or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 3794

post #56896 of 57266

New study suggesting that full body workouts might require more protein post workout than non-full body sessions to maximally stimulate MPS.

 

Instead of the usually recommended 20g of protein post workout, the data suggests 40 grams after full body sessions.

 

Forthcoming in Journal of Physiology.

 

Quote:
We have some new data that we've just submitted the paper to Journal of Physiology, and so with any luck, knock on wood, it'll be accepted and be out soon, suggesting that maybe that this 20-gram max is not in all situations. So we've got data now suggesting that 40 grams in some situations might actually give you a better response than 20, which is of course opposite of what we've all been saying for the last few years. So we're writing a grant now to try to follow that up to see where we can go with that. 
post #56897 of 57266

And another one.

 

Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men

Am J Clin Nutr July 6, 2016. 
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ea....full.pdf+html

 

Quote:
Background: 

The carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that “a calorie is a calorie” predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.

Objective: 

We investigated whether an isocaloric low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (KD) is associated with changes in EE, respiratory quotient (RQ), and body composition.

Design: 

Seventeen overweight or obese men were admitted to metabolic wards, where they consumed a high-carbohydrate baseline diet (BD) for 4 wk followed by 4 wk of an isocaloric KD with clamped protein. Subjects spent 2 consecutive days each week residing in metabolic chambers to measure changes in EE (EEchamber), sleeping EE (SEE), and RQ. Body composition changes were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Average EE during the final 2 wk of the BD and KD periods was measured by doubly labeled water (EEDLW).

Results: 

Subjects lost weight and body fat throughout the study corresponding to an overall negative energy balance of ∼300 kcal/d. Compared with BD, the KD coincided with increased EEchamber (57 ± 13 kcal/d, P = 0.0004) and SEE (89 ± 14 kcal/d, P < 0.0001) and decreased RQ (−0.111 ± 0.003, P < 0.0001). EEDLW increased by 151 ± 63 kcal/d (P = 0.03). Body fat loss slowed during the KD and coincided with increased protein utilization and loss of fat-free mass.

Conclusion: 

The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology. 

 

 

TLDR; 

No further fat loss with a ketogenic low carb diet in comparison to a high carb diet with the same amount of total calories.

The weight loss represented the caloric deficit regardless of the release of insulin and the amount of carbs.

Note that the participants in the study were obese or overweight men.

post #56898 of 57266

It's really hard to make comparisons between the obese/overweight and the healthy because of hormones/leptin etc. I'm sure @MGoCrimson  will chime in as well. 

post #56899 of 57266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post
 

It's really hard to make comparisons between the obese/overweight and the healthy because of hormones/leptin etc. I'm sure @MGoCrimson  will chime in as well. 

 

Sure.

I found it interesting because ketogenic low carb diets have been said to be especially effective for fat loss for obese people.

post #56900 of 57266
Isn't the main benefit satiety ?
You feel like shit on keto so you don't want to eat

Did they assess compliance for the two groups ?
post #56901 of 57266
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeen7908 View Post

Isn't the main benefit satiety ?
You feel like shit on keto so you don't want to eat

Did they assess compliance for the two groups ?

 

Wouldn't compliance be studied indirectly by the results?  Or are you suggesting that one of the diets was superior but people didn't adhere to it so it was moot?

post #56902 of 57266
If they didn't comply wouldn't they be removed from analysis ?

Ie they dropped out of the study because they were stuffing their face

proving that calories in is all that matters but keto might have the advantage of easier to stick to

But I'm too lazy to read the whole thing
post #56903 of 57266

No, the trend, in medicine anyway, is to include those people since it measures the effect of behavior. I.e. you can make a better estimate of what will happen to your patients because they are also likely to adhere similarly: full adherence, partial adherence, no adherence. It's a more population level approach than an individualistic approach. People do analyses using as treated and intent to treat for that reason. So you say what happens to the entire group and also to sub populations, i.e. you'd do a sub group analysis comparing those with good adherence to the overall cohort to see if that would make a difference.

post #56904 of 57266
it seems impossible to achieve any meaningful result if noncompliant was not excluded

So basically the two groups could eat whatever calories or macros they wanted ? And still got included in analysis ?
post #56905 of 57266
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeen7908 View Post

Isn't the main benefit satiety ?
You feel like shit on keto so you don't want to eat

Did they assess compliance for the two groups ?

 

Main benefit isn't satiety. You're only supposed to feel like shit for the first month or so.

post #56906 of 57266
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeen7908 View Post

it seems impossible to achieve any meaningful result if noncompliant was not excluded

So basically the two groups could eat whatever calories or macros they wanted ? And still got included in analysis ?

 

Patients in the real world are free to do what they want after their doctor recommends something as well. It's an additional way of looking at the data to make sense of what would happen in the real world, that's why you analyze it both ways.

post #56907 of 57266

Moar science.

 

post #56908 of 57266
Great video so far.

So at 9:45 at the "current guidelines" slides when it lists hypertrophy does that basically mean "getting big?" And is there really difference is muscle size and muscle strength?
post #56909 of 57266
There is a difference in muscle size vs. strength; for instance, you'll often see very fit power lifter types, stronger, but tiny in comparison to their bodybuilder bro counterparts...
post #56910 of 57266
Quote:
Originally Posted by noob in 89 View Post

There is a difference in muscle size vs. strength; for instance, you'll often see very fit power lifter types, stronger, but tiny in comparison to their bodybuilder bro counterparts...

Eh, I'm skeptical of this. I think it's more that powerlifters are training specific muscles to do a specific movement, they aren't doing 9 different types of accessory lifts every workout so the muscles that aren't as useful for powerlifting movements won't be as big. I don't bodybuilders actually have larger but weaker muscles
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts