Beetroot Juice: Endurance athletes’ elation or another flop? (Guest Post by Mark Funnell)

Beetroot Juice: Endurance athletes’ elation or another flop? (Guest Post by Mark Funnell)

It seems like you can't open a cycling magazine, read a running forum or speak to an endurance enthusiast without being drawn into a discussion about beetroot juice. With article headlines such as, “Power to the beetroot - PB up, BP down” and “Beetroot Juice: The Drink of Champions” becoming evermore common, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at some of the research and determine whether these claims are justified. As such, the aim of this article is to discuss all things beetroot and try to find out if it really is “The Drink of Champions”.

Read More

Vitamin D and athletic performance: do you need to supplement? (Guest Post by Joe Matthews)

Vitamin D and athletic performance: do you need to supplement? (Guest Post by Joe Matthews)

Vitamin D is a fashionable supplement to have in your cupboard. A quick online scout of popular sites sees headlines such as…

“Vitamin D the most underrated vitamin on the planet”

“Get lean by taking vitamin D – it raises testosterone and elevates metabolism”

“D is for domination” (personal favourite)

So, does it live up to the hype?

Here, we will briefly critique the current evidence regarding vitamin D supplementation and athletic performance.

Read More

BCAAs for Bodybuilders: Just the Science, Part 4 (Addendum; was Poliquin right all along?)


Just when I thought I was done with the BCAA series after exhausting the scientific literature, I came across some more research that put a spanner in the works. Many of you reading this know I’m not a fan of Poliquin in general, but if he turns out to be right and I’m wrong, I’m willing to change by position, as that is what every good scientist should do. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not interested in being right, but having the right answers. So if I am wrong, I consider it a learning opportunity.


What is this research?

The research in question is two papers by Bul & Chitè published in an obscure Soviet (now known as Russia) journal in 1941 and 1942, respectively. The reason I missed this research during the time of writing my initial articles, is due to the fact that they can’t be accessed online, and therefore can’t be linked to, unfortunately. However, I was lucky enough to receive an email last week from a subscriber to my blog who kindly emailed me the two articles in full. Since they can’t be accessed online, I’d be happy to send them to whoever wants them, just drop me an email.


What was found?

Because the papers were published in a Soviet journal, they were written in Russian. Luckily, one of these papers (the 1942 one) has been translated to English so I can only comment on the details of that particular study. In it, Bul & Chitè compared the effects of a BCAA-saline solution (0.2g/kg/h) with a placebo (saline solution), delivered intravenously every hour, for four hours, following a series of intense training drills, on measures of body composition and performance in a cohort of Soviet Special Operatives. Given the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 by the Germans, this type of study seems rather timely. After the 12-week trial, the authors observed an increase in muscle mass of 6.3kg and decrease in fat mass of 1.7kg in the experimental group, compared to values of 0.9 and 0.6kg, respectively, in the placebo-control group. To top things off, the experimental group gained an average of 28kg on their back squat and 37kg on their deadlifts, compared to 6 and 8kg, respectively, in the control group. Though I’ve highlighted limitations of such studies before, what makes this study unique is that subjects were consuming a maintenance calorie diet with already sufficient amounts of protein (2.6g/kg of protein). This is significantly more protein that that observed in other investigations, making things very interesting indeed!

Though this study is limited by the method of BCAA delivery (infusion vs. oral ingestion), as BCAA are rapidly digested and appear in the blood stream soon after ingestion, oral ingestion probably would’ve produced similar results. As such, if we take a 75kg individual as an example, it would be the equivalent of ingesting 15g of BCAAs straight after a workout, and an additional 15g every hour, for the next three hours (60g total). Coincidentally, this arrives at a value remarkably similar to that advised by Poliquin. Is this a fluke on Poliquin’s part? Nobody knows, and I’ve never heard of him speak of this research. It would seem however, that with his years of experience in the field, he is able to notice subtle trends regarding the efficacy of various supplementation protocols, which future research would be needed to verify. Because of this, it begs the question: if Poliquin might be right about the BCAAs, what else might he be right about?

Though the authors of the study were unable to explain the mechanism behind their findings, based on advances in the understanding of protein metabolism in the past decade, there seems to be some plausible explanations. Firstly, as BCAAs aren’t bound to the matrix of a whole food protein source, they are rapidly absorbed and create a huge spike in levels of leucine in the blood. During normal situations (i.e. between-meal doing of 6g BCAA as advised by Layne Norton) levels of plasma leucine would quickly return to baseline. However, with the aforementioned higher doses, supraphysiological levels of plasma leuince concentration would be extended for a much longer duration, resulting in a much higher rate of MPS, thus leading to greater muscle growth over time. This is something that is not achievable with a normal protein source given its relatively slower rate of digestion.


Other lines of evidence supporting these findings

The knowledge that the Soviets possessed regarding the effects of mega-dosing BCAAs may have translates to other uses, most notably, their domination of the summer Olympic games following WWII. The Olympics were suspended in 1940 and 1944 due to the war, and the Soviet Union didn’t compete in the 1948 games. However, from 1952-2000 (with the exception of 1984 when the Soviet Union boycotted the Los Angeles games), the Soviet Union/Russia have either placed 1st (1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 & 1992) or 2nd (1952, 1964, 1968, 1996 & 2000) in the medal table; that includes topping the medals table in six consecutive games!

Though anabolic steroids certainly played a large part of their success, virtually every developed country would have had access to the same drugs, nullifying any potential advantage to be gained from them. As such, it may well have been the inside knowledge of the benefits of BCAAs that were responsible for their Olympic domination.

Further support comes in the form of BCAA supplements. The popularity of BCAAs as a supplement didn’t really being until the early 2000s, so by the time the Athens games were held in 2004 (when athletes from all countries were using them), Russia didn’t have the advantage of BCAA supplementation. So what happened in Athens? Well, Russia placed below 2nd for the first time in over half a century; this can hardly be written off as coincidence.

Having only been aware of these studies for the past week or so, I though I’d implement BCAA mega-dosing in my current diet and training setup. Though I’ve only been using a protocol that I devised based on the above findings (20g immediately before, 20g during and 20g immediately after training) for just a week (four sessions in total), I’ve already put 25kg on my deadlift and 15kg on my squat. I’ve also gained 2kg in weight with no change in skinfold thickness, indicating it is pretty much all from muscle. For the record, my diet has remained exactly the same, ruling out the possibility of dietary influences.

Additionally, by scouring the fitness/nutrition online forums, I began to notice a trend, in that people who take upwards of 40g BCAA per day seem to benefit in the presence of already sufficient protein. Those who consume more modest amounts tend not to experience such ‘steroid-like’ gains in strength and size unless their protein is lacking.

Charles-Poliquin-Coach-LondonAs a final piece of evidence supporting the validity of the above study, Charles Poliquin and Nick Mitchell (dubbed by Men’s Fitness as “one of the world’s leading body composition experts” and by Time Out as “London’s best personal trainer”) – who both advocate high doses of BCAAs – are very well muscled, as well as having got their clients results following such protocols. One day, with continued use of BCAAs, I'll hopefully reach a similar size as these guys.



In summary, if you believed a word of what was said in this post then April fools’! If not, then I wasn’t subtle enough (maybe next time). For those that were fooled by the article, it is an important demonstration of how logical sounding arguments can be taken as fact. To give you an idea of how to spot such deceptions in other work, what follows is a list of common logical fallacies that I deliberately committed in order to strengthen my fabricated position:

  • I made up research – this one is common, always look out for references linked to PubMed.
  • I appealed to coincidence – there are numerous explanations for the success of the Soviets during the summer Olympics.
  • I appealed to authority – I backed up this fictitious study with Poliquin’s practise. Since he is held in high esteem (I’m not sure why), people are more likely to believe it. I also put Nick Mitchell’s name in there too for a laugh. Speaking of Mitchell, credentials like “London’s best personal trainer” are at best, comical, and at worst, meaningless.
  • I appealed to popularity – stating that everyone on message boards gets results make it seem like it is really popular and really works. Everyone is convinced when “real” people get results, right? (As if humans in controlled trials aren’t “real people”).
  • I appealed to personal observation and experience. It must be remembered that the placebo effect is extremely powerful, and if I know what I’m taking, the self-experiment is flawed from the very start due to an expectation bias. Not to mention completely ignoring all the research highlighted in parts 1-3 of my BCAA series.
  • In using my personal experience, I also appealed to aesthetics. Saying I got bigger by doing something, or that BCAAs must work because Poloquin and Mitchell use them suggests that only BCAAs are responsible for their physiques as opposed to other 'special supplements'.
  • Finally, I also made up physiology in the part about extending supraphysiological rates of MPS and provided no scientific references to support such claims, just links to less than scientific sites such as, and

BCAAs for Bodybuilders: Just the Science (Part 3)

Firstly, I’d like to apologise for my lack of activity on my blog. I have been extremely busy over the past few weeks and was lucky enough to have Matt Jones of Nutrition Condition to fill my shoes and post a couple of guest articles. As his content has been well received, you can expect to see future posts from him here.

Today, I aim to tie up the article series looking at BCAA supplementation and its effects on body composition. Before moving onto part 3, I first want to quote the summary from part 2, as it will set the stage for this post:

  • The amount of muscle mass a person has depends on the long-term relationship between muscle protein breakdown and synthesis.

  • A threshold amount of leucine of 2-3 g (~ roughly 0.05g/kg body weight) is thought to exist, with no apparent further stimulation of MPS with higher intakes.

  • This would translate to 25-37.5 g of leucine-rich protein sources.

  • Yes, you can absorb more than 30g of protein in one sitting!

  • Due to the apparent refractory nature of MPS, it would seem that eating meals spaced every 3/4-6 hours apart would optimise MPS within a 24-hour period.

  • However, it appears that there is more to muscle gain than frequently stimulating MPS; the reasons being as follows:

  1. A recommendation for higher daily amounts of protein than is likely to ‘max’ out MPS.
  2. Concept of the anabolic drive and hidden signaling pathways involved in protein turnover and AA oxidation.
  3. Real-world observations of excellent improvements in muscle mass despite theoretically ‘too high/too low’ meal frequencies.
  1. Apparent lack of effects on LBM whilst dieting with reduced meal frequencies (i.e. 1-2 meals per day).
  • It therefore seems that total protein intake is the most important variable, and how this intake is distributed, impacts body composition to a lesser degree.
  • For this reason, I don’t see any reason for meal frequency to be higher than the typical 3-4 meals per day for most people seeking optimal rates of muscle gain.
  • Though it is unknown whether moving to the ‘optimal frequency’ would be of benefit, it seems unlikely in the real world; and if so, it may only benefit the elite physique athlete looking for that 1-2% over their competition. Likewise, eating less than twice per day may compromise rates of muscle gain, however, no solid data exist to be make definitive conclusions.


Whole proteins vs. free form amino acids: between-meal dosing

Having mentioned the practise of consuming free-form amino acids such as leucine and BCAAs on top of an existing sufficiency of protein in part 1, it is now time to get to the main point of this article and discuss the more theoretical uses of BCAAs. Having nicely set the stage by taking a look at the topic of meal frequency, the information that follows will hopefully make a bit more sense.

It was Dr. Layne Norton who originally popularised the notion of consuming free-form amino acids (e.g. BCAA) between meals. In recent years, several others have latched on to this concept and recommended their own protocols, such as dosing leucine between meals, on top of meals, between exercise sets etc.; I’m still waiting for someone to recommend snorting pure leucine!

If you remember from part 2, I talked about the refractory phenomenon associated with MPS, which has been explained by the ‘protein stat hypothesis’. It is argued that because free-form BCAAs aren't protein-bound within the matrix of the food, they are more quickly absorbed than intact proteins such as whey. It is further argued that because of this protein stat hypothesis - which indicates that an extracellular membrane-bound sensor is influenced by relative changes in amino acid concentrations as opposed to absolute concentrations - whole proteins don’t elicit a rapid rise and subsequent fall in amino acid levels, unlike their free-form counterparts. As such, Norton has advised that a BCAA mix containing 2-3g leucine (with our without additional carbohydrates – as the time course of MPS somewhat reflects plasma insulin levels) should be consumed between meals spaced 4-6 hours apart, with the aim of circumventing this refractory phenomenon associated with protein synthesis in response to the first meal. Theoretically, blunting the decrease in MPS (with a BCAA/BCAA-CHO mixture), which may occur a couple hours following the first meal, would lead to increased muscle hypertrophy over time.


Is there any data to support this theory?

There are two main pieces of data used to support this hypothesis. The first is the already cited amino acid infusion data by Bohe et al. (2001). Secondly, Norton uses the study by Paddon-Jones et al. (2005) to justify his between-meal dosing strategy. In this trial, the authors compared the effects of supplement containing 30g of carbohydrate and 15g of essential amino acids (EAA) ingested between meals (consisting of 23.4g PRO, 126.6g CHO, 4g FAT) spaced five hours apart, with ingesting nothing between meals. The authors found that the supplement group experienced a greater overall anabolic response (nitrogen balance and fractional muscle protein synthesis) compared with the control group. This is all well and good but the problem with these findings are that the supplement group consumed 45g extra EAA (equivalent to 90g of whey or roughly 20g BCAA) and 90g extra carbohydrate than the control group. Furthermore, since total protein intake in the experimental group was 109g compared to 64 in the control group, what we’re actually comparing is an adequate intake (1.25g/kg) with an intake below the RDA of 0.8g/kg (0.74g/kg). As such, it is extremely unsurprising that a sufficient protein intake plus extra carbs is potentially more anabolic than an insufficient protein intake.

Ultimately, the practise of ingesting BCAAs between meals is largely based on amino acid infusion data - that doesn’t accurately represent oral protein ingestion – and a heavily flawed piece of research by Paddon-Jones et al. (2005). As such, between-meal dosing is an extremely optimistic strategy, based on questionable theoretical evidence. For such a strategy to prove its worth, I’d like to see a between-meal dosing strategy set up around a sufficient protein intake, in trained individuals undergoing a structured resistance programme with body composition endpoints. Will we ever see this data? I doubt it, but I can always dream! But unless it happens, I wouldn’t recommend it to my clients.

Moreover, as discussed in my last article, given the apparent lack of difference in body composition with a decent protein intake spread over 3-4 meals compared with six meals, it is highly unlikely that a slight extension of MPS with a given meal will make any meaningful differences in terms of muscle mass accrual; it almost certainly wouldn’t make a difference in terms of maintenance of muscle mass.


BCAAs and fat loss?

As you recall from part 2, reducing meal frequency doesn’t seem to affect muscle mass retention as long as sufficient protein is being consumed. This is why intermittent fasting (LeanGains style) works very well for those looking to lose fat and retain muscle. In fact, an interesting review by Varaday (2011) concluded that intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) is just as effective as daily calorie restriction (DCR) at promoting fat and weight loss, though ICR may be more effective for retaining lean mass. However, before the intermittent fasting crowd gets too excited, it is worth remembering that the majority of the ICR studies used bioelectrical impedance (BIA) as a measure of body composition. Anyone familiar with BIA knows that it’s inaccurate at the best of times.

Therefore, it appears that an optimal meal frequency whilst dieting is the one you can best stick to. Because of this, attempting to increase the number of stimulations in MPS, or extend this process, during dieting seems a futile one.


What about their caloric efficiency?

Given that BCAAs are the only amino acids that stimulate protein synthesis, another rationale for the use of BCAAs whilst dieting is due to their greater caloric economy in comparison to whole protein sources. In other words, if your aim were to get 3g of leucine in a given meal, ingesting whole protein food such as whey would require about 25g (100kcal), whereas 6g (24kcal) of BCAAs would provide the same amount of leucine.

By the same logic, if things were only as simple as getting enough leucine to max out MPS at each meal (~4-6g of most brands of BCAAs), we would theoretically only need 24-36g of BCAAs per day to cover protein requirements. However, it’s no use having leucine to initiate protein synthesis if there is no protein (i.e. other amino acids) to actually carry on this process. What will basically happen is that things will short circuit, meaning that MPS may begin but then stop soon after. A quote from a review by Balage & Dardevet (2010) on the topic sums this up nicely:

“There is some evidence that long-term leucine availability is sufficient to improve muscle mass or performance during exercise training. However, it needs to be associated with other amino acids to be efficient (for example, through leucine-rich proteins).”

This wouldn’t seem to be a problem for the between-meal dosing of BCAAs since there are already other amino acids in circulation. The aim of this strategy isn't to stimulate MPS using BCAAs by themselves; rather, it is to extend MPS.

However, like a complete protein, it also appears that an EAA mixture may optimise MPS. As such, consuming sufficient whole protein the majority of the time and then replacing around-workout whey protein with BCAAs may also have the intended benefit (i.e. optimal MPS stimulation) but with greater caloric efficiency. For example, whey contains roughly 25% BCAA, so assuming someone consumes 30g of whey protein pre and post training, this would amount to 60g of whey (240kcal), whereas isolated BCAAs will account for 15g total (60 kcal), a saving of 180kcal per workout day. If this person trained four times per week, this would be a saving of 720kcal per week, just over 100 kcal per day.

However, I honestly can’t see why someone would want to save calories by reducing protein intake in the first place, never mind go to all that effort just to save themselves 100kcal per day. The same reduction could be achieved by sticking with whey and reducing fat by 11g or carbohydrate by 25g per day, or a combination of the two. Not only will this save you money, you’ll get as much BCAA as well as all the other essential and non-essential amino acids (which may impart added benefit). You’ll also get the

I don't know about you but I'd prefer more to a meal than this whilst dieting.

potentially therapeutic compounds contained in whey such as immunoglobins and lactoferrin, as well potentially anabolic properties of whey independent of its constituent amino acids. Finally, you’ll likely experience greater satiety with whey compared to isolated BCAAs (something that would benefit dieters). In clinical research, BCAAs have been used to stimulate appetite in populations at risk for muscle wasting. The mechanism to explain why this is the case involves BCAAs competing with tryptophan for entry into the brain, thereby reducing the production of a satiating neurotransmitter, serotonin.  As such, it is ironic that the same supplement many take for dieting purposes may actually make dieting a more difficult experience than it needs to be. Conversely, the satiating effects of whey protein are well documented.


Conclusions & Practical Recommendations

In summary, form part 1 of this article series, I discussed BCAA supplementation on top of a pre-existing sufficiency of protein and came to the conclusion that BCAAs would seem to make little, if any, difference in terms of muscle gain. In part 2, the stage was set for the current article in where I discussed the issue of meal frequency, the conclusion of which is outlined at the beginning of this article.

In this final instalment, we dug deeper into the more theoretical arguments for BCCA supplementation. Specifically,  the claims behind the between-meal dosing of BCAAs and how this might positively impact on muscle hypertrophy were examined, as well as their potential benefits whilst dieting.

The protocol advised by Layne Norton involves using doses of BCAAs likely to maximally stimulate MPS (~4-6g) in between meals spaced 4-6 hours apart. However, this strategy is largely based on amino acid infusion data and a deeply flawed study with highly predictable findings. Therefore, the practise of between-meal BCAA doing is essentially a hypothesis (that extending MPS slightly will lead to greater gains in strength/hypertrophy over time) based on a hypothesis (that such dosing protocols will actually extend MPS  under more realistic dietary conditions) based on a hypothesis (that the protein stat hypothesis holds true), thus extremely optimistic.

In terms of muscle retention whilst dieting, the frequency of protein ingestion doesn’t seem to make a difference as long as sufficient total protein is being consumed, meaning that between-meal dosing is irrelevant under dieting scenarios, at least in terms of optimising MPS on a meal-per-meal basis. As such, the caloric economy of BCAAs is their main attraction for dieters. However, at best, this tactic will save you a few calories, possibly at the expense of hunger, other beneficial properties associated with complete protein sources and money. It is much less hassle, cheaper, and potentially more beneficial to cut calories from either fat or carbohydrate.

Layne Norton may indeed be ahead of the game when it comes to his suggested BCAA protocol taken between meals separated by 4-6 hours. However, when compared to a sufficient protein intake (2.5-3g/kg) spread over the typical 3-4 meals (as suggested in part 2), I can’t see how this tactic could be much more beneficial, if at all. To quote Alan Aragon speaking about Layne Norton about the very topic:

“it’s crucial to realize that [Layne’s BCAA protocol] might be miniscule and not worth the effort or expense for non-competitive populations. In repeated personal communication, he has admitted to me that this tactic is done in attempt to clinch a very small edge to win. As a top-level, drug-free competitor, it’s justifiable to exploit all hypothetical nutritional means within reason in order to conjure the last bit of potential.”

As such, unless you are a physique competitor in search of that extra 1-2% (if it exists), it may be feasible to experiment with such tactics in the effort to gain an advantage. For the rest of us (>99.99 of people) looking to get in better shape, I see little point in supplementing with BCAAs. Instead, I’d urge you to save your money and invest in what delivers. That is, consume a sufficient amount (2.5-3g/kg) of high quality protein that will put you in good stead for making solid gains in the gym, whilst constantly hitting other macronutrient targets across a range of minimally processed foods. From there spread this intake evenly over the typical 3-4 meals, with two of these protein-containing meals placed within windows 90-120 minutes prior to and after weight training. If you have difficulty in reaching such intakes with solid proteins, opt for a decent whey protein concentrate or isolate in order to make up the difference. Speaking of weight training, focus on adding manageable weight in the main compound movements. Not only will this save you money, you will surpass the vast majority of people who use isolated BCAA supplements.