medline]
2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Clinical Guidelines
on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight
and obesity in adults: the evidence report. September, 1998.
[NHLBI]
3. Kyle UG, et al. Body composition interpretation. Contributions
of the fat-free mass index and the body fat mass index.
Nutrition. 2003 Jul-Aug;19(7-8):597-604. [Medline]
[Back to Contents] Page 5

Female marine recruit training: mood, body
composition, and biochemical changes.
Lieberman HR, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Nov;40(11
Suppl):S671-6. [Medline]
PURPOSE: The US Marine Corps (USMC) is an elite military
organization. Marine recruit training (RT) is a physically and
psychologically intense 13-wk-long course designed to
transform civilians into Marines through shared hardship and
arduous training. Our laboratory conducted a study of female
recruits in USMC RT that assessed the nature and the extent of
cognitive, nutritional, and physical changes that occur during
this unique period of structured mental and physical training.
METHODS: During RT, mood state was assessed every 4 wk
with a standardized questionnaire, the POMS. Body composition
was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry every 4 wk,
and blood samples were collected for assessing metabolic status
at the start and at the completion of training. RESULTS: At the
beginning of RT, approximately 1 wk after arrival at the training
facility, levels of several negative mood states assessed by the
POMS, depression, anxiety, fatigue, anger, and confusion, were
considerably higher than POMS norms for age-matched, female
college students. However, over the course of RT, these mood
states gradually declined until, by the completion of training,
they were substantially lower than college norms. Body
composition changed dramatically, with muscle mass increasing
by 2.5 +/- 0.2 kg on average and fat declining by 4.7 +/- 0.4 kg.
There were also significant changes in several biochemical
parameters associated with nutritional and physical status,
particularly LDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and cortisol. Other
factors, such as total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and glucose,
were more stable. CONCLUSION: Over the course of USMC
RT, mood and body composition improved substantially and
dramatically, an indication of the effectiveness of USMC RT for
altering the physical and the cognitive status of trainees.
SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study strengths
One of the main strengths here is the trial’s “real life” nature.
This wasn’t a dress rehearsal or a lab experiment; it was actual
military combat training designed to produce recruits fit for the
US Marine Corps, an elite fighting force. As such, trainees
undergo an immediate, drastic change in both environment and
lifestyle. The rigorous regimen included mandatory physical
training, institutional feeding, intense and continuous
supervision, and strict discipline. The goal is the development of
a wide variety of new physical and mental skills within the 13-
week span. The demands are intense, highly standardized, and
tightly structured, providing a unique opportunity to study the
physiological effects of the program. Dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DEXA) was used to assess body composition.
Study limitations
The authors weren’t concerned with reporting and dietary details
beyond the fact that the subjects had three 20-minute meal times
per day. Food consumption was assessed from weeks 1-12, but
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
no specifics were given, other than a modest protein decrease
and correspondent carbohydrate increase throughout the duration
of the 12 weeks. The authors mentioned that these small dietary
changes were not likely to be responsible for the changes in
body composition and biochemical parameters. Ultimately, a
detailed macro-nutritional report would have given us valuable
information. This brings me to my next gripe – the vague
reporting of physical activity. Although the subjects went
through a graduated program that culminated in “the crucible” (a
rigorous 54-hr field exercise), no mode, duration, or intensity
specifics were discussed.
Comment/application
The progressive activity output was evident in that the subjects
substantially increased their total calorie consumption
throughout the 12 week tracking period, yet lost 2.2 kg (5 lb)
total bodyweight by the end of the program. Ideal changes in
body composition occurred, since there was an increase in
muscle mass along with a decrease in bodyfat. Below is the
DEXA body composition report:
  Changes in body composition as assessed by DEXA                              
_                                                   Week 1        Week 12          Change        
 
___________________________________________________
   Weight (kg)                     63.9           61.7                ‐2.2   
    Fat mass (kg)                     19.5           14.7                ‐4.8 
   Fat‐free mass (kg)                41.7           44.1                 2.4 
   % Bodyfat                     30.2           23.7                ‐6.5 
   Bone mineral mass (kg)         2.8             2.9                 0.1 
It’s safe to assume that the subjects weren’t trained or highly
conditioned at the start of the program. On the other hand, they
weren’t markedly out of shape either, as indicated by their
average bodyfat percent falling within normal range (albeit on
the high end). Once again, it’s common to assume that muscle
gain and fat loss are mutually exclusive phenomena, but this is
yet another study showing that it indeed is possible – particularly
in previously untrained subjects. In addition to the favorable
changes in body composition were physiological improvements,
with the exception of glucose which increased insignificantly:
  Changes in selected biochemical parameters                                         
  
                                                   Week 1        Week 12          Change 
____________________________________________________       
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)  143.2               139.1               ‐4.1              
  LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)    83.6                 64.9               ‐18.7             
  HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)        51.5           53.4                  1.9 
FFA (mmol/L)                         0.7           0.08               ‐0.62      
Cortisol (μg/dL)                    13.2           10.4                 ‐2.8 
Glucose      93.4           97.5                  4.1
The investigators seemed particularly impressed with the
cognitive/mood improvements. The mood of recruits as
indicated by POMS (‘profile of mood states’ assessment) upon
completion was substantially better than the norms for females
of their age would have predicted. All in all, this study serves to
underscore the effectiveness of intensive regimentation
combined with close supervision. It looks like the casual dieting
public can learn a thing or two from real boot camp.
[Back to Contents] Page 6
Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in
response to resistance exercise with heavy and light
loading intensity.
Holm L, et al. J Appl Physiol. 2008 Nov;105(5):1454-61. Epub
2008 Sep 11. [Medline]
PURPOSE: Muscle mass accretion is accomplished by heavy-
load resistance training. The effect of light-load resistance
exercise has been far more sparsely investigated with regard to
potential effect on muscle size and contractile strength. We
applied a resistance exercise protocol in which the same
individual trained one leg at 70% of one-repetition maximum
(1RM) (heavy load, HL) while training the other leg at 15.5%
1RM (light load, LL). METHODS: Eleven sedentary men (age
25 +/- 1 yr) trained for 12 wk at three times/week. Before and
after the intervention muscle hypertrophy was determined by
magnetic resonance imaging, muscle biopsies were obtained
bilaterally from vastus lateralis for determination of myosin
heavy chain (MHC) composition, and maximal muscle strength
was assessed by 1RM testing and in an isokinetic dynamometer
at 60 degrees /s. RESULTS: Quadriceps muscle cross-sectional
area increased (P < 0.05) 8 +/- 1% and 3 +/- 1% in HL and LL
legs, respectively, with a greater gain in HL than LL (P < 0.05).
Likewise, 1RM strength increased (P < 0.001) in both legs (HL:
36 +/- 5%, LL: 19 +/- 2%), albeit more so with HL (P < 0.01).
Isokinetic 60 degrees /s muscle strength improved by 13 +/- 5%
(P < 0.05) in HL but remained unchanged in LL (4 +/- 5%, not
significant). Finally, MHC IIX protein expression was decreased
with HL but not LL, despite identical total workload in HL and
LL. CONCLUSION: Our main finding was that LL resistance
training was sufficient to induce a small but significant muscle
hypertrophy in healthy young men. However, LL resistance
training was inferior to HL training in evoking adaptive changes
in muscle size and contractile strength and was insufficient to
induce changes in MHC composition. SPONSORSHIP: None
listed.
Study strengths
Subjects were used as their own controls, which is also referred
to as a “within-subject” design. This type of design can
potentially tighten up the matching of variables. Subjects
compared loading protocols on their alternate legs. Half were
randomly assigned to complete the heavy protocol on the
dominant leg, with the other half randomized to the light
protocol on the dominant leg. Both treatments were matched for
total loading volume. Unlike the majority of previous similar
trials, this one was carefully controlled for training volume.
Unlike the complete neglect typical of the majority of trials in
the exercise realm, this one attempted to control certain dietary
variables. Subjects were coached on taking weighed dietary
records which were analyzed with software. After each exercise
treatment, subjects drank a standardized carbohydrate (&
micronutrient) replacement drink.
Study limitations
Subjects were sedentary, as defined by having no organized
participation in any sports activity more than once a week. This
potentially limits the results to those who only break a sweat en
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
route to the fridge. As I’ve reiterated ad nauseam, almost
anything works for novices. So, questions remain about just how
impervious advanced trainees (especially experienced strength-
trained subjects) might be to training with light loads.
Comment/application
Starkly disparate protocols were compared in this trial, 15.5% of
one repetition max (1RM) versus 70% 1RM. The heavy loading
treatment (HL) and light loading treatment (LL) called for 36
and 8 repetitions per set, respectively. Ideally, a treatment that
fell somewhere between those two intensities would have
provided useful data, since the lightweight protocol would be too
time-consuming for some. We’re talking 3 minutes per light set
versus 25 seconds for the heavy sets (imagine spending 6 times
longer to get the same volume of work done). It’s true that
populations for whom muscle mass maintenance is crucial (i.e.,
the frail elderly) often cannot tolerate optimal heavy loading.
However, I think a better compromise can be found without
needing to dedicate half of your day to achieving a fraction of
the effect. In HL, quadriceps cross sectional area was about
double the increase seen in LL. Strength increase in HL was also
about double that seen in LL.
An interesting but inconclusive parameter examined was myosin
heavy chain (MHC) composition. MHC can serve as molecular
markers of fiber types, and their corresponding isoforms are
denoted as I, IIA, and IIX. Some lackluster results were seen in
this department; statistically significant increases were seen in
MHC I and IIA. Consistent with some previous research,1 MHC
IIX decreased. The authors of the present study noted that the
degree of hypertrophy in the HL treatment was somewhat lower
than what’s been seen in previous research with heavy loading.2
Their speculations for the lesser effects in the present trial were
twofold. Firstly, they felt that to small a volume of muscle mass
was worked to elicit an anabolic hormonal response. Secondly,
they surmised that the high volume of “unvaried, monotonous”
training could also have lowered the hypertrophic response. The
latter speculation may be more on the mark, since the protocol
indeed as not progressive nor varied over the 12-week trial
duration. This point is in agreement with research showing the
superiority of periodized training over non-periodized training.3
An interesting point made by the authors is that the outcome of
this trial challenges the common assumption that training with
light loads only causes adaptive responses in muscles that are
not frequently used for load-bearing demands. Indeed, although
the subjects were classified as sedentary, they responded with
modest increases in cross-sectional area and strength to a very
low contraction intensity (15.5%).
This brings to mind the absurdity of people questioning whether
high-repetition resistance training is an effective means of
gaining strength and/or hypertrophy. While it’s true that
muscular size and strength occurs fastest within higher
intensities,4 ANY intensity range can elicit strength and/or size
gains as long as the demand is greater than previously imposed
upon the muscle. Thus, those that cannot tolerate heavy loads
can feel more at ease knowing that their “light” training can still
be productive if it’s progressive.
[Back to Contents] Page 7

The effect of beta-alanine supplementation on
neuromuscular fatigue in elderly (55-92 Years): a
double-blind randomized study.
Stout JR, et al. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2008 Nov 7;5(1):21.
[Medline]
PURPOSE: Ageing is associated with a significant reduction in
skeletal muscle carnosine which has been linked with a
reduction in the buffering capacity of muscle and in theory, may
increase the rate of fatigue during exercise. Supplementing beta-
alanine has been shown to significantly increase skeletal muscle
carnosine. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine
the effects of ninety days of beta-alanine supplementation on the
physical working capacity at the fatigue threshold (PWCFT) in
elderly men and women. METHODS: Using a double-blind
placebo controlled design, twenty-six men (n = 9) and women (n
= 17) (age +/- SD = 72.8 +/- 11.1 yrs) were randomly assigned
to either beta-alanine (BA: 800 mg x 3 per day; n = 12;
CarnoSyntrade mark) or Placebo (PL; n = 14) group. Before
(pre) and after (post) the supplementation period, participants
performed a discontinuous cycle ergometry test to determine the
PWCFT. RESULTS: Significant increases in PWCFT (28.6%)
from pre- to post-supplementation were found for the BA
treatment group (p < 0.05), but no change was observed with PL
treatment. These findings suggest that ninety days of BA
supplementation may increase physical working capacity by
delaying the onset of neuromuscular fatigue in elderly men and
women. CONCLUSION: We suggest that BA supplementation,
by improving intracellular pH control, improves muscle
endurance in the elderly. This, we believe, could have
importance in the prevention of falls, and the maintenance of
health and independent living in elderly men and women.
SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study strengths
Beta-alanine (BA) trials to date have been a maximum of 10
weeks long, so this is the first published BA trial (to my
knowledge) to hit the 12 week mark. This trial was double-
blinded; I mention this because despite their inherently higher
degree of bias, single-blind designs in supplement research
indeed make it to publication.5-7
Study limitations
This trial was relatively straightforward, so not many
weaknesses are detectable. As is common with supplementation
research, the authors’ reporting on dietary variables is poor. No
details were given about the subjects’ intakes (habitual or
during-trial). This is baffling to me, since the parameters
assessed can be heavily influenced by nutrition. The subjects
were asked to maintain their regular dietary and physical activity
patterns, but were not formally held accountable for compliance
in these departments (via records or investigator check-ins).
Participants were asked to refrain from any exhaustive physical
exercise, so this limits the applicability of the results to the
(relatively) sedentary elderly. Had a formal exercise program
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
been in place, it’s possible that the BA supplementation’s effect
beyond placebo would be significantly less.
Comment/application
BA is still a relatively new supplement to hit the market. To its
credit, BA has a growing body of research that shows promise
for a number of sports and fitness-related parameters. Positive
effects seen thus far include a reduction of isokinetic fatigue,
increased cycling work output, maximal strength, aerobic power,
repetition volume, improved body composition, and decreased
neuromuscular fatigue.8-14 The present study adds yet another
feather in the cap of BA research.
Although the majority of BA’s results have been positive, they
haven’t been infallible. For example, Derave et al found that
although BA improved isokinetic torque in the lab, it did not
improve isometric endurance or 400 meter race time.11 In
another example, Hoffman et al saw 4.8g BA per day increase
the total number of repetitions throughout trial by 22% over
placebo in resistance-trained men.12 However, the greater
volume of work in the BA group did not result in greater total
body mass, maximal strength, or peak power by the end of the
30-day trial. In a longer-term example, Kendrick et al found no
effect of 6.4 g BA (800mg taken 8 times per day) compared to
placebo on any of the parameters tested (whole body strength,
isokinetic force, high-rep upper-arm curl, body composition).15
An bone of contention I’ve brought up in the past regarding BA
research is its high potential for commercial bias. Natural
Alternatives, Inc. (NAI), is the manufacturer who holds the
patent on CarnoSyn™, their patented beta-alanine product which
it supplies to companies such as Experimental and Applied
Sciences (EAS). Jeffrey Stout, the principal investigator of the
present trial, has a history of leading trials that are funded by
either NAI or EAS. It seems a bit too convenient that the present
trial did not mention funding source. However, NAI was
specified as the donor of the BA used. For the time being, BA
research lacks the demonstration of efficacy by a large number
of independent laboratories. While research on any given
compound has to begin somewhere, BA’s research track record
is currently clustered within a small, interconnected ring of
commercial and academic entities.
Regarding the effects in the present trial, the subjects on BA
experienced a 28.6% increase in physical working capacity at
the fatigue threshold (PWCFT), a figure that certainly sounds
impressive on paper. The rational for using PWCFT instead of
other tests such as time to exhaustion or total work performance
within a given period of time is that maximal efforts may be
hazardous to this population. But for this reason, PWCFT testing
is somewhat assumptive, and not necessarily definitive. To quote
research methodologist Bryan Chung,
“It seems that PWCFT is basically a probabalistic test, and
operates under a fundamental fallacy that a p-value that is
greater than 0.05 is equivocal to implying that "no difference"
exists in muscle activation after a certain power output has been
achieved, and thus, assigns that power output to mean that the
neural component to force generation has tapered off, and calls
that "neuromuscular fatigue.”
[Back to Contents] Page 8

Effect of tesofensine on bodyweight loss, body
composition, and quality of life in obese patients: a
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Astrup A, et al. The Lancet. 2008 Oct 22 [Epub ahead of print]
[Medline]
PURPOSE: Weight-loss drugs produce an additional mean
weight loss of only 3-5 kg above that of diet and placebo over 6
months, and more effective pharmacotherapy of obesity is
needed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tesofensine-an
inhibitor of the presynaptic uptake of noradrenaline, dopamine,
and serotonin-in patients with obesity. METHODS: We
undertook a phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-
controlled trial in five Danish obesity management centres. After
a 2 week run-in phase, 203 obese patients (body-mass index 30-
</=40 kg/m(2)) were prescribed an energy restricted diet and
randomly assigned with a list of randomisation numbers to
treatment with tesofensine 0.25 mg (n=52), 0.5 mg (n=50), or
1.0 mg (n=49), or placebo (n=52) once daily for 24 weeks. The
primary outcome was percentage change in bodyweight.
Analysis was by modified intention to treat (all randomised
patients with measurement after at least one dose of study drug
or placebo). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov,
number NCT00394667. RESULTS: 161 (79%) participants
completed the study. After 24 weeks, the mean weight loss
produced by diet and placebo was 2.0% (SE 0.60). Tesofensine
0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, and 1.0 mg and diet induced a mean weight
loss of 4.5% (0.87), 9.2% (0.91), and 10.6% (0.84), respectively,
greater than diet and placebo (p<0.0001). The most common
adverse events caused by tesofensine were dry mouth, nausea,
constipation, hard stools, diarrhoea, and insomnia. After 24
weeks, tesofensine 0.25 mg and 0.5 mg showed no significant
increases in systolic or diastolic blood pressure compared with
placebo, whereas heart rate was increased by 7.4 beats per min
in the tesofensine 0.5 mg group (p=0.0001). CONCLUSION:
Our results suggest that tesofensine 0.5 mg might have the
potential to produce a weight loss twice that of currently
approved drugs. However, these findings of efficacy and safety
need confirmation in phase III trials. SPONSORSHIP:
Neurosearch A/S, Denmark.
Study strengths
Drug research is generally better designed than supplement
research, presumably because of better financial backing, as well
as the use of contract research organizations (CROs). Drug
research is usually much more clearly and exhaustively reported.
And unlike much of the supplement research, funding source is
listed up-front. The present study is a phase II trial, and as such,
it is past the preliminary stage involving a much smaller number
of subjects. Phase III trials will use yet a greater number of
subjects, but the present trial’s 161 subjects who completed the
study are enough to lend more statistical strength than the typical
sampling of supplement research, which often involves less than
30 subjects. Another strength of this trial is the relatively long
duration (6 months). In addition, dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DEXA) was used to assess body composition.
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
Study limitations
Although dietitians were employed, there was no mention of
dietary control or compliance measures (i.e., meetings with the
dietitians, records taken, food weighed, etc). With percentage of
weight change being the primary endpoint assessed, it puzzles
me that more effort wasn’t put into controlling nutritional
variables.
Comment/application
The big deal about this study is tesofensine’s doubly superior
effect to all other prescription diet drugs on the market. While
this sounds exciting at first glance, it bears emphasizing that the
existing crop of diet drugs suck at enhancing weight loss in the
first place. Just how bad do they suck? After 1 year of treatment,
the weight loss beyond that achieved by diet and lifestyle change
is 2.9 kg for orlistat, 4.2 kg for sibutramine, and 4.7 kg for
rimonabant.16 In contrast, the lowest dose of tesofensine in the
present trial (0.25 mg) caused a weight loss similar to that of
sibutramine and rimonabant treatment in trials lasting 6–24
months.
Three dosages (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 mg) of tesofensine were tested
in this trial, and weight loss was greater with each increased
dose. However, the authors concluded that the 0.5 mg dose was
more appropriate than the 1.0 mg dose due to similar (but
slightly lower) effectiveness with less adverse side effects. The
0.5 mg dose yielded a total of 6.9 kg more fat loss than placebo
in the 6 month period. This translates to 1.15 kg (2.53 lb) more
fat loss per month than placebo. As an interesting aside, this rate
of loss is just slightly more than that caused by ephedrine, which
a relatively recent meta-analysis reported to cause 0.9 kg (1.98
lb) more monthly weight loss than placebo.17
The tesofensine group experienced an increased resting heart
rate by 7.4 beats per minute (in the 0.5 mg group). This increase
isn’t too surprising considering that the drug’s mechanism is the
inhibition of pre-synaptic uptake of noradrenaline, serotonin, and
dopamine. Perhaps the most important consideration is weighing
the potential adverse effects with the small benefits. Dry mouth,
nausea, constipation, hard stools, diarrhoea, and insomnia were
the most commonly reported side effects. The mood states
assessment did not show any effect of tesofensine on total mood
disturbance, tension or anxiety, depression or dejection, or
fatigue or inertia compared to placebo. However, tesofensine at
1.0 mg increased anger and hostility, and both 0.5 mg and 1.0
mg doses increased confusion. Fat-free mass increased slightly
in the placebo group (0.1 kg, or 0.22 lb) while fat-free mass
decreased in the tesofensine group (2.3 kg, or 5.06 lb).
From my perspective as a practitioner with a preponderance of
weight loss clientele, tesofensine's advantage of 6.9 lbs in 6
months is unimpressive. Consider that on a properly designed
diet & training program, this amount of fat loss can be achieved
in about 2-4 weeks without any increase in resting heart rate or
any of the other side effects associated with tesofensine. Note
that the outcomes of this trial have limited applicability to the
nonsedentary population. The bottom line is that the diet drug
industry is working hard to capture the dollars of those who are
afraid to get up and get moving.
[Back to Contents] Page 9

Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or
balanced diets.
Golay A, et al. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000
Apr;24(4):492-6. [Medline]
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of
two diets ('food combining' or dissociated vs. balanced) on body
weight and metabolic parameters during a 6-week period in an
in-hospital setting. METHODS: 54 obese patients were
randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.5 MJ/day (1100
kcal/day) composed of either 25% protein, 47% carbohydrates
and 25% lipids (dissociated diet) or 25% protein, 42%
carbohydrates and 31% lipids (balanced diet). Consequently, the
two diets were equally low in energy and substrate content
(protein, fat and carbohydrate) but widely differed in substrate
distribution throughout the day. RESULTS: There was no
significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to
dissociated (6.2 +/- 0.6 kg) or balanced (7.5 +/- 0.4 kg) diets.
Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-
hip circumference ratio were seen in both groups, and the
magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of the diet
composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, total cholesterol
and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly and
similarly in patients receiving both diets. Both systolic and
diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in
patients eating balanced diets. The results of this study show that
both diets achieved similar weight loss. Total fat weight loss was
higher in balanced diets, although differences did not reach
statistical significance. Total lean body mass was identically
spared in both groups. CONCLUSION: In summary at identical
energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated
(or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in
weight and body fat. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.
Study strengths
In addition to the diet, subjects participated in a structured,
multidisciplinary program that included physical activity,
nutritional education and behavioral modification training.
Exercise consisted of 1 hour of aerobic exercise training per day
and 1 hour of exercises in a swimming pool per day. Nutritional
education was provided by a registered dietitian twice a week
(once in a group session and once individually). The
cognitive/behavioral approach consisted of 6 sessions involving
techniques of self-control, cognitive restructuring,
reinforcement, and relapse prevention. The dietary control was
rigorous; energy intake was carefully measured for each patient.
All subjects were instructed to finish their meals. A dietitian was
present during each meal to improve compliance and education.
Study limitations
Calories were set rather low (1100 kcal). This limits the
outcomes of this trial from being confidently applied to
populations who are more apt to take a moderate approach to
dieting. Protein was set at 1.2g/kg – not a stellar amount, but
significantly more than the typical RDA level typically imposed
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
on diet research subjects. Still, a more optimal range for
exercising individuals, especially in hypoenergetic conditions,
should be at least in the ballpark of 2.0g/kg.
Comment/application
This is one of those classic diet trials that regularly gets
referenced by nerds like me. It was published during a time
when diet books espousing the benefit of food separation and/or
combining were particularly rampant. As a matter of fact
Suzanne Somer’s bestseller Get Skinny on Fabulous Foods was
released a year before this study. In her book, Somers claims
that protein foods and carbohydrate foods require different
digestive environments and therefore fail to digest when eaten in
combination. In the same absurd vein, she claims that that sugar
is “more fattening than fat”. With these ideas being spread on a
broad scale through popular books, the scientific community
decided to put things to the test. It’s always nice (and
unfortunately not too common) for scientific research to
examine imaginative claims from the pop diet world.
In the introduction of the manuscript, the investigators draw an
example of scientifically unfounded recommendations from
1992 book Je Mange Donc Je Maigris! Ou Les Secrets De La
Nutrition. French author Michel Montignac states that
carbohydrates and lipids should not be ingested simultaneously
during a meal since the former, acting as a potent insulin
secretagogue, would favor the storage of fat in adipose tissue.
Funny enough, this don’t-mix-carbs-with-fats dictum made its
way to the fitness/bodybuilding community, echoed in following
excerpt written by charismatic author-turned-researcher John
Berardi:
“Meals with a high carbohydrate content in combination with
high-fat meals can actually promote a synergistic insulin release
when compared to the two alone. High fat with high-carb meals
represent the worst possible case scenario. Eat meals consisting
of fat and protein together with very little carbs. Also eat protein
and carbs together, but with very little fat in those meals. Don't
eat carbs by themselves and don't eat carbs with fat.”
Berardi’s influence on the fitness and bodybuilding community
has been far-reaching and persistent, due in large part to his
exposure in the popular website t-nation.com. The problem, of
course, is that this separation principle is not backed by science.
In the present trial, not only did separating carbs from fats fail at
causing improvements beyond the balanced (combined)
treatment, it actually was inferior for fat loss, although to a
statistically insignificant degree. Furthermore, both systolic and
diastolic blood pressure values decreased significantly in the
group receiving balanced diet, but not in the dissociated
treatment. So much for separation magic. In trying to maintain a
steady hum of humility, I avoid quoting myself, but in this case,
it seems warranted. The following is an antithetical excerpt from
an article I wrote for Leigh Peele’s Blog:
“The  bottom  line  is  that  as  long  as  you’re  aware  of  your 
macronutrient  targets  for  the  day,  go  ahead  and  sludge  that 
peanut  butter  into  your  oatmeal  if  your  little  heart  desires  it. 
Leave the neurotic eating behaviors for those with a lot of faith 
in fairy tales.”        
[Back to Contents] Page 10
 17. Shekelle PG, et al. Efficacy and safety of ephedra and
ephedrine for weight loss and athletic performance: a meta-
1. Williamson DL, et al. Reduction in hybrid single muscle analysis. JAMA. 2003 Mar 26;289(12):1537-45. [Medline]
fiber proportions with resistance training in humans. J Appl
Physiol. 2001 Nov;91(5):1955-61. [Medline]
2. Agaard A, et al. A mechanism for increased contractile
strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength
training: changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol. 2001 Jul
15;534(Pt. 2):613-23. [Medline]
3. Kraemer WJ, et al. Physiological changes with periodized
resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2003 Jan;35(1):157-68. [Medline]
4. Wernbom M, et al. The influence of frequency, intensity,
volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle
cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med.
2007;37(3):225-64. [Medline]
5. Segger D, et al. Supplementation with Eskimo((R)) Skin
Care improves skin elasticity in women. A pilot study. J
Dermatolog Treat. 2008 Apr 18:1-5. [Medline]
6. Waite N, et al. The impact of fish-oil supplements on insulin
sensitivity. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2008 Jul 15;21(4):402-403.
[Medline]
7. Cribb PJ, Hayes A. Effects of supplement timing and
resistance exercise on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2006 Nov;38(11):1918-25. [Medline]
8. Stout JR, et al. Effects of twenty-eight days of beta-alanine
and creatine monohydrate supplementation on the physical
working capacity at neuromuscular fatigue threshold. J
Strength Cond Res. 2006 Nov;20(4):928-31. [Medline]
9. Zoeller RF, et al. Effects of 28 days of beta-alanine and
creatine monohydrate supplementation on aerobic power,
ventilatory and lactate thresholds, and time to exhaustion.
Amino Acids. 2007 Sep;33(3):505-10. [Medline]
10. Stout JR, et al. Effects of beta-alanine supplementation on
the onset of neuromuscular fatigue and ventilatory threshold
in women. Amino Acids. 2007;32(3):381-6. [Medline]
11. Derave W, et al. beta-Alanine supplementation augments
muscle carnosine content and attenuates fatigue during
repeated isokinetic contraction bouts in trained sprinters. J
Appl Physiol. 2007 Nov;103(5):1736-43. [Medline]
12. Hoffman J, et al. beta-Alanine and the Hormonal Response
to Exercise. Int J Sports Med. 2008 Jun 11. [Medline]
13. Hoffman J, et al. Effect of creatine and beta-alanine
supplementation on performance and endocrine responses in
strength/power athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006
Aug;16(4):430-46. [Medline]
14. Hill CA, et al. Influence of beta-alanine supplementation on
skeletal muscle carnosine concentrations and high intensity
cycling capacity. Amino Acids. 2007 Feb;32(2):225-33.
[Medline]
15. Kendrick IP, et al. The effects of 10 weeks of resistance
training combined with beta-alanine supplementation on
whole body strength, force production, muscular endurance
and body composition. Amino Acids. 2008 May;34(4):547-
54. [Medline]
16. Rucker D, et al. Long term pharmacotherapy for obesity and
overweight: updated meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007 Dec
8;335(7631):1194-9. [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008 [Back to Contents] Page 11


Milk-bashing: a sport for the ignorant.
By Alan Aragon
What the…?
I came upon the idea for this article after reading a truly
unobjective milk rant entitled, “Does Milk Really Do The Body
Good? Calcium and Protein: A Mixture for Disaster”. Can you
imagine how pissed I got after reading that title? The author isn’t
named, but the article’s parent website (fitwise.com) is run by
Paul Becker, who also runs trulyhuge.com. Both sites cater to
the bodybuilding and fitness market. If you do a Google search
on whether milk is good or bad, this article bound to be in the
top 5 links.
In a vast sea of average Joes, those who have succeeded in
crafting elite-level physiques are few and far between. The
bearers of prepossessing muscularity have instant credibility;
instant power and influence. People take their words on faith,
and run with their advice confidently. But hold on, Houston –
there’s a problem. Let me quote a forum member’s (actually, a
forum owner’s) comment I recently read: “Bodybuilders are
fucking idiots who succeed in spite of themselves.”
Of course there are exceptions, but that statement’s not too far
from the truth. The “in spite of” part refers to habits that have
either a neutral or impeding effect on progress. Success happens
regardless because enough of the essential habits are consistently
in place. Ironically, many fitness buffs regard an array of
unfounded practices as critical to achieving physique goals. Milk
(and milk product) avoidance is one of the common practices
among this population. Let’s take a look at the claim that you
have to eat “clean” and milk-free.
Clean vs. dirty: flawed and convoluted from the start
People have a tendency to think in black and white terms,
probably because it’s simpler than acknowledging the infinite
shades of gray in between. But what makes a food clean or dirty
in the first place? These questions elicit all kinds of answers
because these terms can’t be quantitatively characterized. Aside
from being subjective from the start, a food’s “cleanness” or
“dirtiness” is dependent upon its relative contribution to the diet.
In other words, foods in and of themselves are neutral; it’s their
lack of moderation in the diet can render the diet “dirty”. For
example, table sugar (sucrose) is a neutral substance that the
human body is perfectly capable of metabolizing. However, if an
excessive intake of sugar grossly displaces the consumption of
essential nutrients and whole foods, and certainly if it
contributes to a surplus of unused calories, then you have a
“dirty” situation.
Philosophical soapbox
Many folks in the fitness realm regard milk as a dirty food for
reasons other than hormonal and antibiotic issues, which I’ll
cover. One of the more humorous reasons is that humans
supposedly weren’t “meant” to drink milk because it’s designed
for baby cows. The fact of the matter is, consuming cow’s milk
is cleaner from the standpoint that you don’t have to butcher the
Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008
animal to get to it. For some reason it’s okay to stick a fork in a
cow’s quadriceps, but for heaven’s sake leave the poor cow’s
milk for the calves. One client of mine made an interesting point
that according to the latter logic, humans should only be eating
adult humans.
Calcium & protein: a recipe for good mojo
Doubts about milk’s ability to build bones are based upon either
ignorance or moral/political agenda – and likely both.
Researchers from the Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine (PCRM) examined 58 studies, including 13
randomized controlled trials.1 They concluded that across a
variety of study types, increased calcium and dairy product
consumption has not shown even a modestly consistent benefit
for the bone health in children or young adults. Well, that
conclusion certainly raised some eyebrows.
In the footnotes of the study, which typically lists the research
funding source, you’ll find an explicit statement, “No conflict of
interest declared”. Hmmm, is that so? The meat and dairy
industry gets its share of criticism for having their claws in the
research sector, but apparently it goes both ways. The PCRM is
a group of vegetarian and animal rights activists. They promote
veganism (no animal products whatsoever) throughout their
literature and media. In 1991, they submitted a proposal to the
US Department of Agriculture for a reform of the Four Food
Groups, modifying it to consist strictly of grains, legumes, fruits,
and vegetables.
In contrast to the article authored by PCRM affiliates, a more
comprehensive review was done by one of the most prolific
researchers on bone health, Robert Heany of Creighton
University.2 139 scientific studies from 1975 to 2000 on the
relationship of calcium intake and bone health were analyzed. 50
of 52 controlled intervention trials showed better bone benefits at
high calcium intakes. Of the two studies that showed no effect,
one involved a control group whose calcium intake was already
relatively high, and the other trial involved postmenopausal
women whose estrogen decreases likely effected bone loss to a
greater degree than nutritional factors. As for epidemiological
research, 64 out of 86 (about 75%) studies showed a positive
correlation between calcium intake and increased bone mass or
reduction of fracture risk.
The vast majority of 3 decades of scientific research indicates
that milk and milk products are great bone builders. As a matter
of fact, milk and dairy products are quite possibly ideal foods for
skeletal health. When protein and calcium are both present in the
diet in adequate amounts, they work synergistically to build and
maintain bone.3 The moral of the story is that it’s easy to bash
milk – especially when you leave out most of the facts.
REFERENCES
1. Lanou AJ, et a. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in
children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence.
Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):736-43. [Medline]
2. Heaney RP. Calcium, dairy products and osteoporosis. J Am
Coll Nutr. 2000 Apr;19(2 Suppl):83S-99S. [Medline]
3. Heaney RP. Protein and calcium: antagonists or synergists?
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;75(4):609-10. [Medline]
[Back to Contents] Page 12
I deliberated a long time about posting this video, fearing it
might be a little too over-the-top for most of the AARR
readership. But in the end, folks need to know that bodybuilding
is not just a hobby, it’s an adventure. Click this link with
extreme caution, it might not be work-friendly. And don’t say I
didn’t warn you.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, bones of

contention, cheers, jeers, guest articles you’d like to submit, or
any feedback at all, send it over to aarrsupport@gmail.com. All
suggestions are taken very seriously. I want to make sure this
publication continues to stand alone in its brotacularity.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – November, 2008 [Back to Contents] Page 13