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

Copyright © April 1st, 2008 by Alan Aragon Home: www.alanaragon.com/researchreview Correspondence: aarrsupport@gmail.com

2 Strength training vs. endurance training: macro-

effects on body composition. By Alan Aragon

6 Weight-loss diet that includes consumption of

medium-chain triacylglycerol oil leads to a greater rate of weight and fat mass loss than does olive oil. St. Onge MP, Borsarge A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):621-6. [Medline]

7 Perceptions of antiobesity medications among

personal trainers. Lobb LR, et al. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):485-9. [JSCR]

8 Carbohydrate-supplement form and exercise

performance. Campbell C, et al. IJSNEM. 2008 Apr;18(2):179-90. [IJSNEM]

9 A whey-protein supplement increases fat loss and spares lean muscle in obese subjects: a randomized human clinical study.

Frestedt JL, et al. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2008 Mar 27;5(1):8 [Medline]

10 The effects of 10 weeks of resistance training

combined with beta-alanine supplementation on whole body strength, force production, muscular endurance and body composition. Kendrick IP, et al. Amino Acids. 2008 Jan 4; [Epub ahead of print] [Medline]

11 Combining fish-oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise improves body composition and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Hill AM, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 May;85(5):1267-74. [Medline]

12 My philosophy on career success.

By Alan Aragon

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 2 

Strength Training vs. Endurance Training: Macro-Effects on Body Composition By Alan Aragon Introduction Contrary to what the title might imply, I don’t intend to paint strength and endurance training into an either-or proposition. Different goals will dictate the proportion of each type within a program. For those anticipating (or dreading) it, this won’t be a lecture on the bioenergetics of muscle fiber types. The focus of this review will be on the macro-aspects of body composition – lean and fat mass in particular. I’ll tackle the following question: Given that strength training is obviously superior for gaining/retaining lean mass, is strength or endurance training more effective than the other for fat loss? Let’s take a look at the research. But first, let’s get our definitions straight. Slippery Definitions When you look at broad definitions, the two terms are actually integral. Endurance is the ability to maintain strength for extended periods, which requires a reduction in power output per unit of time. Common activities associated with endurance include running, cycling, and swimming. Obviously, those activities can be done at various intensities relative to the anaerobic threshold, near which the “endurance” label can change. Increased endurance equates to an increased maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), and thus ability to sustain these low-resistance activities at intensity levels that suit the given sport. On the other end of the spectrum, strength is the ability to perform short bouts of high-resistance activity at near-maximal or maximal intensities. Common activities associated with strength training are powerlifting, Olympic weight lifting, and throwing sports. For the purpose of this article, we’ll type-cast strength training as any activity involving weight training with external loads (ie, barbells, dumbbells, and machines). Sports such as bodybuilding, football, rugby, and sprinting require a mix of strength and endurance. Physiologists have referred to the spectrum encompassing all the degrees of each type of activity as the strength-endurance continuum (SEC).1 Conceptualizing the body’s energy systems is yet another way to look at the SEC. Pure strength/power work will correspond primarily with the ATP-CP system, while lower-intensity endurance work will correspond primarily with the oxidative energy system. Most team sports and activities related to general fitness will fall somewhere in between, using the glycolytic system in varying proportions along the continuum. To add another necessary wrinkle in the definitions, endurance training is often mentioned interchangably with aerobic training, while strength training is interchanged with resistance training. I have to hammer these points because, for the sake of nit-picky accuracy, everything is resistance training, as long as there’s gravity. Even training in water involves resistance. Conversely, not all endurance work is aerobic, some of it is anaerobic on an intermittent basis, yet the term “aerobics” tends to get automatically applied to the realm of anything doesn’t involve barbells or dumbbells.

Weights vs. Cardio Hypertrophy occurs mainly in the fast-twitch muscle fibers, which are stimulated by strength training to a much higher degree than endurance training.2 That’s sort of a “well duh” statement, but other interesting and perhaps less-known adaptations of strength training are its metabolic effects on muscle during endurance work that occur independently of muscle fiber hypertrophy. Illustrating this, Gorham et al conducted a 12-week study on untrained subjects involving a 3-day/week strength program consisting of 3 quadriceps exercises, 6-8 repetitions maximal (RM) per set.3 The subjects were then put through a series of endurance tests, and several parameters were measured. Decreased lactate accumulation, decreased glycogen depletion, and a protective effect (less decrease) in ATP and PCr content were seen before hypertrophy was detected at the 7th week of the trial. Strength training has a lean mass-preserving effect under hypocaloric conditions, but endurance training (at least in the classic sense) does not. I mention the “classic” disclaimer because of the relatively recent popularity of circuit training, which is the completion of different resistance exercises in continuous succession with minimal rest, in essence hybridizing strength and endurance training (more on that coming up). The following trials look specifically at comparisons of traditional endurance-type/aerobic exercise and weight training. In a memorable example of the lean mass-sparing effect of strength training, Brynner et al used obese female subjects and compared 12 weeks of resistance versus aerobic training on lean mass and resting metabolic rate (RMR).4 Despite an 800 kcal liquid diet containing 80 g protein, 98 g carbohydrate, and 10 g fat, the resistance-trained group had no significant LBM losses while the other group lost 4 kg lean mass. Interestingly, the resistance-trained group also lost significantly more bodyfat (~2 kg). To top everything off, the aerobic group experienced a 13.4% drop in RMR, while the resistance group’s RMR increased by 4%. The resistance group also had greater endurance capacity in the time-to-fatigue test. This study supports the idea that untrained obese subjects dieting severely will get across-the-board better benefits from strength training instead of aerobic training. The greater fat loss in the resistance trained group is intriguing indeed, since calories and nutrients were tightly controlled in this trial. In a similar study by Geliebter et al using a 1286 kcal liquid diet, both groups had a decrease in RMR, and no significant differences in fat reduction or total bodyweight were seen.5 But as expected, better retention of lean mass occurred in the strength-trained group. In the most recent ‘weights vs. cardio’ study to date, Sarsan et al found no significant difference in waist circumference or waist/hip ratio at the end of 12 weeks.6 The aerobic group had an increased VO2max as well as improved indicators of mood, while the resistance group gained greater maximal strength in the hip abductors. Body composition was not measured, since the objective was to compare different exercise modalities without any dietary restriction or intervention. Unfortunately, there was zero control or accounting of dietary habits throughout the trial, so this limits the applicability of the results.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 3 

Cardio Alone vs. Cardio + Weights This is an interesting area of research with a couple of studies showing contrasting results. In perhaps the first study of its kind, Kraemer et al compared the 12-week effects of diet only, diet + endurance training, and diet + a mix of endurance and strength training.7 Surprisingly, no significant differences between groups were seen in fat mass or lean mass. Correspondingly, no differences were seen in RMR across the groups. However, the diet plus strength & endurance group had a lower respiratory exchange ratio (RER) at the 12th week. Lowered RER is an indicator of a higher rate of fat oxidation. Roughly two years later, Kraemer et al conducted an identically designed study with male subjects, and the results made a little more sense.8 The diet-only group lost 2.96 kg lean mass, a statistically significant reduction. While the lean mass losses in the two other groups didn’t reach statistical significance, they were still notably different. The diet + endurance group lost 2.0 kg, while the diet + endurance + strength training group lost only 0.33 kg. As for fat mass, the diet-only group lost 6.68 kg, diet + endurance lost 7 kg, and diet + endurance + strength topped the field once again by losing 9.97 kg. Why the lack of consistency of results with the women’s trial? Gender differences are a possibility, but as was the case in research with similar results,9 the likely culprits are a lack of dietary control and a lack of optimal diet composition. In both trials, protein intake was 0.6g/kg; this is even less than the already low RDA of 0.8g/kg. Also, the authors state explicitly in both studies: “It was not the goal of the study to strictly control what subjects consumed outside of their scheduled Matola products.” In addition, dietary intake was self-reported. This is often a necessary logistical sacrifice, but it’s a distinct limitation nonetheless. Another critical difference between these two trials was the use of the laboratory’s team of certified personal trainers for administrating the exercise programs of the men. Direct supervision of resistance training has been shown to increase strength performance.10,11 I would have loved to see both of the above trials include a diet + strength training group. Low-Volume Circuit Training vs. High-Volume Periodization As promised, it’s time to look at the scant data on how circuit training has compared to more traditional strength training, courtesy of Marx et al.12 Untrained, healthy, normal-weight women were used in this 6-month trial. The 3 days/week circuit training protocol consisted of a 10 different exercises covering the full body. For each, a single set of 8-12 repetitions to momentary muscular failure was done with 1-2 minutes of rest between each set. Take note that the more stereotypical/popular type of circuit training involves minimal rest between sets, but apparently the authors of this study were more interested in comparing different training volumes rather than different densities of caloric expenditure or cardiovascular work. The 4 days/week periodized protocol consisted of 7-12 exercises covering the full body, 2-4 sets per exercise, repetition ranges varied from 3-5, 8-10, and 12-15. Rest between sets was 1-2 minutes on light and moderate days, and 3-4 minutes on heavy days. The periodized group ended up doing about triple the volume of work done by the circuit training group.

Despite the markedly higher volume in the periodized group (roughly 90 versus 30 sets per week in the circuit group), no significant differences in net weight loss. All groups dropped in the neighborhood of 9-10 kg by the end of the trial. However, the periodized group gained 3.1 kg lean mass compared to the 1 kg lean mass gained by the circuit group, and dropped bodyfat by 6.7%, while the circuit group’s body fat decreased 2.5%. As expected, by the 6th month the periodized group beat the circuit group in every strength/performance parameter tested, including local muscular endurance. That looks like a slaughter, if you ask me. Too bad this trial wasn’t associated with a product; some serious commercial leveraging could have been done. My biggest beef with this study from a design & reporting standpoint was the lack of dietary control. In fact, I couldn’t find the word “diet” anywhere in the text [note for the electronically-challenged: typing the letter F while holding down the Ctrl button at the bottom left of your keyboard will allow you to find whatever word you want in a document]. Diet variation in terms of macronutrients and total calories could have crucially impacted body composition outcomes. A spontaneous increase in total calories in the higher volume group could have explained the greater strength and lean mass gains, but it wouldn’t necessarily explain the greater fat loss, which was triple that of the circuit trainees. This trial provides a strong case for untrained females to increase periodized exercise volume beyond that used in the circuit training treatment. Research Summary • Defining strength versus endurance training is not as simple

as saying “weights versus cardio”. There’s what’s known as the strength-endurance continuum which encompasses both extremes and all points in between.

• Hypertrophy occurs mainly in the fast-twitch muscle fibers, which are stimulated by strength training to a much higher degree than endurance training.

• Strength training has a lean mass-preserving effect under hypocaloric conditions, but endurance training – at least in the classic sense – does not.

• With little exception, there has been a lack of adequate dietary control in the research thus far comparing strength and endurance training effects on body composition.

• Thus far, no strong case can be built for the idea that endurance training is superior for improving fat loss (and obviously muscle gain) than strength training.

• Comparing diet + endurance training with diet + endurance + strength training has yielded mixed results regarding body composition, with a possible gender advantage for males. Nevertheless, I would put my money on the combination treatment being superior, regardless of sex.

• The existing evidence hints toward the superiority of a combination of the types for the purpose of fat loss – at least under minimally controlled dietary conditions.

• Note that the above point is made given that the trainee’s endurance and strength training are distinctly different. Often the lines are blurred between the types of training depending on the length of mid-bout rest periods, as well as the predominant energy system(s) used.

• Higher volumes of periodized resistance training appear to cause more dramatic improvements in both performance and body composition compared to low-volume circuit training. The significance is that the latter is what people tend to gravitate towards, not realizing the former is a lot closer to the programs of their physique idols.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 4 

REFERENCES 1. Nader GA. Concurrent strength and endurance training: from

molecules to man. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Nov;38(11):1965-70. [Medline]

2. Staron RS, et al. Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in heavy resistance-trained women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;60(1):71-9. [Medline]

CONCLUSION & APPLICATION • Everything is goal-dependent. If your primary goal is to

perform better at an endurance sport, then you should do both strength and endurance training, with the most time and effort spent on the latter. Numerous studies have shown the cross-over performance benefit of incorporating progressive resistance training into an endurance-focused regimen in a variety of sports.13-17

• If your goal is a combination of endurance and fat loss, the above objectives apply here.

• If your primary goal is gain anywhere near the proximity of maximal or explosive strength, with endurance being either a secondary or non-existent concern, then endurance work should be minimal, if done at all. Unlike the beneficial effect of strength training on endurance, there’s little if any cross-over benefit of endurance training on strength gains. Exceptions exist with lower-volume regimes (3 days of training per week),17 but the majority of research indicates that concurrent endurance training interferes with strength development.1,19-22

• If fat loss is your primary goal (with endurance being a secondary goal at best) do hypertrophy-focused strength training. This way, you’ll maximize your chances of preserving lean mass under hypocaloric conditions. If you have the spare time in your schedule, incorporate endurance training incrementally only as fat loss plateaus arise. The objective is to do the least amount of total work necessary to reach the goal.

• If gaining lean mass is your primary goal (with fat loss or endurance being a distant secondary goal at best), the game plan is identical to the above, minus the endurance training.

• If your goals are split between fat loss and muscle gain, then the general guidelines will be dictated by a the amount of spare time in your schedule, as well as any secondary performance goals. Do hypertrophy-focused strength training unless you specifically are interested in powerlifting or the like. In either case, add cardio incrementally on an only-as-needed basis as a means to break through fat loss plateaus.

• What I covered are just a handful of many possible permutations of goals. Individual response to trial & error is the ultimate protocol determinant.

• Periodizing your resistance training program is optimal for continual progress, and it doesn’t have to be complex. For a range of perspectives on periodization, I’ve compiled a list of open-access articles (see the supplement below). For the peer-reviewed literature, you’ll have to access the references I provided.23-26

3. Goreham C, et al. High-resistance training and muscle metabolism during prolonged exercise. Am J Physiol. 1999 Mar;276(3 Pt 1):E489-96. [Medline]

4. Bryner RW, et al. Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21. [Medline]

5. Geliebter a, et al. Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep;66(3):557-63. [Medline]

6. Sarsan A, et al. The effects of aerobic and resistance exercises in obese women. Clin Rehabil. 2006 Sep;20(9):773-82. [Medline]

7. Kraemer WJ, et al. Physiological adaptations to a weight-loss dietary regimen and exercise programs in women. J Appl Physiol. 1997 Jul;83(1):270-9. [Medline]

8. Kraemer WJ, et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Sep;31(9):1320-9. [Medline]

9. Lemura LM, et al. Lipid and lipoprotein profiles, cardiovascular fitness, body composition, and diet during and after resistance, aerobic and combination training in young women. [Medline]

10. Mazzetti SA, et al. The influence of direct supervision of resistance training on strength performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 Jun;32(6):1175-84. [Medline]

11. Coutts AJ, et al. Effect of direct supervision of a strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 May;18(2):316-23. [Medline]

12. Marx JO, et al. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Apr;33(4):635-43. [Medline]

13. Mikkola JS, et al. Concurrent endurance and explosive type strength training increases activation and fast force production of leg extensor muscles in endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 May;21(2):613-20. [Medline]

14. Chtara M, et al. Effects of intra-session concurrent endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance and capacity. Br J Sports Med. 2005 Aug;39(8):555-60. [Medline]

15. Jung AP. The impact of resistance training on distance running performance. Sports Med. 2003;33(7):539-52. [Medline]

16. Vincent KR, et al. Improved cardiorespiratory endurance following 6 months of resistance exercise in elderly men and women. Arch Intern Med. 2002 Mar 25;162(6):673-8. [Medline]

17. Millet GP, et al. Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and .VO(2) kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Aug;34(8):1351-9. [Medline]

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 5 

18. McCarthy JP, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations to concurrent strength and endurance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Mar;34(3):511-9. [Medline]

19. Putman CT, et al. Effects of strength, endurance and combined training on myosin heavy chain content and fibre-type distribution in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Aug;92(4-5):376-84. [Medline]

20. Hakkinen K, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Mar;89(1):42-52. [Medline]

21. Bell GL, et al. Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties and hormone concentrations in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Mar;81(5):418-27. [Medline]

22. Kraemer WJ, et al. Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. J Appl Physiol. 1995 Mar;78(3):976-89. [Medline]

23. Willardson JM. A brief review: factors affecting the length of the rest interval between resistance exercise sets. J Strength Cond Res. 2006 Nov;20(4):978-84. [Medline]

24. Peterson MD, et al. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):950-8. [Medline]

25. Kraemer WJ, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Feb;34(2):364-80. [Medline]

26. Hass CJ, et al. Prescription of resistance training for healthy populations. Sports Med. 2001;31(14):953-64. [Medline]

APRIL SUPPLEMENT: PERIODIZATION ARTICLES _ ___________________________________________

DISCLAIMER: These articles are not peer-reviewed. They’re layperson-directed internet articles, that for the most part have useful information. As open-access articles written by an eclectic mix of un-tethered fitness nuts, you’ll find most of these articles are less sterilized than the peer-reviewed references I provided in the AARR. Some you’ll like, some you might hate, but at the end of the rainbow you’ll be more educated about periodization, especially if this happens to be your first exposure to the concept. If nothing else, these articles might give you some new ideas to adapt into your own training regime. Like all internet links, these are subject to deletion and spontaneous glitches in the matrix. Special thanks to the authors who generously gave their insight to the masses. _______________________________________________________________________

Christopher Frankel & Len Kravitz Periodization: latest studies and practical applications Dan John The Basics Behind Periodization Dave Tate [warning: this site has half-naked butt shots] The Periodization Bible, Part 1 The Periodization Bible, Part 2 Jacob Wilson & Gabriel Wilson Periodization part 1: History and Physiological Basis Periodization part 2: Divisions of the Training Cycle Periodization Part 3: Traditional and Non-Traditional Periodization Kelly Baggett The Magic of Manipulating Training Frequency How to Benefit from Planned Overtraining Lyle McDonald Periodization for Bodybuilders, Part 1 Periodization for bodybuilders, Part 2 Periodization for bodybuilders, Part 3 Matthew Perryman Periodization Simplified Matthew Perryman & Fortified Iron Periodization for the Poor Man, Part 1 Periodization for the Poor Man, Part 2 Periodization for the Poor Man, Part 3 Tom Myslinski The Development of the Russian Conjugtate System Various Authors In Case I missed Anything

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 6 

Weight-loss diet that includes consumption of medium-chain triacylglycerol oil leads to a greater rate of weight and fat mass loss than does olive oil. St. Onge MP, Borsarge A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):621-6. [Medline] PURPOSE: To determine whether consumption of MCT oil improves body weight and fat loss compared with olive oil when consumed as part of a weight-loss program. METHODS: 49 overweight men and women, aged 19-50 yrs, consumed either 18-24 g/d of MCT oil or olive oil as part of a weight-loss program for 16 wk. Subjects received weekly group weight-loss counseling. Body weight and waist circumference were measured weekly. Body composition assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography. RESULTS: 31 subjects completed the study. MCT oil resulted in lower body weight than olive oil (-1.67 +/- 0.67 kg). Endpoint trunk fat mass, total fat mass, and intra-abdominal adipose tissue were all lower with MCT consumption than with olive oil consumption CONCLUSION: Consumption of MCT oil as part of a weight-loss plan improves weight loss compared with olive oil and can thus be successfully included in a weight-loss diet. Small changes in the quality of fat intake can therefore be useful to enhance weight loss. SPONSORSHIP: International Life Sciences Institute, North America, and GCRC grant M01 RR-00032 from the National Center for Research Resources. Study Strengths Participants were required to be weight-stable for at least 6 months prior to beginning the trial. Subjects received weekly group dietary counseling by a dietitian. Sessions consisted of several practical weight loss achievement-related topics. Body composition was measured via DEXA. Computed tomography scans were used to identify intra-abdominal and subcutaneous adipose tissue. Study Limitations There was a high level of attrition (36% dropout), which can confound the results because of missing data that could have swung things the other way. There may be sex-specific responses to MCT, and 23 women and 8 men completed the study. In a previous 27-day MCT study on women, no effect on body composition was seen. The authors mention that Differences detected in energy expenditure with MCT and long-chain triacylglycerol (LCT) are considerably greater in males than in females – thus the modest results seen in this trial. Would the outcomes be staggeringly different with either an even mix of the sexes or a predominantly male sample? That’s yet to be determined. Comment/Application The choice to compare olive oil with MCT has both pros and cons. On the plus side, olive oil is one of the most extensively studied (and heralded) oils in terms of its positive health effects. If MCT was compared with any other oil without an illustrious

track record for improving markers of cardiovascular health, it wouldn’t be such a thrilling battle. On the downside, although the oils were provided in opaque plastic containers, olive oil’s distinctive taste is very tough to mask within food, and a great proportion of the known world (study participants included) are familiar with its taste. Knowing which treatment you’re undergoing in the study negates the necessary “blinding” effect. Despite the rest of the reported outcomes, both groups experienced an equal decrease in waist circumference. As for the bottom-line numbers, total weight reduction in the MCT group was 1 kg greater than the olive oil group. As well, total fat loss in the MCT group was 1.54 kg greater than the olive oil group. These results might perk up my ears if they occurred in a 2-4 week span, but we’re talking about 4 months here. Once again, how meaningful is a statistically significant result when the actual size of the effect is like a pimple on the ass of a planet? Based on this, I can see why the authors were attempting to justify the small differences by hemming and hawing about the conservative effect potential of having an female-dominant set of subjects. But then the question becomes one of whether these small effects can lead to meaningful weight reduction over time, as long as no variables in one’s weight loss program change with the exception of a trading away your beloved olive oil for more MCT. Is this a feasible solution worth pursuing? Losing an extra quarter-kilogram per month can be accomplished by burning an additional 64 kcals per day. Take up fidgeting (tapping your fingers, bouncing your knees, etc), and you’ll be able to burn 5 times that much. For you convenience, here’s a link to a tracking guide for The Compendium of Physical Activities (a study originally published in MSSE), courtesy of the USC Prevention Research Center. The energy cost of each activity is expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs). 1 MET = 1 kcal/kg/hr, which happens to be the equivalent of sitting relatively still. As a sample calculation, if an activity such as walking has a MET value of 3.0, then you’d multiply your weight in kilograms by 3.0 to arrive at how many kcals per hour you’ll burn. For the metrically-challenged, simply divide your weight in lbs by 2.2 to convert it to kg. So, if you’re 80 kg, walking for an hour would burn 80 kg x 3.0 = 240 kcals per hour of walking. Moderate training is roughly 6.0 METs, so a 75 kg person would burn 480 kcal per hour. This means that if you’re willing to add an average of 7.5 minutes of daily exercise, or easier yet, cut a measly 64 calories out of your diet, you can have your delicious olive oil and let someone else pay 30% more per unit of volume for MCT. One thing to seriously consider is the potentially adverse effect MCT on markers of cardiovascular health. In at least two studies MCT increased plasma triacylglycerol compared to long-chain triacylglycerols (LCTs). In a relatively recent comparison study, high-dose MCT (about 70g) increased LDL & VLDL levels 12% and 32% higher than the high-oleic acid sunflower oil, without any effects on HDL. The significance here is that olive oil is over 70 % oleic acid. It’s plausible that we’d see similar outcomes given the same trial with olive oil in place of the sunflower oil.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 7 

Perceptions of antiobesity medications among personal trainers. Lobb LR, et al. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):485-9. [JSCR]

PURPOSE: to develop a baseline understanding of the knowledge and perceptions that certified personal trainers have of both prescription and nonprescription weight loss drugs. METHODS: A 16-item qualitative survey was used to interview 43 certified personal trainers. Interviews were conducted via telephone to assess trainers’ current level of knowledge and perceptions of weight loss drugs. Questions about both prescription medications and over-the-counter (OTC) medications were included in the survey instrument. All trainers held current National Association of Personal Trainers (NAPT) certifications or certification from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). RESULTS: Almost half of the sample had no knowledge of weight loss medications. Of the 43 trainers surveyed, 58% were able to list one currently or previously available medication, 42% were able to list two medications, and no one was able to provide names of more than two medications. Personal trainers did not support the use of either prescription or OTC weight loss medications. In fact, these interventions were rated the lowest on a 7-point scale among options assessed concerning their importance to a weight loss program: diet (6.67), exercise (7.00), and medication use (1.96). CONCLUSION: a lack of awareness of weight loss medications and a potential bias against prescription weight loss medication use. This finding illustrates the need for further studies of fitness professionals' perceptions of and attitudes toward antiobesity medications as a form of weight loss intervention. SPONSORSHIP: None listed. Study Strengths This study is conceptually very interesting to me since my profession involves constant communication with certified personal trainers (CPTs). Having been one myself, I’m aware of the various challenges and issues they face. One of the main issues and ill-defined aspects of the relatively new profession of personal training is the scope of practice. Based on the abstract, I thought this paper was going to be a general roasting, but surprisingly, the authors give CPTs some rather resounding credit for their role in health care: “Certified personal fitness trainers (CPT) are important partners in health care and are key players in the battle against obesity. Often overlooked, CPTs usually have a wealth of knowledge in the areas of physical fitness and weight management.”

The subjects had an average professional training experience of 7 years. According to the authors, the survey was developed by “experts in the pharmaceutical, health promotion, and exercise science fields.” Study Limitations Being a observational/exploratory study, there’s no intervention or control of variables to critique. But considering how

staggering the sheer numbers of certified personal trainers must be on a nation-wide scale, it struck me as odd that the authors were only able to secure 43 completed surveys. Another limitation was the lack of reporting of formal education of the trainers, since indeed the sample was relatively small for a survey. Given that an internet search yielded 125 different certifying bodies, it was strange to see the sample comprised of only two certifying bodies. Comment/Application I personally haven’t heard of NAPT. I just did a Google search on the organization, and was unable find it after going 5 pages deep. In my observations working closely with health club management in Southern California, the two most desirable certifications are by the National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM), and the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA). While the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has an industry reputation for offering top-tier certifications, they’re generally perceived as appropriate for covering the needs of cardiac-rehab patients, and other such clinical applications. In contrast, the NASM and NSCA are generally perceived as a better fit for the healthy to high-performance sports populations. I would wager that if a consensus amongst the high-end fitness industry educators was taken, the NSCA-CSCS (Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist) certification would get the highest ranking. Incidentally, a recent study indicated that the NSCA certification was the preferred certification for personal training employment in Southeastern Massachusetts. It was not a surprise at all to see that the CPTs had very limited knowledge of anti-obesity drugs. It was also quite predictable to see that they unanimously had a very negative perception of pharmacological interventions for obesity – I happen to share the same view. While certain factions of the medical community support the idea that obesity drugs and lifestyle intervention (diet & exercise) can be adjunctive, I see them as inherently antithetical. They directly oppose eachother’s basic premise. In my 15-year span in the business of helping clients get in shape, not a single one of them was succeeded satisfactorily in the short or the long term from the help of obesity medication. Enough of my subjective experience, what does the research say? A recent systematic review update by Rucker et al showed that among the range of commercially available anti-obesity drugs, rimonabant, orlistat, and sibutramine were the only ones with acceptably designed/controlled research. The key finding was that these compounds caused less than 5 kg weight loss in trials lasting 1-4 years. That’s flat-out dismal. It’s even worse considering that you have to take the pittance of progress along with the side effects. Sibutramine increases blood pressure and heart rate. Rimonabant increases the incidence of psychiatric disorders. Orlistat’s side effects include spontaneous spotting and leakage of oily fecal matter, as well as urgent bowel movements. The authors of the review also emphasized the distinct possibility of publication bias. To quote Rucker et al, “Nearly all trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies, which may increase the likelihood of positive results.”

…Ya think?

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 8 

Carbohydrate-supplement form and exercise performance. Campbell C, et al. IJSNEM. 2008 Apr;18(2):179-90. [IJSNEM] PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of carbohydrate gels or jellybeans in improving endurance performance. METHODS: On 4 separate days and 1–2 hr after a standardized meal, 16 male and female athletes cycled at 75% VO2max for 80 min followed by a 10-km time trial. Participants consumed isocaloric (0.6 g of carbohydrate per kg per hour) amounts of randomly assigned sports beans, sports drink, gel, or water only, before, during, and after exercise. RESULTS: Blood glucose concentrations were similar at rest between treatments and decreased significantly during exercise with the water trial only. Blood glucose concentrations for all carbohydrate supplements were significantly, higher than water during the 80-min exercise bout and during the time trial (5.7 ± 0.2 mmol/L for sports beans, 5.6 ± 0.2 mmol/L for sports drink, 5.7 ± 0.3 mmol/L for gel, and 4.6 ± 0.3 mmol/L for water). There were no significant differences in blood glucose between carbohydrate treatments. The 10-km time trials using all 3 carbohydrate treatments were significantly faster (17.2 min for sports beans, 17.3 min for sports drink, and 17.3 min for gel) than water (17.8 min). CONCLUSION: All carbohydrate-supplement types were equally effective in maintaining blood glucose levels during exercise and improving exercise performance compared with water only. SPONSORSHIP: Jelly Belly Candy Company, Fairfield, CA. [editor’s note: go ahead and laugh] Study Strengths The concept of the study is interesting, and guaranteed to get jelly bean lovers excited. The majority of studies on this topic have used liquid carbohydrate beverages, but this is perhaps the first study to pit the full range of physical forms (liquid, solid, & gel) against each other. Subjects were trained endurance competitors (averaging roughly 9 hrs of training per week, so the “anything works better than nothing” newbie effect was eliminated. Carbohydrate dose was administered on a proportional (0.6g/kg/hr) rather than a standard/flat basis. Fluid intake was kept constant throughout the trial. A 4-way crossover insured that the results weren’t unique to each participant. Study limitations Breakfast timing was not standardized. The subjects arrived at the lab for testing 1-2 hours after their typical pre-race breakfast, after having consumed their typical pre-race dinner the night before. The 60 minute timing variation opened up the possibility for variations in blood glucose and amino acid flux during training. Nevertheless, despite the authors not mentioning any specific dietary instructions given, the subjects consumed a strikingly similar diet within the 12 hours leading into the trial in terms of both total kcals and macronutrient content. Since no differences in blood glucose during training were detected during the steady state segment or the time trial, this lack of tight control turned out not to be a non-issue after all.

Comment/Application Given the similar carbohydrate subtype composition of each treatment (a roughly even mix of glucose and fructose), it’s not too shocking that they were equally effective. Ingesting carbohydrate solutions with different intestinal transporters (i.e, fructose and glucose) produce greater absorption rates of carbohydrate and water compared with solutions containing a single carbohydrate source. Illustrating this, a recent trial by Rowlands et al examined the effect of graded amounts of fructose with maltodextrin on cycling performance and carbohydrate oxidation. Doses of 0.0g/min (none), 0.3g/min (low-fructose), 0.5g/min (medium-fructose), and 0.7g/min (high-fructose) were consumed with a 0.6g/min dose of maltodextrin. The low- and medium-fructose doses caused the greatest exogenous glucose and total exogenous (ingested) carbohydrate oxidation rates, while the medium- and high-fructose treatments was associated with markedly decreased fatigue and nausea, and better sustenance of power output during exercise. The present study is yet another illustration of what I refer to as the wide margin of optimal effect, or the “doesn’t matter” factor. Competitive and recreational athletes alike all strive for what’s optimal. Often, people automatically equate ‘optimal’ with ‘singular’, as if there a single-best method for improving the given condition, whether it be performance or body composition. This ‘wide margin’ concept sort of takes the intrigue away from the false idea that there’s just a small handful of excusive secrets. On the flip side of the coin, there’s also a wide margin of low-effectiveness across various methods. An interesting aspect of this trial is how relatively well plain water did in a number of parameters compared to the carbohydrate supplements. Fluid balance, plasma electrolytes, and rate of perceived exertion were no different than the carb treatments through the 80-minute steady-state segment as well as the 10-km time trial. It should be noted that in the most crucial measure – performance – all of the carbohydrate treatments outperformed water, but not to a staggering degree. This lack of an obvious shut-out was likely to the subjects not being glycogen-depleted at the start of the trials. One missing element from this trial was the inclusion of protein (or amino acids). It’s well-established that including protein or essential amino acids to the mix of energy substrates surrounding and during the training bout can promote muscle protein synthesis and prevent muscle protein breakdown. When carbohydrate dosing is ample (about a gram per minute), any performance benefit that protein might have disappears. Nevertheless, it will always suppress muscle proteolysis, which is why including protein to the training drink is a wise tactic. I would even call it essential in most prolonged endurance scenarios where the risk for muscle catabolism during the later stages of competition is increased. Un-answered questions remain regarding how protein might differentially affect the performance outcomes of the 3 physical forms of carbohydrate. The answer is likely to be one of two possibilities – not by much, and not at all.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 9 

A whey-protein supplement increases fat loss and spares lean muscle in obese subjects: a randomized human clinical study. Frestedt JL, et al. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2008 Mar 27;5(1):8 [Medline] PURPOSE: To evaluated a “specialized” whey fraction (Prolibra) for use as a dietary supplement to enhance weight loss. METHODS: 59 overweight and obese subjects completed 12 weeks of a caloric reduction of 500 calories per day from their maintenance intake. Subjects consumed Prolibra or an isocaloric ready-to-mix beverage 20 minutes before breakfast and 20 minutes before dinner. Body fat and lean mass were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Body weight and anthropometric measurements were recorded every 4 weeks. Responders were defined as anyone who lost at least 2.25 kg. RESULTS: Both groups lost a significant amount of weight. Prolibra group tended to lose more weight than the control group; however the amount of weight loss was not significantly different between groups after 12 weeks. Prolibra subjects lost significantly more body fat compared to the control subjects for both the completer (2.81 vs. 1.62 kg) and responder (3.63 vs. 2.11 kg) groups. Prolibra subjects lost significantly less lean mass in the responder group (1.07 vs. 2.41 kg), but no significant difference was seen in the completer group. The ratio of fat to lean loss was much larger for Prolibra subjects for both completer and responder groups. CONCLUSION: Subjects taking Prolibra lost significantly more body fat and showed a greater preservation of lean muscle compared to the control group. SPONSORSHIP: Glanbia Nutritionals, Inc. Study Strengths A larger-than-usual sample (59 subjects) completed the study. Subjects were given diet diaries. A broad range of instruction sheets were given, including corresponding sample diets ranging from 1000-2400 kcals. Body composition was measured via DEXA. Subject compliance accountability was enforced by telephone contact between visits to review diet and supplement compliance and to answer any questions. Study Limitations There was a substantial dropout rate (47 subjects withdrew, 59 completed the study). This means that not everyone who was randomized was actually analyzed. This opens up serious questions about alternate outcomes if the dropouts stuck around. Subjects in the control group had a total protein consumption of 0.61g/kg. Adding Prolibra simply bumped the experimental group up to 0.81g/kg, which is barely a hair over the RDA. Not only is this an imbalanced treatment from the standpoint of nitrogen intake, it also represents a marginally adequate protein intake versus an inadequate protein intake in the control group. One of my personal preferences is to see an exercise program properly administered in nutritional intervention trials. In addition, the data could be more directly applied to the fitness-oriented population, who tend to respond differently in many aspects than the sedentary population.

Comment/Application When I read “A whey protein supplement” in the title of the study, I went straight to the funding source, knowing full-well that I had roughly a 99.9% chance of being correct that it was an industry-sponsored study, and I was right. That was easy. Glanbia Nutritionals is an international company selling an array of whey protein products, as well as personal care items such as toothpaste, mouthwash, and skin cream. They are one of Europe’s leading dairy companies, and they’re one of the largest cheese manufacturers in the world. With headquarters based in Ireland, Glanbia is the country’s largest milk producer. Another interesting (and critical) element of this trial is that two of the study’s authors – Loren Ward and Eric Bastian – are employed at the Glanbia Research and Development Center. This definitely cranks the bias meter way up. I touched briefly on the protein treatment imbalance between the groups. The question is whether this imbalance on its own could have been enough of an advantage to cause the observed outcomes. There was no significant difference in lean mass decrease in those who completed the study, so it’s a good thing the statistics were massaged to include “responders”, who lost a minimum of 2.25 kg regardless of whether or not they dropped out from the trial. The responders in the Prolibra group lost 1.34 kg less lean mass than the maltodextrin control. Given a difference of 20 g more high-quality protein per day in the Prolibra group while the control group consumed a placebo total of 20 g maltodextrin, this isn’t too surprising. In research by Layman et al, the RDA for protein (0.8g/kg) was compared to double that (1.6g/kg) under moderately hypocaloric conditions, and the higher-protein group lost more bodyfat and lost less lean mass. Layman saw better lean mass retention and greater fat loss results in a subsequent study comparing the same protein amounts but including a structured exercise program. My point is that the RDA is not just sub-optimal, it’s ineffective at enabling even non-severe dieters to retain lean mass. Double the RDA accomplishes this by the skin of its teeth under exercising conditions. So what does this say about a study comparing the RDA level of protein with a 25% lower intake? Looking at the magnitude of the results, this looks like a common case of achieving statistical significance, but falling short of clinical relevance. In those who completed the trial, the Prolibra group lost 1.19 kg (2.61) lbs more than the placebo group after 12 weeks, less than a pound difference per month. If an equal comparison was done with more favorable protein intakes in the vicinity of double the RDA, this difference would very likely be erased. The company’s website markets Prolibra as a weight loss product. Its claim to fame appears to be a simple mineral blend mixed into the whey protein. I find it ironic and humorous whenever a macronutrient, calories and all, gets marketed as a causal agent for weight loss. Protein – specialized protein – is easy to push in these current times of carbohydrate backlash that the fat-free over-carbed 1980’s created. It seems that much of the public still isn’t ready to accept this radical fat-fighting agent called a caloric deficit.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 10 

The effects of 10 weeks of resistance training combined with beta-alanine supplementation on whole body strength, force production, muscular endurance and body composition. Kendrick IP, et al. Amino Acids. 2008 Jan 4; [Epub ahead of print] [Medline] PURPOSE: To assess the effect of 10 weeks resistance training on muscle carnitine concentrations, and, secondly, to investigate if increased muscle carnitine from beta-alanine supplementation had a positive effect on training responses. METHODS: Twenty-six Vietnamese sports science students completed the study. The subjects completed a 10-week resistance-training program whilst consuming 6.4g/day of beta-alanine or a matched dose of a placebo. Subjects were assessed prior to and after training for whole body strength, isokinetic force production, muscular endurance, body composition. RESULTS: beta-Alanine supplemented subjects increased muscle carnitine concentrations by 12.81 mmol/kg dry muscle, while there was no change in the placebo group. There was no significant effect of beta-ala supplementation on any of the exercise parameters measured, mass or % body fat. CONCLUSION: 10 weeks of resistance training alone did not change muscle carnitine concentrations. Although beta-alanine supplementation did raise muscle carnitine levels, it was ineffective at improving performance or body composition. SPONSORSHIP: None listed. Study Strengths I chuckle every time I say something like this, but the sample of 21-22 year-old healthy male physical education students was appropriately chosen. In my observations, that’s the ballpark demographic most prone to jump on the latest sports supplement. As intended by the authors, the “field” tests were used were designed to more closely reflect the activities athletes would actually be subjected to. This is in contrast with the performance tests of previous studies, the latest of which were laboratory-based. At 6.4g, Beta-alanine dose was consistent with previous research that showed its potential effectiveness. Study limitations The strength training protocol involved a rep range of 2-5 per set. While this is fine for developing maximal strength in the powerlifting vein, it doesn’t necessarily reflect the aspects of physiology that beta-alanine supplementation might enhance. Beta-alanine increases levels intramuscular carnosine levels, and thus act as a hydrogen ion buffer, suppressing fatigue brought on by decreases in pH. A training program with a higher volume of sets and repetitions may have been more appropriate, but nevertheless it certainly didn’t hurt to test some un-charted ground by examining the supplement’s effect on maximal strength. The one limitation that really made me wince was the use of skinfold calipers to determine body composition. I normally don’t have an issue with the use of calipers in one-on-one private practice, but when big dollars are shovelled into a

controlled trial, there better be some liberal investment going into the instrumentation, which should leave no option for the error of human hands. Hydrodensitometry or DEXA would have been a much better choice. To top off the list of shortcomings, this study did not report any measures of dietary control. No dietary recalls, no diet records, nothing. In contrast, previous research by Hoffman showing positive effects of beta-alanine, had subjects continuously monitor protein and calories throughout the study using 3 d dietary records every week. These little details can make big differences, and I’m always baffled and disappointed to see the nutritional control neglected in studies involving exercise and/or supplementation. Comment/Application. If you’ve been reading the AARR since its inception in January, you’ve already have developed an eye for commercial influences in scientific research. I never automatically dismiss industry-funded research, but it sure does put the paper on the hot seat for any clues that preconceived agendas are merely being fulfilled. In any case, I found it interesting that beta-alanine’s effectiveness took a fall only after 3 previous studies showing its performance benefit. At the momentum stages of the beta-alanine buzz from the Hoffman study and the subsequent Stout study, I was beginning to get the notion that beta-alanine might actually have a glimmer of hope. But now this failure to perform? Wait a minute, this is bad for marketing. Speaking of marketing campaigns, the two positive-effect studies preceding this one were both funded by Experimental and Applied Sciences (EAS). Some of you might recall that fitness supplement mogul Bill Phillips, author of the bestselling pop diet book Body for Life, used to own EAS. I’m not sure how long he’s been away from the company’s helm, but I do know that Abbott Laboratories, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, bought EAS in 2004. This definitely brightens the forecast for EAS product sales. However, it also puts a looming cloud of concern for the bias inherent in company-funded trials. The present trial does not list any funding source. One thing’s for sure, it’s not EAS-sponsored. The authors of the present study repeatedly allude to the Hoffman study, since it also tested for maximal strength gains in the squat and bench, in addition to assessing anaerobic power via the Wingate test and 20-jump test. To its credit, the Hoffman trial used DEXA, a more accurate method of body composition assessment. Unlike the Hoffman et al, who saw the greatest improvements in body composition and strength-endurance gain resulting from a beta-alanine + creatine combo, the authors of the present study saw zilch. Notably, one of the tests in the present trial involved a load enabling 20-40 repetitions of arm curls. Given this high rep range, one would assume that the increased intramuscular carnosine levels got a fair shot at delaying acid saturation and fatigue that terminates the set. However, no such ergogenic effect was seen. Given this data, the brakes have been pulled on the beta-alanine train for the time being, albeit with a rather unpolished trial. As the cliché goes, more well-designed, well-reported research needs to be done. Currently, the data on beta-alanine supplementation is very preliminary, and just not compelling.

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

Combining fish-oil supplements with regular aerobic exercise improves body composition and cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Hill AM, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 May;85(5):1267-74. [Medline] PURPOSE: To examine the individual and combined effects of n-3 FA supplements and regular exercise on body composition and cardiovascular health. METHODS: Overweight volunteers with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or triacylglycerols were randomly assigned to one of the following interventions: fish oil (FO), FO + exercise (FOX), sunflower oil (SO; control), or SO and exercise (SOX). Subjects consumed 6 g tuna FO/d (approximately 1.9 g n-3 FA) or 6 g SO/d. The exercise groups walked 3 d/wk for 45 min at 75% age-predicted maximal heart rate. Plasma lipids, blood pressure, and arterial function were assessed at 0, 6, and 12 wk. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at 0 and 12 wk only. RESULTS: FO supplementation lowered triacylglycerols, increased HDL cholesterol, and improved endothelium-dependent arterial vasodilation. Exercise improved arterial compliance. Both fish oil and exercise independently reduced body fat. CONCLUSION: FO supplements and regular exercise both reduce body fat and improve cardiovascular and metabolic health. Increasing intake of n-3 FAs could be a useful adjunct to exercise programs aimed at improving body composition and decreasing cardiovascular disease risk. SPONSORSHIP: University of Adelaide postgraduate award (to Hill). Study Strengths DEXA, the ‘gold standard’ of assessment, was used to measure body composition. Compliance was assessed by capsule count and erythrocyte fatty acid analysis. At the start, midpoint, and end of the trial, subjects submitted 3-day physical activity diaries and weighed food records that were analyzed via computer software. As we’ll see, these were noble attempts to control dietary variables, but self-reported dietary intake is always subject to inaccuracy. Study Limitations It’s not always feasible for the lab to provide all meals for the relatively high number of subjects and long study duration, so a certain degree of control is surrendered. This was apparent in the study’s statistically insignificant, but still discrepant outcomes in the non-exercising control (sunflower oil) group. According to the data table, these subjects progressively decreased their daily caloric intake, but gained weight by the end of the trial. This is an example of the error potential inherent with self-reported dietary intake. Comment/application Cardiovascular disease risk factors altered by fish oil in this trial were an increase in HDL-cholesterol and improved flow-mediated dilation, while lowering plasma triacylglycerol. These changes, as well as their promising implications, are consistent

with what’s been observed in a substantial body of research. However, a recent systematic review by Hooper et al on the risks and benefits of omega-3 fatty acids had this to say in the discussion: “Our meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the effects of increased

omega 3 fats on total mortality found substantial variations

between studies. Studies with stronger methodology had more

consistent results, and the pooled relative risk of these studies

was 0.98 (0.70 to 1.36; 138 events). We found no evidence from

RCTs or cohort studies that omega 3 fats have an effect on combined cardiovascular events.” Nevertheless, fish oil and omega-3 fatty acid consumption have an appreciable accumulation of research showing multiple health benefits. So, why not frame it out to be a fat loss aid as well? In light of the current worldwide obesity epidemic, it seems convenient to position fish oil as an agent of fat loss. However, the problem lies in its inconsistent track record. Early research by Couet indicated its potential for fat loss, and since then, the hunt has been on for clues that fish oil is the fat-burning gift from the sea. In contrast to the Couet study, 2 more recent studies failed to see any significant fat loss effects of fish oil beyond placebo or caloric restriction alone. In other recent research, omega-3 supplementation was seen to enhance the fat loss of severely obese female inpatients in very low calorie (525 kcal) conditions. A trial comparing the effect of fish oil alone, fish oil + exercise, and exercise alone found no differences in body composition. A recent study found no effect of fish oil on energy metabolism during exercise in either the fed or the fasted state. Now fast-forward to the present study, which the authors themselves tout as the “first properly controlled trial to show an improvement in body composition in overweight or obese subjects after intervention with n-3 FAs and regular aerobic exercise”. Everyone is proud of their own work, but this trial almost positions itself as some sort of breakthrough. Is it? Pay close attention to the details I outline in the next section. When you ignore the caloric intake data, the fish oil + exercise group’s weight/fat loss is 2 kg more than the control group, which qualified as statistically significant. However, a closer look at the data tables reveals some crucial information that either was intentionally not discussed, or accidentally overlooked by the authors. The daily intake of the exercising fish oil group during the trial was on average 143.4 kcals less than the exercising control group. This caloric difference would allow the fish oil group to rack up a 12,906 caloric deficit, which would lead to 1.68 kg (3.7 lb) loss by the end of the trial. According to the data table, the exercising fish oil group lost 2 kg (4.4 lb) more than the control group. So, factoring in the reduced caloric advantage of the fish oil group, we’re now looking at a difference of 0.32 kg (0.7 lb). That’s less than a pound in the span of 12 weeks – wow. In other words, this difference between the groups is a notch below jack diddly. The intake imbalance between the groups puts a whole new twist on the outcomes, since it almost perfectly explains the weight & fat loss advantage of the fish oil group.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents]                  Page 12 

My Philosophy on Career Success By Alan Aragon I decided to put this in the “Lay Press” section because one day I’ll post a public tutorial about of how to pick your career and succeed at it. In the mean time, AARR subscribers will get the raw, unbridled, overly-philosophical version of it. Those of you reading this already know my writings and ramblings are fairly famous among the online fitness communities. I would venture to guess that a very large proportion of the online forumites (especially on sites like bodybuilding.com) are still in school, struggling to decide what on Earth to do with their lives. Even folks who are already out of school and fully fledged into their careers might occasionally ponder the possibility of following latent career passions that have begun to nag at them. Anyway, my point is that I get asked career questions all the time. However, I received an email on the 17th of this month that finally inspired me to buckle down and organize some advice, and what better place to publish it first than here. Here’s the actual email in its entirety, with the person’s identity blocked: Realize that success is personal.

Let me tell you right off the bat that reading this email was a defining moment of career success for me. The intrinsic gratification of knowing I help “so many people” is tremendous. That’s true career success; it’s better than any paycheck has made me feel. The definition/concept of career success is, and should be, unique to the individual; it’s a highly personal thing. My concept of career success has 3 basic components: 1) I have to be doing the absolute favorite thing(s) I love to do.

For me, there’s no other option but to be 100% excited and driven toward my profession. I’m in the business of helping people become physically and mentally awesome, how amazingly great is that?

2) I have to have enough time away from work to lead a balanced life with God, family, friends, and self.

3) I have to earn enough income to cover my basic expenses as well as my recreational time with family and friends.

Component #1 requires an awareness of what your absolute favorite things to do actually are. If the things you love to do aren’t right at the tip of your tongue, then block out a few hours to sit down in a relaxing environment and brainstorm a list of things you absolutely love to do. Don’t even think in terms of “career” when you brainstorm. Think in terms of things that you would pay to do. Alan,

First, I'd like to say thanks for all you do for so many people. It's rare to find someone with so much knowledge that's so willing to help. I know you're very busy, so I really appreciate any feedback you can give me. Ten years ago, during my Freshman year in college, I lost about 150 pounds. I dropped from about 300 to 170 over a span of about nine months by simply cutting back on what I was eating and starting extra cardio (plus playing basketball). I dropped to around 150 because, being in college, my metabolism was off the charts. Since then, I've gradually built back up to around 185 thanks to weight training and gaining knowledge about nutrition. Your posts and insight have helped tremendously. It's helped so much, that I've developed a passion for nutrition and exercise and am contemplating a career change. I'm currently blessed with a great job (Sports Director for the [- - - - -] station here in [- - - - -]), and I still like what I do very much. But my passion for nutrtion and exercise is unmatched and it seems to draw others to me (friends asking advice, etc.). That said, I'd like to know what advice you'd have for someone like me? I'm 28, single, and able to move around. I graduated from Virginia Tech, but my major was in communications and my minor was in psychology so, needless to say, science isn't strong on my record! However, I love working with people and seem to have been blessed with the ability to communicate and express the passion for nutrition. Thanks so much for your time. And thanks in advance for your advice.

Using my (boring) self as an example, I absolutely love to train. I absolutely love to eat. Holy crap, imagine my excitement when I found out I could make a career out of teaching people how to do those things right. I love to write, teach, and communicate my ideas. My counseling practice keeps me grounded in reality, keeps me in touch with actual humans, and allows me to fine-tune my methods. I get a huge kick out of teaching, it’s truly priceless to see someone realize that they’ve just been enlightened. To me, that’s a rush; a fine indulgence. Others may love to paint, sing, sculpt, build houses, crunch numbers, sweep floors – I don’t really care what it is that you love to do, the thing is that you MUST get in touch with it. You must gain a keen awareness of what really fires you up and makes you fly out of bed in the morning to do it again and again. That’s step one. Find that out, then you can make a damn good career out of it. Each year, I do an exercise which I call “The Blank Sheet Melee”. I block out a whole day for this, and it’s done in solitude. On clean sheets of paper I write out EXACTLY how I want my life to look in terms of my day to day work & play -- as if there were no limits to the life I wanted to create for myself. The scenario evolves every time, but the changes at present are becoming less pronounced as I march toward where I ultimately want to be career-wise. Keep in mind, I personally don’t give a damn about having excessive wealth, and I hate the idea of showing it off. A childish part of me still likes to drool over the art of the automobile, but I once calculated that getting my favorite Aston Martin would be the dollar equivalent of 500 week-long vacations with my family. At the thought of that, the

image of the Aston instantly becomes a hunk of metal, plastic, and rubber sitting in the garage collecting dust.

Component #2 requires the skill of time management, and that primarily involves the guts to stick to your commitments. One of the main reasons I’ve chosen to be an entrepreneur is that I can be in charge of when I work, and when I don’t. I like the idea of ultimately being in charge of hiring or firing myself. I like to make all the decisions about what happens in my work schedule and the projects I undertake. I can decide how little or how much money I want to earn, based on the merit of my efforts and the quality of my work. I actually enjoy having the weight of the world on my shoulders.

I consciously chose to pursue my writing interests (with this

publication being the centerpiece) because it allows the ultimate degree of schedule flexibility, and it frees me from any geographical constraints for the purpose of getting work done. But most of all, I truly love doing it, and it gives me the opportunity to stay both educated and creative. I love spending time with my wife & kids, so I make that a priority. I block in time with them into my schedule first, then I build everything else around that. Thankfully, I chose a career that allows me to do that.

Component #3 is the natural, almost unavoidable consequence of sincerely diving into the first two components. The common denominators of achieving anything you want are the desire to do it, the discipline to push through sticking points, and a genuine enjoyment of the process of striving to increase your level of mastery.

I’m obsessively equivocating over a few ideas for next month’sopening article. One thing is certain - it's gonna be juicy. As usual, I’ll critically review the latest fitness-related research, as well as the good stuff from the recent and not-so-recent past. If you have any questions, comments, bones of contention, cheers, or jeers, send them to aarrsupport@gmail.com.

I recently got tipped off to what I believe is one of the most amazing artifacts in human history. Ongoing research sponsored by some heavy hitters such as Hewlett Packard is attempting to unlock its many mysteries. Instead of trying to nutshell the story behind this mind-boggling device, here’s the official page of the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project.

Alan Aragon’s Research Review, April, 2008                                          [Back to Contents

]                  Page 13