BCAAs for Bodybuilders: Just the Science, Part 2 (Meal Frequency)

In part one of looking at what part BCAAs play in bodybuilders’ diets, I discussed what BCAAs are, their unique role in protein synthesis, as well as what foods they are contained in and in what percentages. On a gram per gram basis, you would get more than double the amount of BCAAs for your money if you opt for a high quality whey protein isolate than if you were to purchase isolated BCAA; as well as the benefit of all the other essential and non-essential amino acids. As such, I see no use for BCAAs unless they prove to be beneficial despite a sufficient protein intake.

Given the controversy that surrounds their use on top of a sufficient protein intake, I examined the limited human trials on the very matter and came to the conclusion that BCAAs would seem to make little, if any, difference in the presence of sufficient protein. In the absence of sufficient human data looking at body composition endpoints, these conclusions are somewhat speculative. However, my personal observations support my contention that they provide no benefit to those hoping for more muscle and less fat.

As I feel that the available human data doesn’t sufficiently answer the main question behind this article series, I will dig a little deeper and see if more mechanistic and theoretical arguments shed any more light on this matter. I will spend this post looking at the issue of meal frequency and how it pertains to maximising anabolism, as it will lay the foundations for the discussion in the third and final part, in which I will dissect the claims made about between-meal BCAA dosing strategies, and their use whilst dieting.

 .

Maximising anabolism: the role of leucine in muscle protein synthesis.

 To quote myself from my protein requirements article:

“The amount of muscle tissue in the human body remains fairly stable over time. However these tissues are undergoing a continuous process of breakdown and resynthesis; these processes are referred to as protein turnover. The amount of muscle mass a person has depends on the long-term relationship between muscle protein breakdown and synthesis. For example, if muscle protein synthesis exceeds breakdown, there will be an increase in the amount of that protein. Protein turnover is mediated by several factors including hormones (testosterone, growth hormone, thyroid, insulin, glucagon & cortisol), caloric intake, amino acid/protein availability and training. The largest factors that influence skeletal muscle metabolism are eating and training… This may lead one to assume that the simple act of eating a load of protein will lead to gains in muscle mass. However, this isn’t the case due to a process called diurnal cycling, whereby net protein synthesis following a meal is matched by an increased protein breakdown when food is not being consumed… diurnal cycling tends to keep the body at a stable amount of muscle mass. However, when [resistance] exercise is introduced, it basically “forces” the body to store more protein (assuming sufficient protein and overall caloric intake that is).”

As such, it would appear that maximising daily dietary-induced muscle protein synthesis (MPS) would yield the greatest benefit in terms of maximising the potential for muscle gain. Theoretically, it seems that maximising the anabolic response via eating, revolves around the leucine content of a protein containing meal, and the frequency of which such meal is eaten (i.e. meal frequency; technically protein frequency).

Of the three BCAAs, it is leucine that plays the major role in initiating MPS via the stimulation of the biochemical sensor named the ‘mammalian target of rapamycin’ (mTOR). Relating to the ingestion of protein, a threshold amount of leucine of 2-3 g (~ roughly 0.05g/kg body weight) is thought to exist so that changes in plasma leucine concentrations maximally stimulate MPS. Intakes above this threshold (~8 g leucine) do not appear to have any further stimulatory effects on MPS. From table 1 (in part 1), this would translate to 25-37.5 g of leucine-rich protein sources (e.g. whey, eggs and meat). It is worth highlighting that these hypotheses were developed using rodent models based on acute human data by Paddon-Jones et al. and Tipton et al.. However these notions do have some solid grounding, with more recent human data seeming to support them. This would also seem to be where the ‘broscience’ myth of being only able to absorb 30g (or other random amount) of protein came from. If this were the case, then you wouldn’t be reading this today.

.

Frequency of meal/protein ingestion

Now that we know roughly how much protein is needed at each meal in order to optimise MPS, the question remains of how frequently you need to eat to maxmimise MPS, with the hope setting yourself up for maximal muscle gains.

Before we get into that, I want to quash the myth that eating more frequently helps someone to stay lean/lose more body fat by “stoking’ the metabolic fire” or whatever other silly reason is given. It makes no difference how many meals are consumed as long as total kcals (and macros) remain the same. Though the digestion of food requires energy (Thermic effect of food; TEF), TEF is directly proportional to the macronutrient content of a meal. For example, it would take twice the amount of energy to digest a 1000 kcal meal than if you were to eat only half of that meal. Therefore, you can see why splitting food intake into more meals will have no impact whatsoever on metabolic rate. As such, strictly speaking of fat loss, the optimal meal frequency is the one that suits an individual most in terms of hunger, routine, practicality etc.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, meal frequency gets a little more complicated when talking of muscle gain; at least in theory. It would appear that increasing the frequency of which these maxmimal stimulations of MPS occur (i.e. increased meal frequency) is beneficial for those looking to build muscle. Therefore, logic would dictate that one should eat threshold amounts of protein as frequently as possible if the aim were to maximise MPS within a given 24 hour period. Unfortunately, things aren’t that simple.

Data from rodent and human amino acid infusion studies have demonstrated that MPS lasts for approximately two hours before returning to baseline, despite elevated amino acid levels in the blood. More recently, data from Layne Norton’s lab has shown that consuming a complete meal delays and extends its effects on MPS to roughly three hours, peaking at 45-90 minutes.  It therefore appears that there is a refractory response to protein synthesis (i.e. MPS decreases despite the presence of the initiating stimulus, amino acids) and that once MPS is maximally stimulated following a protein containing meal, further stimulation will not occur by simply ingesting more protein.

An explanation for this resistance to further stimulation of MPS comes from the ‘protein stat hypothesis’, which suggests that an extracellular (outside of the muscle cell) membrane-bound sensor is influenced by relative changes in amino acid concentrations as opposed to absolute concentrations. Specifically, the change from a lower concentration of AAs to a higher one is what seems to drive MPS, meaning that this whole process needs time to “reset” before MPS can be triggered again with the next meal. It therefore seems that spacing meals and allowing blood AA levels to drop, would maximise MPS in subsequent feedings.

Based on this refractory phenomenon, in his aptly titled The Protein Book, Lyle McDonald poses two questions in the attempt to negotiate an ideal meal/protein frequency:

1. Is it possible to eat too frequently?

2. How long will a typical meal maintain the body in an anabolic state?

The first question is getting at how long it takes for the processes discussed above to “reset”, before a subsequent meal will max out MPS. The second question refers primarily to digestion rates (i.e. how long after a meal are nutrients (e.g. amino acids) being released into the blood stream?).

Looking at the first question, based on the available data, it would seem that 3-4 hours would theoretically be the minimum time that should pass between meals if you wish to maximise MPS in the second meal. With regards to the second question, there are plenty of data points to determine roughly how long it takes for proteins to be digested. It has been shown that even a modest meal (37g PRO, 75g CHO, 17g FAT) is still releasing nutrients in to the blood stream five hours later. Slowly digesting proteins such as casein (touted as the good old “pre-bed” source to stop you waking up with no muscles) may still be releasing AAs into the blood 7-8 hours, or more, after ingestion!

However, meals consumed by most people looking to gain muscle, often contain more protein and total nutrients than in the aforementioned studies. Therefore, taken together, a VERY conservative time limit of six hours passing between meals, during waking hours, would seem reasonable. Incidentally, these recommendations of eating every 3/4-6 hours are similar to those of Layne Norton, who advocates consuming threshold doses of protein containing meals 4-6 hours apart, interspersed with a BCAA/CHO solution with the aim of circumventing this refractory phenomenon associated with MPS (more on this in the next article!). So, eating every 3-6 hours while awake (assuming eight hours of sleep) would yield a meal frequency of roughly 3-6 meals per day.

Since I previously recommended an intake of between 2.5-3 g/kg of bodyweight for bodybuilders/strength athletes, using my body mass as an example (77 kg), this equates to a protein intake of between 192.5-231 g per day. Using the higher end as an example, at a fairly standard frequency of 3-6 meals, daily protein intake would equate to roughly 38.5-77g per meal on average. At the bottom end of this intake, 38.5 g of any high quality protein would adequately cover the upper-end of the 2-3 g leucine threshold for maximising the anabolic response to a given meal (see table 1). In theory, it would seem that splitting the intake over six meals rather than three would lead to better gains in muscle mass due to 6 vs. 3 stimulations in MPS per day. In reality things aren’t that straight forward. If it were, using this example, six stimulations of MPS per day SHOULD lead to double the rates of muscle growth than three.

.

This is where things get confusing

For example, 25g of a whey protein isolate (WPI) (see part 1) would provide roughly 3g of leucine (the maximum amount likely to maximally stimulate MPS in anyone). If someone were to ingest 25g of WPI every three hours (six ingestions per day), then MPS should theoretically be maxed out in a day, with an intake of only 150g of protein. If we take a 100kg rugby player, this would provide an intake of 1.5g/kg per day of protein. This is half of the upper end of what I advocate for strength/power athletes, and is also on the low side of the already conservative values cited in research. What’s going on?

Though I’ve used somewhat of an extreme example to illustrate my point, it seems that there is more to building muscle than just hitting these leucine thresholds on a meal per meal basis. In my opinion, total protein intake is the more important variable in terms of muscle mass accrual, compared with how it is split up throughout the day; at least in terms of a typical meal frequency encountered by those who have more to worry about than prepping half a dozen Tupperware boxes per day.

To quote Lyle McDonald from The Protein Book on the matter,

“Optimizing the function of other important pathways [besides MPS] of AA metabolism would very likely raise protein requirements even further.”

Indeed, as alluded to in my article on protein requirements, increased levels of AA oxidation (likely due to intakes in excess of these leucine thresholds), may be involved in the overall “anabolic drive”, meaning there are likely to be “hidden” signaling pathways that contribute to muscle anabolism that we are not yet aware of. As such, increased AA oxidation may actually provide benefit as opposed to its traditional view as being a wasteful process. Essentially, we know that more protein is better (hence my recommendations), but science hasn't figured out the whys yet.

.

Searching for the optimal meal frequency

Since most people tend to eat their total daily protein across 3-4 meals, an important question is whether splitting an existing protein intake across an additional 2-3 meals, will provide any benefit in terms of muscular hypertrophy. In the May 2012 issue of his monthly research review, Alan Aragon (I’d abbreviate to AA but then you may mistake him for an amino acid) attempted to answer this question with a combination of limited available data as well as his own observations in the field. In this article, he states:

“Given a diet with an abundance of high-quality protein from varying sources, frequency and proportional distribution of protein doses within day are not likely to make any meaningful impact unless extremes are pushed. It’s rare for anyone with the primary goal of muscle growth to eat twice a day (or less)… It’s reasonable to hypothesize that consuming a solid, mixed, protein-rich meal every 4-6 hours while dosing BCAA between meals could result in a higher rate of muscle growth than getting all of your protein in a single meal each day. However, I see quite a grey area when [Layne] Norton’s protocol is compared with 2-3 meals containing a matched total of high-quality protein (minus the BCAA or leucine threshold dosing between meals).”

Aragon then goes out on a limb and states that:

“even in the case of an IF-type [intermittent fasting] of scenario where only one or two meals per day are consumed, I would still challenge that any meaningful compromise in muscular growth is speculative in the absence of data."

Though seemingly counter-intuitive, there is actually nothing incorrect about Aragon's claims, despite the criticisms of IF from many experts; the scientific data just isn’t there (yet).

Despite some of its questionable conclusions, according to the ISSN position stand on meal frequency, a reduced meal frequency doesn’t appear to compromise lean body mass (LBM) under hypocaloric conditions in the presence of a sufficient protein intake. That is, eating 10 times per day as opposed to once or twice per day doesn’t seem to make a difference with regards to the sparing of LBM on a diet (assuming you're getting sufficient protein that is). If it were true that maximising MPS following the protocols outlined above (i.e. total protein spread evenly across six meals per day) would result in maximal rates of muscle mass accrual, then it raises the question, ‘why doesn’t reducing meal frequency appear to have a negative effect on LBM whilst dieting?’

It is my contention that as long as sufficient amounts of high quality protein are consumed, then spreading protein intake from 3-4 meals to 6 meals is a waste of time and effort for the vast majority of people. This increase in protein frequency may be of benefit to the elite physique athlete, but I’m yet to see how this could result in more than trivial amounts of muscle mass; quantities of which are unlikely to be detected in research (especially with modern-day assessments of body composition). On a related note, I’m not certain that the concern of eating too frequently is a valid one either. The majority of bodybuilding champions eat upwards of six, sometimes 10, meals per day, and they don’t seem to be held back by it. By the same token, there are many proponents of IF who have achieved excellent improvements in body composition despite a meal frequency of perhaps 1-3 protein feeding per day. With respect to my last point, there is at least some data suggesting that going below 2 protein feedings per day might hinder muscle gains.

So, with all things considered, I think that a minimum of three protein feedings per day would be ideal and easily achievable for >99.9% of people looking to optimally gain muscle mass.

.

Summary

To briefly summarise:

• 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.

4. 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.

I will get straight in to things in part three and discuss the issue of dosing BCAAs between meals as well as their use whilst dieting. If you’ve been paying attention in this article, you can already see where things are going…

don’t forget to subscribe to the blog to be informed of future posts –>

BCAAs for Bodybuilders: Just the Science (Part 1)

Introduction

Though BCAA supplementation is used by several populations with contrasting goals (e.g. bodybuilders and other aesthetic pursuits, strength athletes, the elderly or other individuals with the potential for lean body mass losses), this article will focus purely on the bodybuilder with the objectives of gaining more muscle mass, maintaining muscle mass, or maintaining muscle whilst losing fat.

.

What are BCAAs?

Branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) are named after their branching chemical structure and consist of the three essential amino acids: leucine, isoleucine and valine. BCAAs are one of the most popular supplements available on the market. Their popularity may rest in some part to the unique role of BCAAs, in particular, leucine, regarding the modulation of protein synthesis via the stimulation of the biochemical sensor, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In addition to their commercial use, BCAAs have been extensively studied in a number of roles relevant to athletic performance, including: immune function, central fatigue, sparing lean body mass, attenuating markers muscle damage and promoting muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Unknown to a lot of trainees, probably due to clever marketing, is the fact that BCAAs are found in whole proteins and are often cheaper on a gram per gram basis compared to their isolated counterparts. In addition to their BCAA content, whole foods contain all the additional amino acids and offer other benefits (some potentially anabolic) that go along with them (e.g. generally better satiety, various vitamins & minerals, and therapeutic properties) (Table 1).

.

Table 1: BCAA and leucine content of foods

Source for data.    *Products from www.myprotein.com

.

From table 1, you can see that high quality proteins such as animal flesh, eggs and supplements derived from milk, contain quite a high percentage of BCAAs. On a gram per gram basis, you get more than double the amount of BCAAs for your money if you opt for a high quality whey protein isolate than if you were to purchase isolated BCAAs. As such, why would someone not just opt for a whey protein supplement if they were looking to bump up the content of protein or BCAA in their diet? After all, it would offer the same convenience (probably more so if you account for the awful taste of BCAA powders).

Is there a benefit to BCAAs?

As stated earlier, there has been a fair bit of research examining the effects of BCAA supplementation on various aspects relating to performance and body composition. Indeed, several studies have in fact shown BCAA supplementation to positively impact body composition (i.e. improve muscle gain or fat loss), support immune function and reduce markers of muscle damage. All seems good so far? Not quite. With a closer inspection of the data, these outcomes are unsurprising, as it is clear that protein is always insufficient in the first place. So essentially, what these studies are showing is that adding BCAAs to a diet containing inadequate protein (by my standards, at least), their addition may improve the dependent variable/s that the researchers are looking at.

For example, in a study often-quoted by the companies/people looking to sell BCAA supplements, Mourier et al. (1997) examined the effects of 52 g of BCAAs on body composition during three weeks of caloric restriction in a group of competitive wrestlers. In this study, the wrestlers were given a diet consisting of 28 kcal/kg/day with 20% protein. This equated to roughly 80 g of protein per day (or 1.2g/kg) for a 68 kg wrestler. It was found that the supplement group, who ingested an additional 52g of BCAAs, spared more LBM and experienced slightly greater fat losses compared to the control.

In a study published in an Italian journal, the authors compared the effects of 0.2 g/kg of BCAAs with a non-caloric placebo taken 30 minutes before and after training, on bodybuilding progress in a group of experienced drug free bodybuilders (with at least 2 years training experience). The BCAA group showed better gains in body weight, arm and leg circumference, and squat and bench press performance. So essentially, using a 90 kg athlete as an example, this study showed that adding 36 g of BCAA around a workout is better than ingesting nothing. A 'bro' could’ve told you that!

These studies are often cited as ‘proof’ that you need massive doses of BCAAs, particularly around training. I think otherwise. Firstly, the subjects in the initial study consumed insufficient protein (1.2g/kg per day). In my previous article on protein requirements, I came to the conclusion that 2.5-3 g/kg would be more appropriate for strength/power athletes. Using a 68 kg individual as an example, this would mean a protein intake of 80 g vs. 170-204 g per day, a difference of about 18-25 g of BCAA per day from whole food sources (more so, if whey were to make up a significant proportion of the added protein intake). Though it is unknown whether the wrestlers would’ve still outperformed the control group given a sufficient protein intake in the first place, I have my doubts.

Speaking of protein insufficiency, it is no surprise that a mega dose of BCAAs around training was superior to consuming nothing around training. This study by Cribb & Hayes (2006) perfectly demonstrates the importance of the provision of nutrients around training. Given a sufficient protein intake in the first place, as well as the provision of whole foods around the training bouts, it is also unknown whether the BCAA group would have outperformed the placebo control.  Specifically, since I recommend consuming 40 g of protein within a two-hour window prior to and after training (80 g total), 80 g of protein would provide roughly 15-20g of BCAAs (depending on the source) around the training bout as well as all the other amino acids. For these reasons, I also have my doubts that additional BCAA supplementation on top of my whole protein recommendations, would prove any additional benefit.

Though there is research demonstrating the benefits of BCAA supplementation regarding the promotion of muscle protein synthesis and preventing muscle protein breakdown (MPB), whether this holds true in the presence of sufficient amino acids from whole food sources remains to be properly studied. As such, given that whole protein sources such as whey are more economical than isolated BCAAs, and that the vast majority of people looking to build muscle are already consuming (with many possibly exceeding) a protein intake that I consider adequate(2.5-3 grams per kilogram of body weight), the real question we should be asking is, whether adding BCAAs to an already high protein intake will offer any benefit. Or, an additional question is whether there is something unique about isolated BCAAs. Specifically, will isolated BCAAs offer something that adding more protein from whole foods will not (i.e. does their structure or their caloric economy offer any benefits to body composition)? In the following section and in a future post, I’ll attempt to answer these vital questions.

.

Is a high protein intake sufficient at optimising muscle gain?

To my knowledge, no published studies have examined the effects of chronic BCAA supplementation on body composition alongside a structured resistance-training program, and in addition to an already high protein intake. Luckily, there is a study that fits these criteria, and is the only one that comes close to answering the question of whether adding BCAA to a pre-existing sufficiency of protein yields any benefit. It isn’t fully published, but is available on the ISSN website in the form of a poster presentation. Stoppani et al. (2009) examined the effects of a supplement (Xtend) containing BCAAs on body composition and strength following an eight-week resistance-training program in 36 strength-trained males with a minimum of two years weight training experience. The participants were assigned to one of three groups and were to receive one of the following, during their eight week program: 14 g BCAAs (BCAA), 28 g whey protein (WHEY) or 28 g of carbohydrate from a sports drink (CHO). The BCAA group gained 4 kg of lean mass whilst the WHEY group gained 2 kg of LBM over the course of eight weeks. For completeness, the CHO group gained 1 kg of LBM in eight weeks. In addition, the BCAA group lost 2% body fat in the eight weeks whilst the WHEY and CHO groups both lost 1% body fat. To top things off, the BCAA group gained a greater amount of 10-RM strength in the bench press (6 vs. 3 kg) and squat (11 vs. 5 kg) compared with the WHEY group.

Interestingly, these results occurred despite a habitual daily protein intake of 2.2-2.4 g/kg. At closer inspection, these results do appear to be too good to be true. Indeed, a gain of 4kg of LBM in just eight weeks, with a concomitant decrease in body fat of 2%, seems a little farfetched, especially when you consider that these subjects were drug-free, experienced weight trainees. In my articles of maximum muscular potentials, I mentioned that a novice could expect to gain about 1kg per month (assuming they get everything right training and nutrition-wise). Achieving double this amount of muscle gain in experienced trainees just doesn’t seem right. When results appear this good, I look to see who funded the study. It was in fact Scivation, the makers of the Xtend product that was tested, who funded the study. While funding does not automatically invalidate study findings (they have to get the funding from somewhere!), it may bias the results somewhat. My thoughts on the matter echo those of Alan Aragon who discussed this trial in the February 2010 issue of his monthly research review:

“The skeptic in me is tempted to chalk up some of the results to not just funding source (Scivation), but also the longstanding friendship [my link] between Jim Stoppani and the Scivation staff. The fact is, there’s no way to quantify the degree of commercial bias inherent in this trial – or any other for that matter.”

With all things considered in this trial, I find it highly unlikely that the provision of an extra 7 g of BCAA per day in the BCAA group would have outperformed the WHEY group to such an extent. As such, I would like to see similar trials conducted before recommending the addition of BCAA on top of an already sufficient protein intake.

.

Conclusion (for now)

To summarise so far, we have learned what BCAAs are, their unique role in protein synthesis, as well as what foods they are contained in and in what percentages (table 1). At first glance, the extravagant marketing claims and suggested protocols of usage seem to be backed by scientific research. However, as we dig a little deeper, it seems unlikely that these benefits would exist in the presence of a sufficient protein intake. Though additional BCAAs might be beneficial to bodybuilding goals (i.e. more muscle and less fat), the research has yet to show these effects. If such effects do exist, they are likely to be miniscule. Because of this, they would only be something worth considering for the elite physique athletes who are looking for that extra 1-2% to gain an advantage over their competitors. For the majority of people just looking to improve their body composition, I see them as an unnecessary expense; focusing more on what delivers (i.e. progressive strength gains in the main compound lifts in addition to a well-structured nutrition protocol) will allow them to reach their desired goals (and more). In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, from my experiences both personally, as well as client feedback, adding BCAAs to a diet of adequate protein consumed appropriately around training, has failed to produce any noticeable benefits, despite the potential for placebo effects.

To give this topic appropriate justice, I will be splitting it into two or more parts. In subsequent posts, I will examine the research behind between-meal dosing of BCAAs (popularised by Dr. Layne Norton) and the rationale for their use whilst dieting. I will end the topic of BCAA supplementation by tying things up with an overall summary and offer my practical recommendations.

Click here for part 2.

If you enjoy my writings, please follow me on twitter (@JosephAgu) and don’t forget to subscribe to the blog to be informed of future posts -->

Where are Poliquin’s principles?

.

Introduction

As the title suggests, this is another article about world-renowned strength coach, Charles Poliquin. Poliquin's ideas have received a lot of resistance over the past 12 months. Not only have these criticisms come from internet message boards and other things that I consider “bro”, but from many respectable people within the fitness industry, such as Alan Aragon and Bret Contreras. Are these negative claims towards Poliquin warranted, you ask? As the saying goes, “there is no smoke without fire”, and indeed, Poliquin has made countless ridiculous claims in his career. I am not talking about minor quibbles regarding the interpretation of the available literature, which I expect of any human being. Rather, many are unsubstantiated and dishonest claims, with the apparent aim of promoting his supplement line and other interests. To give you a taste of some of his outlandish claims, I critiqued the ever-popular ‘BioSignature Modulation’ in some detail a while back.

Getting back to the current post, it was Bret Contreras who inspired the topic of this article. In May of last year, Contreras wrote an article entitled ‘Grill the Guru I: Charles Poliquin’ for reasons contained in that post. Towards the end of that article, I witnessed quite possibly the most ridiculous claim I’ve ever seen from a fitness industry “expert”. Poliquin stated that he gained 14.5 lbs. of solid muscle whilst simultaneously losing 3.5 lbs. of fat, in only five days! Perhaps the most absurd part of this claim is that he supposedly achieved it by a change in food quality, specifically, eating foods from the Dominican Republic rather than his native US. In the following sections, I’ll show you why these claims are impossible. I’ll quote parts of the original article written by Poliquin and interject with my own thoughts, countering these claims from several angles.

“I realize how anabolic food is every time I go teach in the Dominican Republic [DR]. Last time I taught a Biosignature Modulation course in the DR, the students took my body fat Monday morning. I was at 8% and weighed 198 pounds… Anyway, five days later, after eating only Dominican Republic foods, I weighed 209 [pounds] at 6% body fat. My business partner came to finish the seminar, took one look at me and said, "What happened to you?!" 

Before I get in to the specifics, the five-day timeframe might actually be an error on Poliquins part. He stated that he had his measurements taken at the beginning of the week (Monday morning). It’s unlikely that the course would’ve run till Saturday. Instead, it is more likely that it would’ve been a Monday-Friday thing. Thus, making it four days (Monday-Friday) instead of five (Monday-Saturday). Since I’m nice, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and go along with five days to give him an extra 24 hours to have achieved this feat within. As such, Poliquin supposedly gained an average of 2.8 lbs. (1.3 kg) of muscle per day, whilst simultaneously losing 0.7 lbs. (0.32kg) of fat per day.

.

Is it even possible?

Looking back at my previous article on maximum natural muscular potentials, I provided a table, adapted from bodyrecomposition.com, showing that the potential rate of muscle gain for an absolute beginner is roughly 2.2lbs. (1 kg) per month. These figures assume a well-structured weight-training program, excellent nutrition, average genetics and no drugs. With all other factors being equal, it is possible to slightly exceed this rate of muscle growth providing you have exceptional genetics. Additionally, one could also exceed this rate of muscle growth following a period of detraining (the wonderful phenomenon of muscle memory!), as all you’re doing is regaining what you initially lost. Finally, if you add a cocktail of drugs into the mix, you could potentially double this rate of muscle gain (at least in the short term anyway).

To be fair to Poliquin, he very well may have spikes in muscle gain that may exceed the rate of "newbie gains" within given timeframes, as he admittedly loses muscle mass from time to time on his travels (see quote below). As such, following a period of muscle loss followed by normal training/eating, he can expect to regain the lost muscle rather quickly.

“But when I work in the UK or Ireland, I lose muscle mass and put fat on almost inevitably, even though I try to eat as cleanly as possible. The quality of the food is just piss poor.”

Claiming that you can lose any significant amount of muscle and gain fat (if at all) within the space of a few days due to minor changes in nutrient density is also ridiculous. However puzzlingly, in this video, Poliquin states quite clearly that he goes to great lengths to maintain his diet on his travels, specifically, his meat and nut breakfast which he states “will dictate all your neurotransmitters for the day” due to the maximisation of levels of dopamine and acetyl choline. Though these statements aren't supported by science, if this is what he eats year round, I highly doubt he'll lose muscle just by eating it in a different restaurant.

So, if CP could gain that much muscle in such as short space of time, what would it theoretically take to achieve such as feat? In order to gain 2.8 lbs. (1.3 kg) of pure muscle tissue per day, for five days it would require lots of protein. For the sake of argument, let’s just ignore human protein metabolism for a minute and pretend that protein is digested with 100% efficiency whilst being exclusively used by and incorporated in the muscle with 100% efficiency (and that the energy required for these process and total energy expenditure were already taken care of). Even then, it would require the consumption of at least 1300g (14g/kg.BW) of protein (5200kcal) per day. This would be the equivalent of about 52 chicken breasts, 217 eggs or 26 protein shakes (assuming 2 scoops per shake and 25g of protein per scoop).

Even if it were possible to store this much protein on a daily basis, it would require much more than 1300g per day. The exact amount is unknown since it has never been tested. However, based on the estimated rates of muscle gain in natural trainees (assuming a protein intake of the often quoted 1 g/lb. of body weight and a body weight of 75 kg), depending on the experience of the weight trainee, it was calculated that between 1.25-33g of protein were incorporated into muscle tissue per day. This equates to 0.76-20.2% of the total daily protein intake. If we extrapolate these figures to the claims of CP, he would require between 6435-170,300g of protein per day (25,740- 681,200 kcal). I’ll give CP the benefit of the doubt one more time and assume that he could gain muscle at twice the rate of a newbie. To achieve an average daily increase in muscle mass of 2.8 lbs. (1.3 kg), it would still require a daily protein intake of 3217 g (12,870 kcal); an intake that would be impossible using whole food sources. Ultimately, whatever the theoretical number to gain this much muscle may be, it would be physiologically impossible to digest, and more importantly, synthesise this much protein in a single day.

Even if you starved Phil Heath until he was 150 lbs, made him live in the gym, injected him with as many drugs as you could find, and force fed him to the point that his stomach would almost rupture, he couldn’t gain that much muscle in such a short space of time. It’s impossible!

.

Hold on a minute!

Poliquin made no mention of increases in protein intake; he was talking solely about food quality.

“Now, there's no such thing as grain-fed in the DR; they can't afford it, so cows eat grass. And if you eat a mango over there you have to eat it over a sink because it's so juicy. The eggs too are far more anabolic. They're orange and full of omega-3s, like all eggs naturally were thousands of years ago… A DR avocado tastes like butter it's so rich in nutrients. Eating avocados over here is like eating fiberglass once you've had a DR avocado. It's like having sex with Pamela Anderson then having to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell.”

Thankfully, I’ve never had sex with either Pamela Anderson or Rosie O’Donnell, so I can't comment further on this statement. I strongly doubt that Poliquin has either, making his comment a moot one.

If we assume that the quality of foods is generally better in the Dominican Republic than here in the UK, what CP is saying is that by eating a few grams more omega-3 fatty acids per day, you can put on a kilogram of muscle per day, whilst losing body fat. Whilst omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may have “anabolic” properties, these effects would be miniscule, and you certainly wouldn’t notice any differences in a matter of a few days. Besides, since you would have to consume roughly 115g of grass fed beef to get a gram of omega-3 compared to 400g of conventional beef, it seems like a very inefficient way of boosting omega-3 intake. Surely Poliquin knows this since he recommends mega dosing fish oils in the order of 30 g or more per day. As for the eggs, each omega-3 enriched egg contains roughly 0.3-0.6g of omega-3s, compared to around 0.1g per regular egg. This is also an inefficient means to increase total omega-3 intake; a supplement or the regular consumption of fatty fish would be a better option. To top things off, in the same video, Poliquin states that he "rarely eats eggs" anyway.

It gets even sillier

While CP supposedly finds the time to eat all of this food to gain 14.5 lbs. of muscle tissue, how on earth does he possibly oxidise a net value of roughly 0.7 lbs. of fat per day (roughly 2520kcal worth)? While it is possible to just about shift this amount of fat within the specified time frame, it would require an extraordinary effort, and would also inevitably result in muscle loss. Unless he could partition calories with a god-like effect, he wouldn’t be able to gain an ounce of muscle while maintaining such an energy deficit.

 .

Concluding remarks

You might be wondering why CP makes such extravagant claims? I'll let you decide after his next point in response to the initial question.

The original question: “Is there a supplement-related trick to retaining muscle while on a strict fat loss program?”

“Back to your question. One of the most important supplements to take when on a calorie restricted diet is BCAAs. You need about 50 grams a day. Take it between meals.”

This article is already getting lengthy so the short answer to his response is that you don’t need 50 g per day. In fact, if you were to take 50g of BCAAs, using Poliquin’s product, it would set you back around $66 (£39) per week (excluding shipping). That’s over $3432 (£2143) per year, on top of all your food and other supplements.

Even after cutting CP an incredible amount of slack and when viewed in the most optimistic light, his claims of gaining 14.5 lbs. of muscle whilst simultaneously losing 3.5 lbs. of fat, in as little as five days, are impossible. These assertions are even more ridiculous when you consider that he apparently achieved all this by some minor changes in food quality. These claims also beg the question "if living in the Dominican Republic were so anabolic, surely they would dominate the majority of strength/power sports as well as bodybuilding". However, they don't.

Hopefully this article has done its job, and shown you that even the most decorated and respected “fitness gurus” can be full of hot air. While this article might not seem to offer anything constructive, when it comes to nutrition, knowing not what to do is often more important than knowing what to do, or who to listen to. Given that the vast majority of people interested in improving their body composition or performance don't have a background in exercise physiology or nutrition, they often don't have the tools to make the right decisions and therefore have to put a certain degree of faith in who they listen to. Unfortunately, a lot of these individuals succumb to glamorous marketing, leaving them spinning their wheels when they don't get the results they expected. So while this article will, at best, provide a little humour to the honest professionals who share my frustrations, it will hopefully allow the people who don't know any better, to make more informed decisions and give them realistic expectations of what they can achieve. I encourage these people to question everyone and everything they hear (including me), especially if there's something to be sold. Would you expect a car salesman to tell you that you could save money and go with a cheaper, better model from a different dealership? No, so why expect any different from someone wanting to sell you supplements.

Anyway, that’s enough ranting for one day; I’m off to book my flight to the Dominican Republic because I’m losing muscle mass by the millisecond living here in the UK.

Happy New Year!

How to miminise fat gain during the Xmas period

Due to the large quantities of not so good food within reaching distance over the Xmas and new year period, as well as the volume of parties and other social events, this part of the calendar is a difficult time to maintain bodyweight. As such, the purpose of this article is to suggest some tips to avoid sabotaging your diet over the festive period.

During this time, most people usually fall into one of two categories. The first type of person (the obsessive type) carries on the way they did the other 300+ days of the year and doesn’t gain an ounce of fat. They felt miserable and deprived over Xmas, but at least they still have their six-pack! The other type of person, completely caves into temptation and eats everything in sight, and more. They end up gaining a significant amount of body fat in as little as a couple of weeks, which can often take a few months to shift with anything but extreme dieting. This type of person has a great time over Xmas but pays the price come new year. These type of people are also seemingly responsible for the sudden January ‘spike’ in gym memberships.

For those of you who want to have your cake and eat it (no pun intended), this short article will hopefully give you some tips that will allow you to have a certain degree of flexibility within your diet and enjoy the festivities, without the unwanted fat gain. Nothing in this article is new, in fact, many of these ideas have been discussed in detail elsewhere; I can remember Lyle McDonald even writing a similar article a few years ago on this very topic. You won't find things like “keep your eye on the prize”, choose to lose” or “Just say NO” here. What I’m attempting to achieve is to combine some science and a little common sense, to allow people to eat more of what everyone else is having without worrying too much about the consequences. Contrary to several claims in recent years, ingesting more energy that is expended over a protracted period is basically what fat gain boils down to. Therefore, the following strategies all work by minimising the chances of overeating.

1. Eat lean protein and vegetables prior to (or at) the event before tucking into more calorific food. Given the satiating power of lean proteins such as chicken, turkey and some fish (e.g. cod and tuna), consuming some protein will curb hunger somewhat before you move on to more calorific mains and desserts, leaving you less likely to overeat. Adding some veg to this protein snack/meal will add to the satiating effects of protein.

2. Try intermittent fasting. Though there are many approaches to intermittent fasting, arguably the most popular interpretation is that of Martin Berkhan from LeanGains. His approach involves fasting for 14-16 hours everyday, leaving the person with an 8-10 hour window to consume all their food for the day (typically to the tune of 2-3 larger meals). Assuming the party will be in the evening, an individual would fast (or only consume lean protein and veg) during the day then consume all of (or the majority of) their calories that evening. If they will be eating the bulk of the food during the day there is no reason not to fast (or just consume protein) for the rest of the day, or even the following day. Using this protocol, unless the person eats everything in sight, it is unlikely that they will consume much more than their maintenance caloric needs, if at all.

3. Employ a degree of ‘damage control’. Lyle McDonald used this term in relation to dieting in his book A Guide to Flexible Dieting. It ties into the previous point about not eating everything in sight, or until you feel like you’re going to burst. Oftentimes, when people eat something they think they shouldn’t, they gorge on whatever they were eating until they consumed the whole thing. They see themselves as a failure for breaking their diet and somehow rationalise to themselves that “If I ate one piece of cake, I might as well have three”. If you go to a party or meal, eat what you want, but stop eating when you’re satisfied. There is no point going eating beyond hunger just for the sake of it, you’ll probably just regret it in the long run. Basically, eat what you fancy, enjoy it, don’t feel guilty, and don’t be a pig about it.

4. Eat out. This ties in with the last point about damage control. If you’re at a friend’s party it is much easier to eat several pieces of cake or whatever else takes your fancy. However, if you’re at a restaurant, you can only imagine the awkwardness of ordering three desserts.

5. Go deplete some glycogen. In addition to increasing fat oxidation, depleting glycogen prior to an event or meal will increase the likelihood that the carbs you consume will be stored as glycogen instead of being used for energy or possibly being stored as fat; it’s almost like you are getting those calories for free. To deplete glycogen, you’ll need to increase your training volume leading up to the event. This can be achieved by performing more reps (8-12 per set) and more sets (4-8 depending on how many body parts you’re training). Something akin to German volume training should do the trick. Otherwise you can simply get more running or cycling miles in at a decent enough intensity (two or three extra hard 60 minute efforts should almost empty muscle glycogen stores, assuming you aren’t compensating with food intake).

6. Go for the low calorie option. Again, this ties into point 3 about limiting the amount of damage. Go for low fat versions of cakes and other desserts. For alcohol, opt for spirits with a diet mixer to get as drunk as you desire while consuming the minimal amount of calories. If these options aren’t feasible you could always host your own party.

In conclusion, these are some simple strategies that anyone can employ to ultimately prevent overeating over Xmas, or in similar situations at other times of the year. Though each point will work alone, they can be combined to increase their effectiveness. For example, performing depletion work, while intermittent fasting, followed by eating out will almost guarantee that you won’t overeat. In fact, chances are that you’ll lose body fat with this approach. There are other things you can do, but for the most part, I feel that these are the most effective without being too restrictive. As a final pointer, it would be best to steer clear of the bathroom scales since bodyweight tends to fluctuate independent of actual fat mass due to variations in sodium and carbohydrate intakes. This water retention may lead you to believe that you’ve gained 3kg of fat in a couple of days, however, such a feat would require a daily energy surplus in excess of 11,000 kcal!  By following some of these principles, the worst/least common case scenario is that you gain a pound or two of fat, which is far better than ten. This isn't a bad price to pay for an enjoyable Xmas, and you can be back to your pre-Xmas body composition by mid-January.

How to create a diet: part 2

Continued from part I

2. Setting protein intake

With the more complicated stuff out of the way, the next step of filling the calories with the macronutrients is really simple.

I discussed the issue of protein requirements here so I won’t go into any great detail in this article. The RDA for protein is set at 0.8 grams per kilogram of bodyweight (g/kgBW), while research typically recommends intakes of 1.2-2.2 g/kgBW for athletic populations (i.e. from endurance to strength athletes). As I mentioned in the protein requirements article, I tend to err on the side of too much than too little protein and typically recommend intakes between 1.7-3 g/kg.BW for most individuals. Such intakes are realistically achievable by most and wouldn’t seem to impede on carbohydrate requirements of athletes for a given energy budget.

3. Setting fat intake

Unlike protein there isn’t really an evidenced-based dosing range to cite when talking about fat intake. As long as essential fatty acid intake is met, which is virtually impossible not to with a typical diet, fat intake technically doesn’t have to be any higher. Having said that, calories have to come from somewhere. Furthermore, in order for a diet not to be bland, in addition to there being enough fat to optimise the absorption of fat soluble vitamins, I like to use intakes of 1-1.5 g/kg as a starting point, which suit both non-athletes and athletes (due to the contribution of intramuscular triglycerides [IMTG] as a fuel source during exercise) alike.

4. Setting carbohydrate intake

Now that we’ve set total kcal, protein and fat, carbohydrates simply fill the remaining calorie allotment. Using myself again as an example, I’ll run through steps 1-4 based on my stats and training/activity.

• REE/BMR = 24.2 x 78 kg = 1888 kcal. Since the “moderately active” activity factor most accurately represents my current activity I’ll multiply my REE/BMR by 1.55 (1888 x 1.55) giving a TEE of 2925 kcal per day.
• Since my athletic goals include maximising muscle hypertrophy and strength, I’ll set protein intake at the upper end (3g/kg of BW) of my recommendations. This equates to a daily protein intake of (78 x 3) 234g. As each gram of protein contains roughly 4 kcal, daily protein intake equates to 936 kcal.
• As I don’t deplete a great deal of IMTG through training, I’ll set fat intake at the lower end of my recommendation (1g/kg). This equates to a daily fat intake of (78 x 1) 78 g. As each gram of fat contains roughly 9 kcal, daily fat intake equates to 702 kcal.
• To calculate carbohydrate intake in grams, all we need to do is subtract the sum of protein and fat kcal from total kcal, then divide by 4 (the amount of kcal per gram of carbohydrate).

1. Protein = 234 x 4 kcal/g = 936 kcal
2. Fat = 78 x 9 kcal/g = 702 kcal
3. TEE (2925 kcal) – 1638 (936 + 702) = 1287 kcal from carbohydrate.
4. 1287 / 4 (number of kcal per gram of carbohydrate) = 321 g

Totals:

Energy: 2925 kcal

Protein: 236 g (32%)

Fat: 78 g (24%)

Carbs: 321 g (44%)

This whole process is pretty straightforward and should take a few minutes at most since all you need to know is your current body weight and training volume/frequency.

From the totals, you will also notice I listed the percentage of total energy that each macronutrient makes up. While knowing this percentage breakdown isn’t all that useful for most purposes, it gives you an idea of how your diet compares to ones that are set up as percentages. In reality, these percentages are not too dissimilar from the Zone Diet. However this won’t be the case for everyone as made in the earlier example.

As a final point on this matter, diet percentages are secondary to meeting a person’s individual macronutrient requirements. In other words, once you’ve worked out how much protein and fat you require, allow carbs fill the remaining calorie budget and let the percentages be what they are. Attempting to do things the other way round is confusing and doesn’t address individual needs.

From the current example, my real-world experience tells me that my maintenance energy need has been overestimated by roughly 200-300 kcal. In this case, I’d leave protein and fat intake the same and decrease the suggested carbohydrate intake from 321 g to roughly 246-271 g per day.

From there, you would split the macronutrients up over a realistic number of meals (3-5) over the course of the day and aim to meet these individual macronutrient goals. It is worth remembering that the total macronutrients consumed is far more important (at least in terms of body composition) than the macronutrient subtype (i.e. type of protein, type of fat, glycaemic index etc.), meal frequency, or any specific timing of the ingested nutrients etc. (with the possible exception of outlandish extremes that are very rarely encountered in the real-world).

Is this for everyone?

As with everything in relation to nutrition, the answer is almost always, “it depends”. These values aren’t set in stone I just use them as a good staring point. I don’t mind going lower than the bottom end of my protein recommendations (e.g. for people who already have achieved their desired amount of lean body mass and are eating at maintenance). However, rarely do I suggest much more than 3 g/kg, even when dieting (a possible exception being drug-fuelled bodybuilders). After accounting for protein, I typically let fat intake determine carbohydrate intake (as it makes up the remaining calories). However, for type II diabetics or insulin resistant individuals, or just people who don’t tolerate carbs very well in general, I like to opt for a lower carbohydrate intake. Because of this, fat intake has to increase in order to make up the calories.

For people who don’t really engage in a great deal of high-intensity exercise, fat intake can also be set a bit higher than recommended above (if preferred), with a relatively lower carbohydrate intake. Contrary to what the insulin-phobic “gurus” would like to convince you, calories do count, and after adequate protein is set, skewing fat or carbohydrate either way will have little overall impact on body composition in healthy individuals as long as total calories remain the same. Anyone who says that you can eat as much as you want as long as you avoid carbs has either completely ignored the available evidence on the matter or/and is trying to sell something.

What about fat loss or muscle gain?

While these recommendations are fine for people who wish to remain weight stable, most people want to lose weight (fat), and some, gain weight (usually muscle). In the case of losing body fat (speaking exclusively about manipulating diet), I like to increase protein slightly (relative to maintenance levels; see my previous article on protein requirements for details on this) and then create an energy deficit as a percentage of maintenance requirements (by roughly 10-20% as a starting point). The reason being that an often quoted 500 kcal deficit would be quite significant for a small female with a maintenance caloric requirement of 1800 kcal (28%), and less so for a large male with a maintenance requirement of 3500 kcal (14%). Calories would be cut from either fat, carbs or both and would depend on several factors (e.g. level of hunger, type of training, food preference etc.). It should also be mentioned that individuals might wish to eat the same and just increase activity, or use a combination of both dieting and increased exercise to bring about fat loss.

In terms of gaining muscle mass, I’d go with the exact opposite (i.e. increase carbs and/or fat) except for keeping protein the same as maintenance levels. Though these recommendations aren't a bad starting point, I should point out that I am grossly oversimplifying matters, and to go in any great detail would take many more articles.

Final point

Though total macronutrient intake would seem to have the greatest overall impact compared with any single dietary modification, other variables such as: nutrient timing, meal frequency, macronutrient subtype, nutrient density (vitamin and mineral content per calorie), non-nutritive dietary components and supplementation, would have a measureable impact on body composition, sporting performance and health. That is assuming the ability of an individual to successfully implement a desired macronutrient intake on a daily basis in the first place.

Summary & application

Hopefully these two articles have shed some light on how to properly construct the backbone of a diet (i.e. the macronutrient content) in a simple and individualised manner. Estimating total maintenance macronutrient intake is briefly summarised below and requires knowledge of only current body weight and training load:

1. Multiply bodyweight (in kg) by 24.2 (males) or 22 (females) to determine resting energy expenditure.
2. Multiply this value by an appropriate activity factor.
3. Set protein intake between 1.7-3 g kg of bodyweight.
4. Set fat intake between 1-1.5 g kg of bodyweight.
5. Let carbohydrate fill the remaining calorie budget.

This totals would then be roughly divided among a realistic number of meals and modified in accordance with real world observations (i.e. changes in body composition) or body composition goals (e.g. fat loss or muscle gain).