APPLIED ERGOGENICS

How exercise volume affects your testosterone by Jerry Brainum

2012-02-06T02:16:00.000-08:00

Studies show that manipulating the volume of exercise has a transient effect on plasma testosterone levels. What isn’t known is how exercise affects the 24-hour secretion of testosterone. To correct that deficiency, a study followed eight men who completed three training sessions separated by at least a month.1 The groups consisted of a nonexercising control group, a moderate-volume group doing 25 sets total and a high-volume group doing 50 sets per workout. The actual workout consisted of squats, bench presses, leg presses and lat pulldowns. Subjects rested 90 to 120 seconds between sets. Rep range was five to 10 per set. The men had their testosterone levels measured every hour for 24 hours after each session.

The high-volume group showed a marked suppression of testosterone levels over a 24-hour period. They trained for an average of two hours per session. The moderate-volume group trained for one hour and showed no adverse effects on testosterone over the course of 24 hours. The results indicate that there’s a threshold of training beyond which testosterone levels drop precipitously. In practical terms, they mean that those who advocate marathon workouts are probably wasting their time.

1 Alemany, J.A., et al. (2004). Twenty-four hour serum testosterone concentrations following acute moderate and high-volume resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 36:S238.

©,2012, Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Acupuncture for better gains? by Jerry Brainum

2012-02-03T02:21:00.000-08:00

   Athletes and bodybuilders are always searching for something that can increase athletic proficiency or muscle. One technique that may prove useful, according to a recent study, is acupuncture.1 In acupuncture the skin is punctured with stainless-steel needles in specific zones. Studies show that it can alleviate muscle tension, improve local blood flow, increase pain threshold and moderate the autonomic nervous system.

   In a new study two groups of female soccer players were either given acupuncture treatment or not after intense competition. Those in the acupuncture group did not experience the drop in salivary immunoglobulin A that usually results from intense exercise. Immunoglobulin A is an antibody that is thought to help prevent various upper-respiratory infections.

   Instead, those in the acupuncture group showed decreased levels of salivary cortisol after exercise. Cortisol is the primary catabolic hormone in the body, meaning that it promotes the breakdown of muscle. Anything that blunts cortisol increase after exercise would favor a stronger response of anabolic hormones, such as testosterone and growth hormone. Cortisol also suppresses the immune response, leading to a greater chance of illness.

   The acupuncture subjects had less muscle fatigue and tension than the control athletes. They also reported feeling better and generally were in better moods, experiencing less depression and fatigue.

   Precisely how acupuncture produces those effects remains a matter of conjecture. Practitioners frequently say that stimulating certain parts of the body through acupuncture positively affects the body’s autonomic and endocrine systems, which has overlapping effects on other systems, such as immune response.

   Acupuncture isn’t suitable for self-treatment. Anyone contemplating trying it needs to consult with an experienced practitioner.

Get the point?

1 Akimoto, T., et al. (2003). Acupuncture and responses of immunologic and endocrine markers during competition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 35:1296-1302.

©,2012, Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Specificity Is More Than Just a Difficult Word to Pronounce : It’s the reason strength training and aerobics are said to be mutually exclusive—but are they? by Jerry Brainum

2012-02-01T22:02:00.000-08:00

   According to the specificity-of-training principle, if you want to improve endurance, do endurance or aerobic exercise. If you want to improve muscle size and strength, do weight training. Different exercise produces different effects in muscle. Normal weight training, even with minimal rest between sets, doesn’t have much effect on aerobic capacity. It does, however, increase muscle force, glycolytic enzyme activity (the ability of muscles to use glycogen as a fuel source) and muscle creatine content, which also aids energy production. The net effect of weight training, if all goes well, is increased muscular size and strength.

   Endurance training produces different effects. When you do aerobics, you increase the number of mitochondria in muscle, because that’s where fat is oxidized during aerobic training. The body also increases capillary density to deliver more oxygen to muscles, since oxygen is required to burn fat as fuel. Myoglobin, the oxygen-containing pigment in muscle, is also upgraded for increased oxygen delivery. Along with those changes, muscle size is often reduced, since endurance training blunts muscle protein synthesis.

   About 25 years ago studies began to indicate that doing aerobic exercise concurrently with weight work interfered with muscle gains. Since then other studies have found either the same result or no negative effects of doing both weight training and endurance training. It’s obviously an important issue, since many bodybuilders do aerobics as a means of controlling body composition or losing fat before a contest.

   One study on the subject examined untrained men assigned to one of three groups: endurance training (ET), resistance training (RT) and concurrent training (CT). The study lasted 12 weeks and featured before and after measurements of body composition, peak oxygen intake and other values affected by aerobic and resistance training.

   Weight and lean body mass significantly increased in the RT and CT groups. Bodyfat losses occurred in the CT and ET group but not the RT-alone group. Maximal oxygen intake improved only in the ET group. The gains in muscle size and strength were similar in both the RT and CT groups, indicating that no adverse effects resulted from combining weight training and aerobic exercise.

   One surprising effect was the lack of improvement in maximal oxygen intake in the men who were doing both types of exercise—since they were doing aerobic exercise. The researchers suggested that the muscle size and strength those subjects gained may have diluted the gains in mitochondrial density, thereby preventing any significant improvement in oxygen intake.

   So the study shows that using a training system that features both weights and aerobics doesn’t adversely affect strength and muscle gains but does hinder improvement in endurance. Doing aerobics alone does improve maximum oxygen intake, so trainees who are concerned about that may want to separate aerobic from weight workouts. Doing weight training alone does increase muscle power more efficiently than, say, doing aerobics right after a weight workout.

©,2012, Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

The Fatter You Are, the Slower It Burns by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-29T02:28:00.000-08:00

   The fatter you are, the harder it is to tap into bodyfat stores during exercise. That was confirmed in a study that measured the fat use of five lean, five overweight and five obese men during exercise.1 All the subjects exercised for 90 minutes on a stationary cycle. Tracer infusions showing precisely where and how fat is oxidized, or burned, measured their fat use.

   The total increase in fatty acid uptake during exercise was 50 percent lower in obese subjects and 35 percent lower in overweight men than in the lean subjects. Normally, moderate-intensity exercise leads to a twofold to threefold increase in the burning of stored fat. Exercise also promotes greater use of fat stored in muscle, known as intramuscular fat. That’s due to increased secretion of catecholamines, such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, from the adrenal glands during exercise.

   With increased bodyfat levels the body secretes lower levels of catecholamines during exercise, blunting release of fatty acids from fat cells into the blood. On the other hand, the study also showed that higher bodyfat levels also led to increased use of intramuscular fat, so the level of fat oxidation is similar. Still, fatter men release less of the type of fat that most people focus on—fat stored systemically in fat cells.

   Decreased use of systemic fat by the obese involves not only decreased catecholamine release during exercise but also a heightened stimulation of alpha-adrenergic receptors. Unlike beta-adrenergic cell receptors, which favor the use of fat, alpha-adrenergic fat-cell receptors inhibit fat use. A preponderance of alpha-adrenergic receptors in women’s lower bodies explains why it’s so difficult for most women to lose fat in that area. Interestingly, obese men burn fat much as women do in their lower bodies—with great difficulty.

   Obese men also usually have higher resting insulin levels. That’s caused by insulin resistance resulting from larger fat-cell volume. Insulin blocks the release of fat during exercise, an effect usually opposed by increased catecholamine secretion. Catecholamine secretion is blunted in the obese, however, leading to a vicious metabolic cycle.

   The question is how those with higher bodyfat levels can overcome their considerable fat-oxidation problems. Ephedrine and mahuang supplements simulate the effects of catecholamines in the body, including their effects on bodyfat release. Such supplements are no longer available, due to inaccurate reports about their so-called health dangers. Caffeine may also help release catecholamines to a limited degree, but the effect is usually transient.

   As for the problem of alpha-adrenergic receptors, a supplement based on yohimbe may block the effects of those fat-blunting receptors. But yohimbe must be taken on an empty stomach at a dose of about 0.2 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight. Food obliterates yohimbe’s fat-oxidation properties.

   The easiest way to overcome the metabolic fat oxidation deficit, though, is simply to have patience and lose the excess fat. When that happens, the obese are likely to burn fat as easily as their leaner peers.

1 Mittendorfer, B., et al. (2004). Excess bodyfat in men decreases plasma fatty acid availability and oxidation during endurance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 286:E354-62.

©,2012, Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

The Anabolic Diet : How to kick-start your muscle-building hormones by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-25T02:34:00.000-08:00

   Gains in muscular size and strength are associated with a greater release of anabolic hormones, including testosterone and growth hormone. That’s why many athletes and bodybuilders resort to using anabolic steroids, which are based on testosterone, and growth hormone. Another option is to use food supplements that increase the levels of anabolic hormones in the body, including pro-hormones and several herbal formulas that, some studies show, may have a positive effect on anabolic hormone levels.

   Often overlooked, however, is the effect of dietary nutrients on anabolic hormone levels. That was the focus of recent research on the dietary patterns of eight strength-trained and 10 physically active men.1 The first part of the study examined the mens’ levels of total testosterone, free testosterone and growth hormone under resting conditions. In the second part of the study five men from each group trained using heavy resistance. They kept food diaries of everything they ate for four days prior to the training sessions.

   The results proved surprising in light of the usual advice on what to eat to gain muscle. Eating either insufficient fat or excess protein led to lower testosterone levels. According to the study, the best types of dietary fat for increasing testosterone are saturated and monounsaturated fats. Polyunsaturated fat, usually considered the healthiest type—and the only fat considered essential—had no effect on anabolic hormone levels.

   So what are the optimal levels of protein and fat intake for testosterone release? Research shows that protein intake should be between 1.2 and 1.7 grams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of bodyweight, while fat intake should never dip below 20 percent of total daily calories and should contain saturated and monounsaturated fat sources.

   Since monounsaturated fat, found in olive oil and other sources, is far more healthful than saturated fat, it would be prudent to focus more on that than saturated fat. Saturated-fat intake should never exceed 10 percent of total daily calories.

   Even though polyunsaturated fat had no effect on anabolic hormone release, it would be a serious mistake to avoid it. Polyunsaturated fats, such as the omega-3s found in fatty fish, are the only type of fat considered essential in the diet.

   As for growth hormone, no particular nutrient pattern had any significant effect. Even so, we know that there’s a direct relationship between calorie intake and GH release: A lack of protein or calories tends to depress growth hormone release.

1 Satillinen, J., et al. (2004). Relationship between diet and serum anabolic hormone responses to heavy resistance exercise in men. Int J Sports Med. 25:1-7.

©,2012, Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Special K : Potassium Is More Important to Your Muscles and Health Than You Realize by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-23T02:39:00.000-08:00

   The ride from the competitors’ hotel to the venue of the Arnold Classic in Columbus, Ohio, isn’t a long one. But for Mike Matarrazo that ride must have felt like a thousand miles. Or so it seemed, judging by the expression on the veteran pro bodybuilder’s face that cold day in March several years ago. The normally ebullient Matarrazo seemed unusually quiet and tense. He looked to be heading to his own execution, not a bodybuilding contest. When asked how he felt, Matarrazo’s terse reply was simply, “I feel like I’m going to die.”

   Although he didn’t realize it at the time, Mike’s discomfort was self-inflicted. Since competitors at the major contests are judged heavily on muscular definition, Matarrazo and his fellow competitors resorted to various techniques in an effort to lose every bit of extraneous water under their skin. Water retention obscures muscular definition, and a highly defined look often separates the winners from the losers in top shows.

   Mike had done what many bodybuilders have done: He’d taken pharmaceutical diuretics. The one he used in preparation for this contest was known as a potassium-sparing diuretic. While most such drugs eliminate several minerals known to retain water in the body, especially sodium, potassium-sparing drugs, as the name implies, not only prevent the loss of potassium at the expense of sodium but also retain potassium in the body.

   Under normal circumstances drug-induced potassium retention isn’t a problem. The hidden danger, though, is combining such diuretics with potassium supplements, and that was Matarrazo's mistake. He’d taken large doses of potassium with potassium-sparing diuretic drugs because he had been told that diuretics cause loss of all minerals. Losing potassium, calcium and magnesium can lead to muscle cramps, the last thing you’d want to experience during a posing routine on stage.

   Mike’s malaise was later found to be hyperkalemia, or excess potassium in his blood. While the condition is easily treatable, your heart can stop beating if it isn’t caught in time. In fact, the lethal injection given in capital punishment contains a certain dose of potassium. Injected directly into the heart, potassium can stop the heart like a bullet. For those with normal kidney function, it’s difficult to overdose on potassium because a large dose leads to nausea, vomiting and rapid excretion by the kidneys.

   On the other hand, without sufficient potassium you couldn’t contract your muscles, your nervous system couldn’t function, and you wouldn’t be able to store glycogen, the complex carbohydrate that fuels bodybuilding workouts. Nor could you secrete anabolic hormones, including testosterone.

   Estimates are that prehistoric man ate up to 10 grams of potassium a day on average, or about five times more than most people get today.1 Sodium was rare in that period, and the human body evolved to conserve sodium and eliminate potassium. The kidneys regulate the process, which is why those with failing kidneys must be aware of their potassium intake. Aldosterone, a hormone secreted by the adrenal glands, helps retain sodium while eliminating potassium.2 Potassium-sparing diuretics, such as the one Matarrazo used, block the effects of aldosterone.

   Although it represents a mere 5 percent of the body’s mineral content, potassium is the major intracellular electrolyte. It has a yin-yang relationship with sodium and chloride: As potassium exits a cell, sodium enters it. Those reactions, which are powered by the sodium-potassium ATP pump, are involved in several important mechanisms, including nerve conduction, water balance and muscle contraction.

   Cells need potassium for normal growth and protein synthesis. That alone should make the mineral of extraordinary interest to anybody who wants to build muscle. Lesser known functions include its involvement in glycogen synthesis and the process that degrades glycogen into glucose to release energy. People on low-carbohydrate diets often experience weakness and fatigue due to a low-potassium intake combined with the natural diuretic effects associated with low-carb diets. Those effects lead to general water loss, especially notable during the initial stages of the diet. But along with water, various minerals, including sodium and potassium, are also lost from the body.

   Heart patients on pharmaceutical diuretics that treat heart failure and hypertension, or high blood pressure, are also often prescribed potassium supplements to replace what’s lost. The heart cannot properly function without potassium; it’s vital for the electrical conduction system that regulates heartbeat. Too much potassium, however, can lead to equally serious disturbances.

   Several studies have demonstrated potassium’s benefits. It appears to help prevent the most common form of stroke.3 By opposing the action of sodium, potassium helps lower elevated blood pressure, a major cause of stroke. In addition, potassium functions as an antioxidant, limiting the activity of a destructive free radical called superoxide.4 Free radicals, by-products of oxygen metabolism, cause the major damage to brain neurons after a stroke.

   The vital sodium-potassium pump mechanism sets off an electrical charge that leads to a series of reactions that send nerve impulses from brain to body and back. Without the sodium-potassium pump, glands couldn’t secrete any hormones, including testosterone and growth hormone.

   You’ve likely heard that the popular food supplement creatine is best absorbed when taken with simple sugar, which causes a release of insulin. The insulin, in turn, positively influences the actions of the sodium-potassium pump, which then powers the transport protein that actually pushes creatine into muscle.

   Certain hormones influence potassium activity in the body. So-called sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine, promote the entry of potassium into cells. Users of the drug clenbuterol, structurally similar to sympathetic hormones, have often noticed such side effects as hand cramps and muscle twitching; clenbuterol lowers blood levels of potassium and pushes it into cells. The temporary imbalance that results leads to nerve conduction and muscle contraction abnormalities, hence the side effects.

   Any drugs that either mimic or promote the release of sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine, can lower blood potassium levels. Many drugs used to treat asthma, besides clenbuterol, lower potassium. The most popular inhaler for treating asthma attacks, albuterol, lowers blood potassium for four hours, though not to dangerously low levels. The OTC decongestant pseudoepinephrine also lowers potassium levels, as does ephedrine, the popular fat-loss ingredient that was removed from sale in 2005.. Caffeine, a common ingredient in fat-loss supplements and the active ingredient in coffee, lowers potassium. An overdose of the asthma drug theophylline, which is sometimes included in fat-loss supplements, can cause severe hypokalemia. Even eating lots of black licorice will result in potassium excretion and sodium retention—an aldosteronelike effect.

   Insulin potently promotes the entry of potassium into cells. One standard treatment of hyperkalemia is a dose of insulin, which rapidly pushes potassium from the blood into cells. The pH—acidity or alkalinity—of the blood also influences potassium levels. High acidity, which you get on a high-protein diet devoid of alkaline foods like fruits and vegetables, pushes potassium out of cells, while an alkaline state favors cellular sodium retention.

   Recent animal studies show that excessive acidity blunts protein synthesis. In fact, high acidity can lead to muscle catabolism, or breakdown. Potassium is an effective buffer against the effects of excess acidity caused by a high protein diet. One study published a few years ago showed that when women following a high-protein diet took potassium bicarbonate, which contains two buffer substances, muscle protein breakdown and calcium losses were inhibited.

   Dietitians frequently warn that a high-protein diet is hazardous to health because it promotes calcium loss. The culprits here are amino acids, mainly the ones containing sulfur, such as methionine and cysteine. The body compensates for the increased blood acidity by releasing various buffers, including calcium, which disappears from the body during the process. When the subjects of some studies increased their fruit and vegetable intake from 3.6 to 9.5 daily servings, however, calcium excretion decreased by 30 percent. Much of the protective effect is due to the alkalinizing effects of the potassium found in fruits and vegetables.

   Compared to most other minerals, potassium is easily absorbed into the body and at about 90 percent efficiency; potassium is highly water-soluble. There is, however, a flag on the play. Because of the dangers associated with high-potassium intake, especially in relation to heart function, the government prohibits direct over-the-counter potassium supplements from providing more than 99 milligrams per dose. That doesn’t mean you can’t get higher amounts of potassium in other food supplements, such as meal-replacement products. Another form of potassium, which combines potassium with chloride, is sold as a salt substitute.

   The most popular food sources of potassium are bananas and baked potatoes, both of which contain respectable levels of potassium minus excessive sodium. Other potassium-rich foods include fruits, vegetables, almonds, raisins, avocado, figs, dates, yams and dairy products. Since potassium is ubiquitous, it seems unlikely that you’ll suffer from a deficiency of the mineral—unless you resort to some extreme measure, like diuretics.

   Most Americans get 2.9 to 3.2 grams of potassium daily, which is below the acceptable intake of 4.7 grams a day. That pales in comparison to the 10 grams our Stone Age ancestors took in. Diets that eliminate the best food sources of potassium—fruits and vegetables—could lead to problems. That’s particularly true of high-protein, low-carb plans that call for no fruits and vegetables. Such diets tend to produce high acidity in the body, which can lead to muscular weakness during exercise and suppression of protein synthesis.

   As a diet low in natural potassium continues, the kidneys become less effective at conserving the mineral, and the body excretes more of it. That occurs when you consistently take in less than 1,000 milligrams daily. Eventually some form of hypokalemia, or low potassium, may occur. Symptoms include muscular weakness, heart rhythm disturbances and glucose intolerance, all of which add up to lousy workouts.

   Taking OTC potassium pills isn’t the best way to deal with a potassium-deficient diet. Such supplements, which often contain potassium chloride, have a caustic effect on the lining of the gastrointestinal tract and may even cause a type of ulceration and perforation.5 Fortunately, healthy kidneys eliminate excess potassium, so it’s difficult to suffer a potassium overdose unless you have some type of kidney failure.

   Bodybuilders often use potassium supplements because of the notion that they prevent muscle cramps. There’s some truth to that, since potassium is vital for muscle contraction and nerve conduction, each of which plays a role in the onset of muscle cramps. Besides potassium, however, a sensible supplemental cocktail should also include magnesium and calcium. Without magnesium, your cells can’t retain potassium.6

   One thing to avoid is taking a potassium supplement on an empty stomach. That signals the adrenal glands to secrete aldosterone, which helps the kidneys excrete potassium and retain sodium.7 Then human evolution kicks in and leads to edema, or water retention. Maintaining a higher ratio of potassium to sodium promotes the excretion of excess sodium, which equals less water retention.

   You should aim for about five grams of potassium a day to help maintain an alkaline state in your body, thereby reducing muscle catabolism, and replenish muscle glycogen for better workouts. The easiest way to get your potassium quota is to eat at least five (nine is better) servings of fruits and vegetables daily.

References

1 Frassetto, L.A., et al. (2001). Diet, evolution and aging: the physiopathologic effects of postagricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to- chloride ratios in the human diet. Eur J Nutr. 40:200-213.

2 Meneton, P., et al. (2004). Sodium and potassium handling by the aldosterone-sensitive distal nephron: the pivotal role of the distal and connecting tubule. Am J Physiol. 287:F593-F601.

3 Khaw, K.T., et al. (1987). Dietary potassium and stroke-associated mortality: a 12-year prospective population study. New Eng J Med. 316:235-40.

4 McCabe, R.D., et al. (1994). Potassium inhibits free radical formation. Hypertension. 2:77-82.

5 Debs, A., et al. (1988). Perforation of the small intestine caused by tablets of potassium chloride. Press Med. 17:696-97.

6 Kobrin, S.M., et al. (1990). Magnesium deficiency. Semin Nephrol. 10:525-35.

7 Field, M.J., et al. (1985). Hormonal control of renal potassium excretion. Kidney Int. 27:379-87.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Mike Matarazzo

What type of protein reduces appetite? by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-21T01:00:00.000-08:00

   Here’s a quick quiz for you. Milk contains two primary types of protein, whey and casein. Studies show that they’re absorbed at different rates, with whey being absorbed rapidly and casein slowly releasing amino acids into the blood for more than seven hours. Which would suppress appetite more? A new study focused on just that question.1 Past studies have shown that protein has a greater satiation effect than fat or carbs. On the other hand, the appetite-suppressing effect of protein is blunted in people who habitually eat a high-protein diet—typical of bodybuilders. That’s most noticeable in those who increase their protein intake from a lower level. With a regular higher-protein intake, amino acids are more rapidly cleared and oxidized from the blood, mitigating its effect on appetite.

   That’s also the reason a high-protein diet isn’t likely to lead to increased fat deposition, since all nutrients, including protein, fat and carbs, can be converted into fat. Active people, such as those engaged in regular exercise, burn up excess protein in the liver, thus preventing its conversion into glucose or fat.

   One notable difference between whey and casein is that the amino acids in whey are rapidly processed and absorbed into the blood. Casein, on the other hand, curdles in the stomach, leading to a much slower breakdown and release of amino acids. Because a high concentration of amino acids is vital for promoting muscle protein synthesis, some studies suggest that whey’s rapid release of aminos makes it superior to casein for that purpose. On the other hand, casein’s slow release of amino acids makes it more conducive to providing a pronounced anticatabolic effect by maintaining a positive nitrogen balance in the blood over the course of several hours.

   The amino acids in the blood dictate the appetite-suppressing properties of protein. Whey is the superior appetite-suppressing protein. In a new study, subjects drank a beverage containing 48 grams of a commercial whey supplement or one containing the same amount of casein and attended an all-you-can-eat buffet 90 minutes later. Those who drank the whey ate 19 percent less food than those who drank the casein.

   In the second part of the study researchers wanted to confirm the notion that the quick entry of amino acids made whey more satiating and to figure out if any gut hormones known to affect appetite were affected by whey or casein. That part of the study showed, as expected, that whey increased blood amino acid levels 28 percent more than casein over a three-hour period.

   The whey drink increased the levels of several gut hormones that are known to suppress appetite. It increased the blood levels of cholecystokinin (CCK) by 60 percent, glucagonlike peptide-1 by 65 percent and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide by 36 percent. That last hormone isn’t normally increased by protein alone, but both the whey and casein drinks also contained cream and maltodextrin, a quick-acting carbohydrate.

   Thus, whey appears to decrease appetite through its rapid release of amino acids, which in turn promotes the release of several gut hormones known to depress appetite and increase feelings of satiety.

1 Hall, W.L., et al. (2003). Casein and whey exert different effects on plasma amino acid profiles, gastrointestinal hormone secretion and appetite. Brit J Nutrition. 89:239-48.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Is stretching really good for your workout and muscle growth? by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-18T21:37:00.000-08:00

   Some form of flexibility training is considered an essential part of any bodybuilding program. Bodybuilders stretch for various reasons, but most think that maintaining flexibility decreases the chance of injury. A simple definition of flexibility is the ability to move a joint through a complete range of motion. That implies that a lack of flexibility equals a decreased range of motion. A shortened range of motion, in turn, limits muscle size and strength gains, as well as increasing the chance of injury.

   Some bodybuilders stretch just prior to training, after training any particular muscle group or following a workout. Some even suggest stretching between sets of an exercise, with the notion that it helps the muscle recover faster. Recent research, however, shows that many of those ideas are simply false.

   According to the research, the effects of stretching differ when it’s performed regularly as opposed to acutely, or just before exercise. Most of the benefits of stretching come from everyday stretching activity. The belief that stretching before lifting weights is an effective warmup is mistaken. The most effective warmup features activity that increases the internal temperature of muscle, which decreases muscle viscosity and increases energy reactions and power. In practice, that means starting with a light set of the exercise you plan to do, using higher reps.

   Stretching the muscle you plan to train, however, leads to a loss of strength, averaging 2 to 5 percent. It results from a decrease in connective tissue stiffness—in other words, the stiffness actually adds to muscle strength. While tissue laxity induced by stretching would appear to lower the risk of injury incurred during heavy training, studies say it doesn’t.

   Regular stretching routines, or stretching at times besides just before or during training, do lead to performance improvement. The evidence of the literature is that regular stretching leads to increases in force and power, most likely due to an increased range of motion. Those improvements amount to an average increase of 2 to 5 percent—the same rate of strength lost when you stretch just before training.

   Whether you should stretch before training is your call. The small amount of strength loss may be offset by an increased range of motion and more efficient exercise. Trainees with a history of injury often feel that stretching a muscle before training helps them train that muscle harder. Since most of the benefits come from regular stretching as opposed to stretching just before or during training, it’s probably a good idea to consider stretching as a whole other workout.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Pump Protector and Fat Ejector by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-15T01:16:00.000-08:00

click picture

L-arginine has recently emerged as the superstar amino acid, displacing such previous favorites as glutamine and leucine. That’s particularly interesting because L-arginine isn’t even considered an essential amino acid, meaning one that must be provided in food. Like glutamine, it’s a conditionally essential amino: one that’s required in greater amounts during times of growth and stress.

Although arginine has been largely associated with promoting growth hormone release, its present popularity stems from its position as the immediate dietary precursor of nitric oxide. NO is both a gas and a free radical that is short-lived in the body but that performs myriad vital functions.

A recent study featured the Zucker rat, a genetically altered animal that exhibits the same effects of type 2 diabetes and obesity as humans—elevated blood glucose; elevated blood lipids, such as cholesterol and triglycerides; elevated resting insulin levels; and dysfunction of the lining of blood vessels that leads to atherosclerosis, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.1 Researchers gave the fat, diabetic rats arginine because of the relationship between NO and fat metabolism. NO increases the expression of a chemical that leads to increased activity of mitochondria in cells. Fat is oxidized in the mitochondria. When the genes of rats are manipulated so that they don’t produce NO, they always show higher bodyfat levels than ordinary rats, even though they eat the same amount of food. Inhibiting NO in rats also increases blood levels of triglyceride, or fat.

   Since NO stimulates fat oxidation in fat cells, the experimenters hypothesized that giving the Zucker diabetic rats, as they’re known, arginine would increase NO production and possibly decrease bodyfat levels. Some rats got arginine as 1.25 percent of their overall caloric intake in drinking water for 10 weeks. Other rats got no additional arginine.

   In the arginine rats, blood arginine levels rose 261 percent, and NO was elevated by 70 percent. The bodyweights of the arginine-treated rats were 6, 10 and 16 percent lower than the control rats at weeks four, seven and 10. Abdominal fat dropped by 45 percent. Serum levels of glucose dropped 25 percent; triglycerides dropped 23 percent; free fatty acids dropped 27 percent; homocysteine dropped 26 percent. By the 10th week of the study, NO production had increased in the arginine-treated rats by 71 to 85 percent, fat oxidation had increased 24 percent, and glucose oxidation was boosted by 34 to 36 percent. The genes related to fat oxidation increased considerably in the arginine rats, with two animals showing increases as high as 789 and 500 percent.

   The arginine treatment didn’t increase insulin or growth hormone release. No side effects occurred, nor was the uptake or metabolism of any other amino acid adversely affected. Arginine did, however, increase the weight of the rats’ skeletal muscles, heart and brain. Other animal studies also show that arginine benefits protein synthesis, but it doesn’t affect muscle protein breakdown, or catabolism.

   One of the substances increased by arginine reduces the availability of malonyl coenzyme-A, which is a primary inhibitor of fat oxidation in the mitochondria. That substance increases in the presence of carbohydrates, which explains why eating carbs just before training blunts fat burning during the workout. Specifically, malonyl coenzyme-A blocks the enzyme that works with L-carnitine in shuttling fat into the mitochondria for oxidation purposes.

   Another recent study showed that dietary arginine lowered levels of C-reactive protein in the body.2 CRP is a general measure of inflammation in the body, and inflammation is the cornerstone of most serious diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Most supplements, even potent antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, have little or no effect on CRP. The effect on CRP may explain why eating nuts and fish protects the cardiovascular system; both foods are rich sources of arginine. Eating 3.6 ounces, or 100 grams, of walnuts provides 2.5 grams of arginine.

Arginine is thought to lower CRP levels through several possible mechanisms. Its antioxidant activity is independent of its role as a NO precursor, since NO itself is an oxidant. Arginine also positively affects immune function, which helps to reduce the inflammation characteristic of high CRP levels. A recently published study found that vitamin D may boost levels of CRP. But considering the effect of arginine on CRP, it's likely that arginine offers a nutritional antidote to this vitamin D problem. Although the effects reported here about arginine involved rats, recent studies show that arginine appears to reverse most of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome in humans, suggesting that the beneficial effects of arginine may extend to humans, too.

References

1 Fu, W.J., et al. (2005). Dietary L-arginine supplementation reduces fat mass in Zucker diabetic fatty rats. J. Nutr. 135: 714-721.

2 Wells, B.J., et al. (2005). Association between dietary arginine and C-reactive protein. Nutrition. 21:125-30.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Toxic Haste? by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-13T03:36:00.000-08:00

While a lot of research has pointed to undesirable side effects associated with anabolic steroid use, a good deal of it is flawed. Case studies, for instance, often examine the experiences of a few or even one person. They don’t prove much, since the adverse reactions of just a few people could be idiosyncratic, involving an individual sensitivity to the drugs used or a medical condition that became evident only after the drug use.

   Another problem is that researchers don’t work with realistic doses of the drugs in their studies. Scientists consider it unethical to administer the drug regimens used by many athletes today. They note that no published precedents prove the safety of such regimens, so using them constitutes bad medicine.

   That’s led some scientists to observe athletes who get the drugs for themselves and use dosages and/or combinations that no doctor would advise. While risky from a health standpoint, such studies are nonetheless more realistic. Still, there’s no way to verify whether the doses and combinations reported by the athletes are accurate.

   That leaves animal studies. The most obvious limitation of extrapolating animal research to human physiology is that humans may not react to drugs exactly as animals do.

   In an effort to replicate real-world use of anabolic steroids by athletes, Japanese scientists gave massive doses of popular anabolic steroids to 37 rats that were divided into different groups.1 The first group got nandrolone decanoate, a popular injectable anabolic steroid with the trade name Deca-Durabolin; methenolone acetate, better known as Primobolan; and drostanolone, trade name Masteron. Group two got just Deca-Durabolin and saline, or salt, injections; group three, the control group got only saline injections.

   All of the steroids were injected for six weeks. The medications were then stopped for four weeks and resumed for another six. Given the short life span of a rat, that is comparable to a few years for a human. The interesting part of the study was the dosages. The authors used a 132-pound reference human (people in Japan tend to be a bit smaller than in the West) and figured out doses that amounted to 100 times the suggested therapeutic ones. In order for the rats to to get the equivalent of the massive dose schedule used by athletes, that amount was extrapolated to the animals’ considerably smaller size. The authors believed that only that level of steroid use would produce pathological effects.

   The study yielded few surprises. As expected, the rats in the steroid groups showed higher levels of both testosterone and its by-product, dihydrotestosterone, than the control group. The drug rats also showed higher estrogen levels, likely from the high doses of Deca-Durabolin, 20 percent of which can convert into estrogen. The other drugs in the study were DHT-based and could not convert into estrogen.

   The rodents’ organs showed severe damage to the hearts, testes and adrenal glands. The animals’ prostate glands showed enlargement but no evidence of cancer. In the testes, both Sertoli cells (where sperm cells are made) and Leydig cells (where testosterone is synthesized) were reduced in number. The animals’ natural secretion of testosterone was completely inhibited. Commenting on that, the authors noted, “Although students and athletes readily use anabolic steroid drugs, this finding is very shocking, and steroid users would most likely be quite alarmed if they knew of these pathological effects on the testes.”

   That last observation shows how out of touch those researchers were with reality. Athletes have known of the hormone-suppressing effects of anabolic steroids for years. They attempt to counter the effects by using other drugs, such as estrogen blockers like Nolvadex or various aromatase blockers, which prevent the conversion of androgens into estrogens. Many also use HCG, an injectable drug with a structure similar to that of luteinizing hormone, the hormone that maintains testosterone synthesis.

In the section discussing how the steroid regimen in the rats led to inflammation in the heart, the authors suggest that former Olympic gold medal track star Florence “Flo-Jo” Joyner may have died from cardiac complications of anabolic steroid use. Joyner’s official cause of death was related to a seizure.

   The damage to the adrenal glands was explained by the presence of androgen receptors there. The authors think that some kind of hormonal negative-feedback mechanism may have caused the adrenal damage. But what about giving the animals dosages equivalent to 100 times the therapeutic dose based on weight? Wouldn’t that impose enough stress on the rodents to burn out their adrenal glands?

   A major problem with the study is the doses used. They are excessive. An example is the dose used for Deca-Durabolin. The authors think that some athletes are injecting 20,000 milligrams of Deca. Heck, even with a drug that has the reputation of being relatively mild, such as Deca, that would be a near-fatal dose.

   Does that mean the steroid regimens used by athletes and bodybuilders are safe? Unlikely. While athletes may not use doses comparable to those given to the rats in this study, they do use a lot more than what would ever be used therapeutically

Excessive Bodyfat: A Growth Hormone Deficiency?

   Most people are fat because they eat too much and exercise too little. They don’t burn enough calories through their daily activity. That’s the simple equation of obesity, but as scientific discovery marches on, the body-composition equation becomes increasingly complex.

   An example is the success of low-carbohydrate dieting. Many recent studies that have compared low-carb to other types of diets, such as lowfat, show that low-carb diets work better for most obese people. That’s true even when the competing diets contain an equal number of daily calories and a similar level of physical activity among study subjects.

   The usual explanation for the apparent superiority of low-carb diets relates to hormones. A primary objective of low-carb dieting is insulin control. Most people with excess bodyfat levels oversecrete insulin, a storage hormone that works mainly to help store bodyfat. Thus, by limiting carbohydrates, the food element that promotes the greatest release of insulin, obese people are able to tap into and oxidize excess fat stores.

   Other hormones also play prominent roles in body composition. Thyroid hormone controls basal, or resting, metabolic rate, so a person’s thyroid gland must be functioning optimally to promote fat loss. On the other hand, taking excessive doses of pharmaceutical forms of thyroid hormone can have a pronounced catabolic effect in lean tissue. Most obese people have normal thyroid function, and the body responds to a drastic reduction in calories by lowering active thyroid output as a means of preserving vital tissue. Known as the dieting plateau, the effect can be overcome in many cases with small doses of thyroid hormone. That should always be medically supervised to avoid side effects.

   Growth hormone has a reputation as a fat burner, which explains the plethora of GH-promoting food supplements that are touted as helping lower bodyfat. Whether it’s of any use in treating obesity or lowering bodyfat is a subject of contention among scientists. On the other hand, people who are deficient in GH always show significant body-composition improvement when given the hormone, including decreased bodyfat and increased lean mass.

   The problem with using growth hormone as a fat-loss therapy involves not only the considerable expense of the drug itself, as well as the availability, but also possible side effects. When people are given amounts of GH greater than the doses used to treat GH deficiency, they commonly experience side effects, including edema, or water retention. Edema occurs because GH promotes the release of aldosterone, an adrenal hormone that retains sodium and water in the body. Joint pain, another common side effect, is likely related to GH’s influence on connective-tissue growth. Excessive connective-tissue growth leads to effects such as carpal tunnel syndrome, a painful nerve impingement at the wrist that may require surgical correction. In other cases GH is associated with hypertension and glucose intolerance, even gynecomastia, a condition of excess glandular tissue in male breasts.

A kind of GH that exists only in experimental form appears to offer the fat-lowering effects of growth hormone without the side effects. It won’t be available for many years, however. In the meantime, is there a dose that will effectively lower bodyfat without side effects?

   According to a recent double-blind study, there is.2 Fifty-nine obese men and women were randomly assigned to either a GH group or a placebo group. The study lasted six months, and the subjects initially injected themselves with either 200 micrograms of GH or a placebo. After a month the dose was increased to 400 micrograms for men and 600 for women. The women got more because women are less sensitive to GH than men. After that, all groups got off the GH, and the researchers followed them for another three months.

   Those in the GH group lost 2.4 kilograms—a modest amount, but it was composed entirely of bodyfat. They lost no lean tissue, or muscle, at all. That’s consistent with the known effects of GH: maintaining lean mass while promoting use of fat as a fuel source. Precisely how the GH promoted the fat loss isn’t known.

   None of the usual side effects linked to GH showed up in any of the subjects, an effect attributed to the low doses used in the study. Those using the real GH did show normalized levels of IGF-1, a product of GH release produced in the liver. The GH group also had a 19 percent increase in high-density lipoprotein, a cardiac- protective cholesterol carrier in the blood.

   The authors suggest that in people who have excessive bodyfat, lower GH and IGF-1 levels may help perpetuate obesity. Adding small doses of GH to compensate for the apparent deficiency could promote a selective loss of bodyfat while preserving or promoting a gain in lean tissue that would help increase resting metabolic rate, thus maintaining lower bodyfat levels.

References

1 Takahashi, M., et al. (2004). Endocrinological and pathological effects of anabolic-androgenic steroid in male rats. Endocrine Journal. 51:425-34.

2 Albert, S.G., et al. (2004). Low-dose recombinant human growth hormone as adjuvant therapy to lifestyle modifications in the management of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 89:695-701.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Hydrate to Heighten Muscle Growth, Strength and Health by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-10T03:40:00.000-08:00

Aliso Viejo is a small city, population 40,000, south of Los Angeles. Among its distinguishing characteristics is that it was the first planned community in the rapidly growing Orange County. Truth be told, Aliso Viejo isn’t the most exciting place to visit, although it’s not far from Disneyland. Under the heading “places of interest,” the city’s official Web site lists Sora University, a Buddhist college, and nature walks.

   So it’s a matter of some interest that sleepy Aliso Viejo managed to make the world news in March 2004. What attracted the media were reports that the good people on the city council were going to ban an extremely dangerous environmental contaminant. Somehow, dihydrogen monoxide had reached startling levels in Aliso Viejo. In its crude form, this critical ingredient in many common chemical compounds often spilled onto the city’s otherwise pristine streets. Investigation revealed that it showed up even in Styrofoam cups.

   The serious effects of dihydrogen monoxide were presented by a paralegal who’d obtained the information from an official-looking, seemingly authoritative Web site. The report noted that dihydrogen monoxide was lethal if inhaled, that it could cause severe burns in its gaseous state and that it was the major component of acid rain. In short, the report concluded, dihydrogen monoxide posed a “threat to human health and safety.”

   The Web site also noted that dihydrogen monoxide was particularly insidious, being odorless, tasteless and colorless. The symptoms of excessive dihydrogen monoxide intake included sweating and urination, a possible bloated feeling and an electrolyte or mineral imbalance. In large print, the site proclaimed, “This horror must be stopped!”

   Is it any wonder the city fathers of Aliso Viejo were concerned? With most of the population in the 25-to-35-year-old age group, they had to consider the impact of dihydrogen monoxide on children and future generations. Something had to be done, and quickly.

   Aliso Viejo’s alarm is replicated daily because other Internet sites proclaim the toxicity of everything from protein to artificial sweeteners. The well-meaning but seriously uninformed paralegal who prepared the report for the city council had fallen for a put-on: Dihydrogen monoxide is the chemical name for water. (Nobody caught the joke in time for Aliso Viejo’s plan not to hit humor-hungry wire services.)

   Eliminating water would prove disastrous to life on Earth. A human being can live without oxygen for four to six minutes. You can survive without eating anything for up to 60 days, but you may have noticed that even those whose hunger strikes make the news never stop drinking water. No water almost certainly means death within five days. The immediate cause of death for Terry Schiavo, a medically brain-dead Florida woman whose feeding tube was disconnected after more than a decade, was dehydration. Fluids had been withdrawn less than a week earlier. Grotesque as it may sound, she died right on schedule from lack of water.

   Water intake is no less important for bodybuilders. While many look at it merely as the source of a refreshing interlude between sets or something they shower in after a workout, water has much more critical uses. From an aesthetic viewpoint, the amount of water the body retains can determine the winner in a close bodybuilding contest. Being bloated, or having accumulated too much water, is among most competitors’ greatest fears, for it can obscure muscular definition honed by weeks or even months of hard training and dieting.

   Some bodybuilders, especially on the professional level, circumvent the water retention that inevitably results from using drugs such as anabolic steroids and growth hormone by using other drugs, such as diuretics. That can create another whole new set of problems, however, such as an electrolyte imbalance that results in embarrassing muscle cramps onstage. Since muscle itself is 72 percent water, injudicious use of diuretics can lead to a flat appearance, especially after a low-carb diet has eliminated the glycogen that holds water in muscles.

The problem with diuretics and other drugs that induce rapid water loss is that they have an overkill effect. Water is key both inside and outside the body’s cells. Intracellular water accounts for two-thirds of the body’s water, and the other third is extracellular. When a bodybuilder uses diuretics, he intends to eliminate extracellular water, but the drugs are so potent that they also reduce intracellular water. That leads to an electrolyte imbalance.

   Research has illuminated some fascinating effects of water that are directly relevant to anybody who wants added muscle and vibrant health. An example is the cellular hydration theory, which deals with the status of water contained in a cell.1 Hydration of a muscle cell sets off an anabolic cascade that results in upgraded muscle protein synthesis. The reverse is true. When a cell is dehydrated, it becomes catabolic, prone to breakdown. Dehydrated cells characterize many diseases, such as cancer, and they include a catabolic component.

Water: The Facts

   The human body is 60 percent water; babies are about 70 percent water. Men have more water in their bodies than women because men usually have more muscle, which is 72 percent water. By contrast, fat contains about 10 percent water, which makes it an ideal storage fuel. The structures of protein contain water, as does glycogen, the stored form of carbohydrate in the human body. Each gram of glycogen is stored with three grams of water. That explains the high initial weight loss that occurs with many diets, especially low-carb plans. Without carbs, glycogen rapidly degrades, eliminating the water stored with it.

   Muscle contains more water because such elements as protein, glycogen, creatine and amino acids pull water into the tissue. Because fat doesn’t contain those elements, there’s no osmosis, which makes fat a drier tissue than muscle.

   Water is the primary solvent, dissolving various nutrients, including minerals, vitamins, amino acids and glucose. Water is also involved in the digestion and absorption of those nutrients, as well as their transport, via blood, into tissues and cells; blood is also largely water.

   Water is an excellent solvent because it’s a polar molecule. It has no electrical charge of its own, but its molecular structure fosters partial negative and positive charges on its oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Thus water interacts with other water molecules and partially charged substances, such as electrolytes, glucose and amino acids.

   Dehydration is usually defined as a 1 to 2 percent loss of bodyweight resulting from fluid losses.2 Rat-based studies found that 28 hours after rodents were deprived of water, the solid elements of their blood increased and that the liquid portion, or volume, declined. Thickening of blood, associated with blood clotting and slowed blood flow, is also associated with strokes and heart attacks.

   A study of Seventh-Day Adventists—8,280 men and 12,017 women—examined the relationship between heart disease and water intake.3 Those who drank five or more glasses of water daily were less likely to die of a heart attack than those who drank two or fewer. Of the subjects who drank five or more glasses daily, the women were 41 percent and the men 54 percent less likely to die from a heart attack.

   Drinking other fluids, however, such as coffee, tea, juice, milk and alcohol, reversed the benefits of water and led to a greater mortality rate. Blood thinning was water’s key protective property; decreased blood thickness, or viscosity, meant less chance of fatal blood clots. Fluids like coffee have the opposite effect because to be digested they need to be diluted, which draws water from the blood, making it temporarily thicker. Coffee is a mild diuretic, causing some water loss, which can also lead to blood thickening. On the other hand, in those who regularly drink coffee, the diuretic action is lost, which makes a cup of coffee equivalent to two-thirds of a cup of water.

The Importance of Water During a Diet

   Fat is a storage base for various toxins, and as it degrades through diet and exercise, you need to take in enough water to flush out the toxins released from stored fat. Water is also a natural diuretic, flushing out such elements as sodium, which can lead to water retention and a bloated appearance.

   Bodybuilders who restrict water shortly before a contest are likely working against themselves, depending on how limited their intake is. As you restrict fluid intake, blood volume declines. When the brain detects that, the posterior pituitary gland secretes antidiuretic hormone. As the name implies, ADH works to retain water so the body can maintain the right blood volume. In other words, you wind up retaining more water when you restrict water. Conversely, drinking water inhibits ADH release. So does alcohol, which explains why you need to pee not long after you have an alcoholic drink.

   People who diet often complain that they can’t concentrate, but the cause may be less the lack of calories than a mild form of dehydration. Studies of animals have shown that dehydration impairs brain function. It damages the mitochondria of neurons, or brain cells—and mitochondria are the source of the energy that maintains cellular function. The level of glutamate, an amino acid that stimulates neuron activity, can increase too fast and possibly kill neurons; excess glutamate activity is a primary cause of stroke-related neuron death.

   In human studies dehydrated subjects show impaired math ability, memory and reaction time.4 That happens after only a 2 percent body-fluid loss—which is considered the point where dehydration side effects appear. Nitric oxide, also produced in the brain, is involved in learning and memory. Normally dehydration increases nitric oxide in the brain, but that effect is lost in older people, which may help explain memory defects.

   Studies show that drinking water with meals results in eating less food, in turn leading to weight losses. An old dieting trick is to drink a glass of water shortly before eating a meal. The water makes you feel full and decreases your appetite and food intake.

   A surprising property of water is its thermogenic aspect.5 One experiment measured the effects on seven men and seven women who drank 500 milliliters, or just over a pint, of water. That amount resulted in a 30 percent increase in resting metabolic rate within 10 minutes of drinking and reached maximum effects in 30 to 40 minutes. The increased metabolic rate was fueled by fat in men and by carbs in women. This is related to a release of catecholamine hormones, such as epinephrine. The release of catecholamines usually leads to a rise in blood pressure, but not when you drink water. That’s because water also elicits increased activity of the vagal nerve, which works against blood pressure increase caused by sympathetic hormones.6

Anabolic Water?

   Cellular hydration is considered a potent anabolic stimulus. Conversely, when a cell is dry, catabolic effects dominate, often leading to cell death. Most studies showing the effect of cellular hydration have used cells extracted from liver. One such study showed that perfusing liver cells with the amino acid glutamine makes the size of the cell swell by 12 percent. It happens in minutes and lasts as long as the perfusion continues.

   Glutamine swells cells because it promotes the entry of sodium into the cell. Inside the cell the sodium exchanges with potassium, which then exits the cell to prevent excess swelling. That mechanism is known as the sodium-potassium pump. Other substances also promote cellular hydration—various amino acids, bile acids, insulin and possibly creatine. Researchers think that most of insulin’s anabolic effects come about because it promotes cellular hydration. Some substances—glucagon, cyclic AMP, serotonin and urea—promote cellular dehydration, which has catabolic consequences.

   Hydration-related cellular swelling is anabolic because hydration inhibits protein breakdown. Other effects include an increase in glycogen synthesis and a decrease in glutamine synthesis, as well as uptake of lactate and amino acids. The effects of cellular hydration on isolated liver cells are replicated in muscle, bone and other cells and tissues of the body.

The effects of cellular hydration on an intact human body have been noted in clinical settings. For example, burn patients are notably dehydrated and also show huge nitrogen or protein losses. Various types of cancer marked by relative dehydration also show a high nitrogen loss. While there is a dearth of studies to back up clinical observations, one experiment did attempt to show the effect of cellular swelling in humans.7 Ten men were artificially dehydrated or hydrated. When they were hydrated, protein breakdown significantly decreased, and they showed decreased peripheral insulin sensitivity. The net effect appeared similar to that of fasting—protein sparing, increased fat oxidation, increased ketone release and impaired glucose metabolism.

Does Water Help Prevent Cancer?

   A 10-year study featuring 48,000 men linked a lower incidence of bladder cancer to a high intake of fluids that dilute and eliminate carcinogens. The researchers calculated that bladder cancer decreased by 7 percent for every eight ounces of water the men drank.

   Other studies have demonstrated water’s salutary impact against colorectal cancer and premalignant polyps, finding an inverse relationship between drinking as few as five glasses daily and cancer. Evidently drinking lots of water speeds passage of food through the gastrointestinal tract, thereby limiting cellular exposure to carcinogens.

Water and Training

Whether dehydration adversely affects your workouts depends on such factors as the temperature and the type of training you’re doing. Individual response also enters the picture; some people appear to tolerate dehydration better than others. The tipping point is usually a loss of 2 percent of bodyweight in fluid over the course of an exercise session or athletic event, though that applies mainly to endurance exercise under warm or hot conditions. In colder temperatures, dehydration is less likely to manifest. Other studies show that dehydration doesn’t seem to affect strength training until you lose 7 percent or more in fluid.

   Some studies show that upper-body muscles are more vulnerable than lower-body muscles to mild dehydration. In one study, however, 10 experienced powerlifters became dehydrated after sitting in a hot sauna for two hours.8 They lost 1.5 percent of body mass, primarily as water. Tests of their maximum bench press strength showed a 5.6 percent decrease. Full strength returned after two hours of rest and fluid intake.

   Dehydration may adversely affect exercise for several reasons. When your body’s water content goes down, your heart must work harder to pump the blood that supplies working muscles and that cools the skin. Straining your heart by not getting enough fluids in the heat may lead to fatigue and loss of intensity. You can tell that from a higher heart rate during exercise, as the heart attempts to compensate. Whatever you’re doing will seem considerably harder when you’re dehydrated.

   Core body temperature rises, which leads to exhaustion and the end of the session. As temperature increases, it’s detected by the central nervous system, which responds by reducing the drive to exercise; a big spike in body temperature can damage the brain.

   When the body overheats from lack of fluid intake, it accelerates use of muscle glycogen, the primary fuel that powers anaerobic exercise. Rapid glycogen use is linked to increased catecholamine release, a stress reaction, and higher body temperature. The reduced cardiac response that occurs during dehydration inhibits blood flow to muscles, which results in less oxygen delivery and greater fatigue. Dehydration also promotes a stress response due to lower blood volume, and that promotes the release of cortisol, the body’s primary catabolic hormone. Too much of it can lead to muscle loss.

You can prevent dehydration during athletic activity if you do the following:

•Before exercise: Drink about 20 ounces of water two hours before training.

•During exercise: Drink up to a quart of water. You get better water uptake by drinking a cold sports drink that contains small amounts of minerals and no more than 7 percent carbs.

•After exercise: Drink 150 percent to 200 percent of total fluids lost.

Water Requirements and Myths

   In an article published three years ago, a physiology professor questioned the frequent advice to drink at least eight glasses of water a day.9 He noted that there was no scientific evidence to confirm the recommendation, just as there’s no scientific rationale for eating no more than 30 grams of protein at each meal. The idea that by the time you experience thirst you’re likely already dehydrated was also pronounced a myth by the professor, who noted that the human sense of thirst is remarkably accurate and usually in concert with fluid needs.

   The notion that dark urine means you’re dehydrated is also false. Many nutrients, as most bodybuilders know, lead to darker urine, but it has nothing to do with being dehydrated.

   Another myth is that you must drink a copious amount of water to maintain kidney function. True, drinking clean, pure water is one of the best things you can do to protect your kidneys, but the kidneys aren’t adversely affected unless severe dehydration, or a bodyweight fluid decline of 5 percent or more, occurs. Researchers who study kidney function say that in a normal-sized adult in a temperate climate, one liter or four eight-ounce glasses of water are enough to meet all of the body’s water needs.

   Drinking too much water can be just as hazardous as drinking too little. Too much water can dilute the electrolytes you need for brain function and can lead to convulsions—even death. Loss of sodium leads to potentially fatal edema, or swelling, of the brain.

   Teenage deaths at rave parties have been connected to use of the drug Ecstasy. One of its effects is the intense thirst that results from an increase in body temperature. Ecstasy also promotes the release of vasopressin, an antidiuretic hormone. Continued water intake when the body is already retaining water leads to hyponatremia, or low sodium, and that leads to death.

   Safe water intake means drinking one milliliter (an ounce contains 30 milliliters) per calorie per day. So if you’re eating 3,000 calories, drink 3,000 milliliters, or about three quarts, per day. Factors that may require increased water intake include exercise under hot conditions, a high-fiber diet and the increased fluid loss that comes with drinking a lot of alcohol. Keep in mind that your body’s metabolism generates nearly a pint of water and that the water content of foods such as fruits and vegetables can be more than 90 percent.

References

1 Ritz, P., et al. (2001). Effects of changes in water compartments on physiology and metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr, 57:S2-S5.

2 Shirrefs, S. (2005). The importance of good hydration for work and exercise performance. Nut Reviews, 63:S14-S21.

3 Chan, J., et al. (2002). Water, other fluids, and fatal coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol, 155:827-33.

4 Wilson, M., et al. (2001). Impaired cognitive function and mental performance in mild dehydration. Eur J Clin Res, 57:S24-S29.

5 Boshmann, M., et al. (2003). Water-induced thermogenesis. J Clin Endocrinl Metab, 88:6015-6019.

6 Brown, C.M., et al. (2005). Cardiovascular responses to water drinking—does osmolality play a role? Am J Physiol. In press.

7 Keller, U., et al. (2001). Effects of changes in hydration on protein, glucose, and lipid metabolism in man: impact on health. Eur J Clin Nutr, 57:S69-S74.

8 Schoffstall, J.E., et al. (2001). Effects of dehydration and rehydration on the one-repetition-maximum bench press of weight-trained males. J Strength Cond Res, 15:102-108.

9 Valtin, H. (2002). “Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.” Really? Is there scientific evidence for “8x8”? J Applied Physiol, 283:R993-R1004.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

DMAA and strokes by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-04T17:23:00.000-08:00

Although depicted as a benign substance with effects comparable to drinking several cups of coffee, DMAA may not be so benign as originally thought. DMAA is found in several popular food supplements touted as pre-workout energy boosters. Some recent problems involving two soldiers who died from cardiac arrest   linked to their use of DMAA-containing supplements have prompted the military to ban DMAA supplements from sale. DMAA is allowable in supplements based on its existence in germanium oil, which itself has recently come into question, since recent chemical analysis of natural germanium oil found no trace of naturally occurring DMAA.This suggests that DMAA is added to supplements, which would classify it as a drug, rather than a natural ingredient.
   Thus far, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not made any overtures to remove DMAA from the market. But the FDA usually only takes this step after repeated reports of adverse effects, as occurred with ephedrine a few years ago. But some reports about adverse effects directly related to ingestion of DMAA have begun to appear. Typical of them is a new case study published in The New Zealand Journal of Medicine. In New Zealand, DMAA is used as a "party pill," and three years ago the New Zealand Ministry of Health reported three cases of severe headache,vomiting, and one case of cerebral hemorrhage (stroke) in recreational users of DMAA party pills.
     A just published study, also in the NZJM, discusses the events that led to a 21-year-old man who had ingested 2 DMAA pills (278 milligrams per capsule) having a stroke. Along with the DMAA pills, he ingested 150 milligrams of caffeine. DMAA and caffeine are typically found together in most bodybuilding supplements that contain DMAA.He had already drank a can of beer before he took the pills. Within 30 minutes, he began suffering a massive headache, to the extent that he asked a friend to drive him home. When he arrived at home, he became confused, peed in his pants, and vomited for 2-3 hours before falling asleep.When he awoke the next morning, he was drowsy and spoke with slurred speech. Since he didn't get any better as the day wore on, he went to an emergency room at 6 p.m.
    On arrival at the ER, he was still confused and his speech was slurred. He could not give the doctors a coherent history of his present problem. He also showed a right facial droop, and right-sided weakness, both signs of a stroke. Based on this, the attending doctors ordered a CT scan of his brain, which showed a large hemorrhage in the basal ganglia area, confirmed the diagnosis of stroke. An examination showed that he had trouble speaking, couldn't move fluidly, and had lost his sense of feeling and touch. While in the hospital, he suffered a seizure and was given an anti-convulsive drug. A cerebral angiogram show no signs of any condition that would account for his stroke. He showed improvement after 5 days, and was released after 15 days.
     The doctors believe that based on the timing of his ingestion of DMAA and his stroke, that DMAA was the likely cause. In addition, he showed no abnormalities that would account for his symptoms, such as high blood pressure, heart rhythm disturbances, or blood vessel structural abnormalities.The type of stroke he suffered is very rare in those under age 45, and when it does occur, it is usually the result of prior brain structural or blood vessel abnormalities. While this case involved only one person, and thus cannot be used as definitive evidence in relation to the toxicity of DMAA, the fact that it happened to a previously healthy young man with no risk factors for stroke does make you wonder just how safe DMAA really is.In addition, the dose of DMAA that he ingested may be far more than is found in most supplements aimed at bodybuilding use. This is speculative at best, since the supplements in question use labels that list "proprietary ingredients," which means that no specific amounts of the ingredients are listed on the label.Only time will tell if other cases of serious health problems emerge after the use of DMAA. I suspect that if such cases do arise, they will be linked to overuse of supplements containing DMAA. This is precisely what occurred with ephedrine. No health problems ever occurred after ingesting ephedrine in those who used suggested normal doses, or who had no previously undiagnosed health conditions that would have contraindicated the use of ephedrine.DMAA does share one property with ephedrine: both substances will cause a false positive test during a drug test for amphetamines.More problems with DMAA supplements are inevitable because of the widespread misconception that because a supplement is sold over the counter, it has to be completely safe to use in any amount. As the dictum asserts,"Only the dose determines the poison."

Gee, P, et al. Another bitter pill: a case of toxicity from DMAA pills.NZMJ 2011;123:124-127.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at   http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Weight Training: a Real Heart-Breaker? by Jerry Brainum

2012-01-03T03:17:00.000-08:00

In the past many physicians advised their patients not to lift weights because it “strained” the heart. That advice was no doubt largely based on firsthand observation of men lifting heavy weights, with all the signs of stress and strain apparent in the lifters’ blood-engorged faces. Lifting heavy weights, the reasoning went, dangerously increased blood pressure, thereby placing undue stress on the heart.

   More recent research shows that a well-designed weight-training program not only isn’t bad for most hearts but also provides benefits previously ascribed to aerobic exercise. Weight training, like aerobics, can increase the levels of high-density lipoprotein, the protective cholesterol carrier in the blood. Lifting weights also increases insulin sensitivity, and increased insulin control is beneficial for cardiovascular protection.

   It’s true that lifting heavy weights, particularly in positions that promote increased pressure on the vascular system, such as squats and leg presses, does significantly increase blood pressure. That increase, though, occurs only during the actual lift. Studies show that your body adjusts to the temporary rise in blood pressure by producing changes in the blood vessels that result in a lower resting blood pressure. So it all evens out.

   There are, however, exceptions to the rule—for example, in the case of medical conditions that involve structural weaknesses of blood vessel walls. If you have an aneurysm in any of your blood vessels, increasing blood pressure may cause it to explode, with possibly calamitous results. (An aneurysm is dilation of a blood vessel wall that causes a weakness in that portion of the wall. When it blows, it’s comparable to a tire blowing out.)

   In a recent letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association, several Yale University School of Medicine physicians reported on the incidence of a rupture of the aorta, the main artery leading out of the heart, in five patients.1 The medical diagnosis was acute dissection of the ascending aorta. In plain English that means that these people experienced aorta tearing from the inside, likely the result of an undiagnosed aneurysm. That’s the condition that caused the sudden death of comedian John Ritter.

   While dissection of the aorta is usually found in people over 40 with a long history of hypertension, or high blood pressure, the cases reported in JAMA involved five patients ranging in age from 19 to 53 with no previously diagnosed aneurysm or high blood pressure. None of them had Marfan’s syndrome, a congenital weakness of connective tissue in which aortic dissection often occurs. A top-level female volleyball player died a few years ago after her aorta exploded suddenly from Marfan’s syndrome. Some doctors think that, based on his body structure, Abraham Lincoln suffered from that disease, which would have likely killed him if Booth’s bullet hadn’t gotten to him first in April 1865.

   The common denominator in the five patients cited in the JAMA letter was that all were engaged in some type of heavy lifting when their symptoms became apparent. Two of them were lifting weights, one was trying to move a heavy stone structure, and the other two were doing pushups.

   No one knows for sure what causes this weakness in the wall of blood vessels. The symptoms feel like a heart attack, with the exception of a ripping sensation deep in the chest. Some suggest that an increased accumulation of plaque deposits in the arteries (atherosclerosis) weakens the wall. Others think the aneurysm is just there to begin with, a sort of birth defect that becomes apparent only when sufficient pressure is exerted on it—as can occur with lifting heavy weights.

   The doctors who wrote the JAMA letter suggest that those at risk include people with known aneurysms or connective tissue disease (such as Marfan’s syndrome), a family history of aneurysms or dissection, high blood pressure and people middle-aged or older; the aorta becomes stiffer with age, thus predisposing it to increased pressure and blowout. One study found that garlic appears to decrease age-related aortic stiffness.

   The way to deal with this is by having a medical scan of your aorta if you fall into any of the risk-factor patterns. Doctors also advise you not to lift more than your bodyweight, since doing so raises the blood pressure to high levels that could precipitate an aortic dissection. That last suggestion is likely to fall on deaf ears in hardcore bodybuilders, who want to lift heavy for strength and muscle gains. So it’s especially vital to undergo medical tests if you have any history of the conditions linked to aortic dissection.

1 Elefteriades, J.A., et al. (2003). Weight lifting and rupture of silent aortic aneurysms. JAMA. 290:2803.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at   http://www.jerrybrainum.com

World’s Most Popular Drug by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-31T01:29:00.000-08:00

Here’s a quick quiz for you: What’s the most popular drug among bodybuilders? It isn’t any type of anabolic steroid or growth hormone, nor does it involve thyroid, beta agonists or any other anabolic substance. The most popular drug among bodybuilders is also the most popular drug world-wide: caffeine.

   In the United States about four out of five Americans eat, drink or swallow a product that contains caffeine. Caffeine is ubiquitous in nature, existing in more than 60 known plants. About 75 percent of the caffeine consumed comes from coffee, with the other 25 percent mainly from tea and cocoa. Coffee, at an average 100 milligrams of caffeine per cup, contains twice as much caffeine as tea. A 12-ounce bottle of cola contains between 35 and 55 milligrams of caffeine.

   Most people use caffeine to obtain benefits associated with it, including increased mental alertness, faster thought processes and reduced fatigue. Other effects—not specifically sought by most people—include stimulation of the heart, increased secretion of stomach acid and increased urine output.

   Caffeine is thought to be an ergogenic aid in that it can enhance athletic performance. A study examined some of the fat-burning properties of caffeine under resting conditions and found that it increased energy expenditure 13 percent.1 Other effects included 24 percent increased fat oxidation, with 76 percent being recycled, likely due to the resting conditions in the study. Most of the effects were attributed to increased sympathetic nervous system activity, or the release of sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, after the subjects took caffeine.

   Caffeine-induced fatty acid release can interfere with insulin activity, leading to insulin insensitivity; however, research shows that exercise relieves that particular problem. Indeed, one recent study showed that drinking coffee offers protection against type 2 diabetes and suggested that nutrients besides caffeine, such as magnesium, may be the protective factors in coffee.2

   Another recent study found that caffeine protects against Alzheimer’s disease by reducing the toxic effects of a protein called beta-amyloid on brain neurons3; buildup of beta-amyloid is considered a primary event in the onset of Alzheimer’s.

   Since caffeine promotes the release of sympathetic hormones that stimulate body processes, it’s not surprising that it can induce severe anxiety in some people. Indeed, “caffeineism” is so distressing that an estimated 20 percent of people cannot tolerate anything containing caffeine. One study, however, found that exercise can relieve anxiety brought on by high doses of caffeine.4

   The release of sympathetic hormones by caffeine can stimulate the heart and increase blood pressure. Some drugs prescribed to treat cardiovascular disease, known as beta-blockers, block the effects of sympathetic hormones on the cardiovascular system. Caffeine would appear to be a problem because of the way it affects the cardiovascular system, but most studies have found no significant adverse effects except when excess intake is involved.

   For example, one study examined the effects of caffeine on the body’s homocysteine levels.5 A toxic by-product of the metabolism of the essential amino acid methionine, homocysteine is linked to cardiovascular and other diseases. Healthy volunteers drank a liter a day of coffee for a month, and 24 of the 25 participants showed significant elevations of homocysteine in the blood. Vitamin B12, folic acid and vitamin B6 neutralize the effects of homocysteine, converting it into an innocuous substance that’s excreted from the body.

   Another recent study found that drinking four cups of filtered coffee a day for one month increased cholesterol levels.6 Previous studies had shown that drinking unfiltered coffee increased cholesterol, an effect scientists traced to elements in coffee called diterpenes. Coffee filters captured the chemicals, making filtered coffee safe—or so they thought. Even so, the increase in cholesterol from coffee is significant only to those who already have elevated cholesterol. To others the effect is insignificant.

Drinking more than about five cups of coffee daily—particularly at night—can lead to insomnia. Besides caffeine coffee contains other substances, such as theophylline, a drug commonly used to treat bronchial asthma because it dilates the bronchial tubes. Coffee does that too. Another coffee ingredient, theobromine, was recently found to have cough-suppressant power superior to that in over-the-counter cough medications. Caffeine isn’t linked to any organ damage and peaks in the blood about two hours following ingestion. It’s metabolized by the liver, then excreted by the kidneys.

   Coffee is believed to stimulate the brain by blocking brain receptors for a chemical called adenosine, which slows the activity of the brain’s working cells, or neurons. By blocking adenosine, caffeine fosters a feeling of mental clarity and focus. On the other hand, it also constricts blood vessels in the brain, which would decrease blood flow and lower metabolic activity.

   Since caffeine is a drug, you might expect to pay a price if you quit cold turkey. The effects of withdrawal include headache, drowsiness and fatigue, mainly due to an increase in adenosine receptors in the brain.

   As with other drugs, caffeine’s physiological effects depend on the dosage. The amount in an average cup of coffee—100 to 200 milligrams—leads to increased mental alertness and reduced fatigue. At the one-gram level symptoms of caffeineism, such as anxiety, mild heart-rhythm disturbances and gastrointestinal disturbances, appear. If for some crazy reason you were to ingest 10 grams of caffeine—the amount in 100 cups of coffee—at one time, you’d die.

   Many of the popular so-called fat-burning supplements on the market contain some form of caffeine. Typical ingredients include guarana, an herb from Brazil that contains 7 percent caffeine—compared to the 2 percent found in coffee. A popular stimulant sold in the 1970s called Zoom was composed entirely of guarana, and its activity matched its name. Another form found in supplements is mate, also from South America.

   The addition of caffeine to fat-burning supplements makes sense, since it promotes the release of sympathetic hormones, such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, which induce a biochemical cascade of fat from fat cells. The combination of ephedrine, which also promotes sympathetic-hormone release, and caffeine was considered the most effective natural fat-burning combination. Adverse publicity about ephedrine, however, eventually led to its being banned by the FDA. Could the fact that head-to-head comparisons found the ephedrine-and-caffeine combo to be superior to popular prescription diet pills have anything to do with the ban on ephedrine? You bet it could.

   Caffeine was considered so ergogenic that the Olympics banned it above a certain quantity in the blood. The assumption was that the only way to reach that level of caffeine was to use it purposely as a means of improving performance. Some world-class cyclists were said to even use caffeine suppositories.

   Caffeine is described as ergogenic because it releases greater amounts of fat in the blood, which spares limited glycogen stores in muscle. That helps increase muscular endurance, and studies involving endurance athletes have consistently proved boosting power of caffeine. The evidence for any effect on anaerobic exercise, such as bodybuilding, has been less clear. Recent studies, however, show that under anaerobic exercise conditions, caffeine ingestion appears to increase muscular endurance and decrease fatigue. An important point about these studies is that they all involved the use of pure caffeine, not food products containing caffeine, such as coffee. The effects of pure caffeine are considered more reliable.

An Alternative to

Pro-hormones?

   In late October 2004, President George W. Bush signed the 2004 Anabolic Steroid Control Act, an amendment to earlier legislation that had made anabolic steroid distribution illegal. The new law covers nearly all over-the-counter pro-hormone supplements and discourages the development of new pro-hormone supplements designed to circumvent the new law.

An interesting aspect of the law is that few, if any, complaints about adverse health effects of pro-hormones had been reported to the Food and Drug Administration. The philosophy behind the new law is “protective” because pro-hormone supplements are considered to be full-fledged anabolic steroids.

   Companies were able to sell various pro-hormone formulas thanks to provisions in the Food Supplement Act of 1994, which diverted proof of danger of any particular supplement from the manufacturer to the FDA. The law also said that if a supplement existed naturally, it was by definition a food, not a drug, and therefore not subject to the stringent rules that affect drugs. The new law changes all that.

   In fact, the recent banning of ephedrine for dubious reasons, plus the new mandate recently announced by the Federal Trade Commission to “vigorously pursue misleading claims in the supplement industry” may spell the beginning of the end for many other supplements that the FDA will consider fraudulent or of dubious value to consumers. In essence, the agency is saying that most Americans are brain defective and cannot protect themselves, so the big brother FDA will do it for the poor fools. That, by the way, includes you and me.

   Since pro-hormone supplements will be gone on January 23, 2005, we need to look at other ways of naturally increasing anabolic hormone levels. One way that is beyond the reach of even the FDA is movies. No, not porno movies, although they may be useful for other purposes. (I think I just gave away the fact that I didn’t vote for Bush.)

   According to new research from the University of Michigan, watching certain movies can affect hormone levels in the body. Watching romance movies increases progesterone levels in women by 10 percent. When men watch such movies, their testosterone levels plummet.

   Participants watched three different 30-minute film excerpts. The first was a romantic film called “The Bridges of Madison County.” The next group watched “The Godfather, Part 2.” The third group watched a documentary on the rain forest. All subjects had their hormone levels tested before, immediately before and 45 minutes following the films.

   No changes occurred in the rain forest group. Women watching “Bridges” showed a 10 percent rise in progesterone, with no change in testosterone. Men watching the same film showed lower testosterone levels. With “Godfather,” which involved a violent scene, men showed a 30 percent rise in testosterone levels. Women with high testosterone levels showed a drop in that hormone while watching the scene, and those with low testosterone levels got “uncomfortable” during the scene.

   An implication of the study is that by inducing an elevated progesterone level in women, romantic films increase their feelings of affiliation to men. In men progesterone increases anxiety and has a blunting effect on testosterone. Which makes one consider that profound statement made by one Rodney King, whose 15 minutes of fame resulted from being at the epicenter of the incident that started the Los Angeles riots of 1991: “Can’t we all just get along?”

References

1 Acheson, K.J., et al. (2004). Metabolic effects of caffeine in humans: lipid oxidation or futile cycling? Am J Clin Nutr. 79:40-46.

2 Salazar-Martinez, E., et al. (2004). Coffee consumption and risk for type-2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 140:1-8.

3 Dall’lgna, O., et al. (2003). Neuroprotection by caffeine and adenosine A-2 receptor blockade of beta-Amyloid neurotoxicity. Brit J Pharm. 138:1207-09.

4 Youngstedt, S.D., et al. (1998). Acute exercise reduces caffeine-induced anxiogenesis. Med Sci Sports Exer. 30:740-45.

5 Urgert, R., et al. (2000). Heavy coffee consumption and plasma homocysteine: a randomized controlled trial on healthy volunteers. Am J Clin Nutr. 72:1107-10.

6 Strandhagen, E., et al. (2003). Filtered coffee raises serum cholesterol: results from a controlled study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 57:1164-68.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com/

When Not to Do Your Cardio by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-29T02:15:00.000-08:00

   Aerobics is a useful addition to any bodybuilding program for a number of reasons. It positively affects several cardiovascular risk factors, including total cholesterol, high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein and C-reactive protein. That last factor is a measure of body inflammation, which is now recognized as a primary symptom of cardiovascular disease. Aerobics also reduces elevated blood pressure and provides a relaxation effect in blood vessels through an increase in nitric oxide synthesis and secretion.

   Another reason to do aerobics is to control body composition. Bodyfat burns, or oxidizes, only when oxygen is present, and aerobics is the type of exercise that uses the most oxygen. Aerobics is still the best exercise for losing bodyfat, especially in conjunction with a good diet program designed for fat loss.

   Critics contend that aerobics isn’t recommended for those who want to build muscle. They claim that aerobics leads to overtraining, with a consequent increase in the catabolic hormone cortisol and a drop in such anabolic hormones as testosterone. Various studies show that aerobics can interfere with strength and muscle gains because of a blunting of muscle protein synthesis; however, negative effects are caused by exercise volume and frequency, as well as style.

   Engaging in hours of aerobics, often more than once daily, is likely to lead to overtraining and muscle loss, but smaller doses of aerobics, never exceeding one hour, are unlikely to adversely affect muscle and strength gains in most bodybuilders. If you’re very lean, you must use common sense in regard to aerobics, since you can indeed lose muscle if you do excess cardio.

   Most bodybuilders avoid problems by doing aerobics and weight training at different sessions. In other cases the aerobics workout follows the weight session. That makes sense physiologically, since weight training is powered by muscle glycogen stores. After a weight session, much of the stored glycogen is depleted. Aerobics, with its higher reliance on oxygen intake, will tap into fat faster if glycogen is somewhat depleted. That’s the concept behind doing aerobics on an empty stomach in the morning.

   A recent study disclosed another reason not to do aerobics before a weight workout.1 Ten men did low-intensity cycling for an hour, then a weight workout. On another day the same men did only a five-minute-warmup cycling session before their workout. When they did an hour of aerobics first, their growth hormone response to the weight session was nil. Other hormones, such as cortisol and testosterone, weren’t affected by the aerobics. That’s the good news, since it shows that moderate aerobics doesn’t negatively affect hormones related to muscle growth.

   But doing the aerobics first did blunt growth hormone release. What is it about aerobics that would block GH?

   Aerobic exercise uses greater amounts of fat as fuel, especially as the exercise continues beyond 30 minutes. The use of fat as an energy source elevates levels of free fatty acids in the blood, which, like elevated blood glucose levels, blunt the release of GH. Elevated free fatty acids also promote the release of somatostatin, a protein produced in the brain’s hypothalamus that opposes GH release.

   Clearly, it’s just plain dumb to do an extended aerobics session before an intense weight-training session. Not only do you deplete limited energy stores (glycogen), but you also block GH release during the workout. Save the aerobics for afterward.

1 Goto, K., et al. (2005). Prior endurance exercise attenuates growth hormone response to subsequent resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 94:333-338.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com/

You Can’t Flex Fat : Does bodyfat affect muscle gains? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-22T02:32:00.000-08:00

Does having excess bodyfat adversely affect muscular gains? That was the focus of a recent study featuring 140 normal-weight and 81 overweight men and women who hadn’t trained in more than a year.1 They began training twice a week for 12 weeks, doing one-arm biceps curls. The researchers adjusted the training responses for bodyweight and initial values and found that the normal-weight group had made better gains than the overweight group. That led them to conclude that there’s something about being fat that hinders muscular gains. The question is: what is it about having excess bodyfat that would hinder muscle gains?
The answer is inflammation. Fat,far from being just inactive tissue, releases over 100 chemicals, collectively known as "adopikines." Most of these substances, which are proteins, promote inflammation. This is the great danger of having too much bodyfat, since excess inflammation is the cornerstone of most serious diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. But excess inflammation also interferes with amino acid uptake into muscle, and promotes muscle breakdown (catabolism).Most obese people are also insulin insensitive,which adds to the problem, since insulin provides anti-catabolic effects in muscle, as well as aids in muscle uptake of amino acids necessary for muscle protein synthesis.
From a practical standpoint, this means that those with higher levels of bodyfat should initially focus on losing that excess fat through diet and exercise, then switch to a more "anabolic" style of training designed to build extra lean mass.

1 Kelsey, B., et al. (2004). Adiposity alters muscle strength and size responses to resistance training in healthy men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 36:S352.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Will this system help to prevent cancer? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-19T01:20:00.000-08:00

Researchers and scientists are loath to tell the truth about cancer treatment.This refers to the fact that there has been little progress in the "war" on cancer since Nixon formally declared war on the disease back in the 70s. Cancer is still the number 2 killer in the world, just behind cardiovascular disease. If you are unlucky enough to acquire a cancerous disease, your best hope is that they catch it early, before the cancer has spread from its initial site, or metastasized.Once it has spread, your chances of survival plunge by 90%. This is what makes pancreatic cancer so deadly; by the time it's diagnosed, the tumor has spread throughout the internal organs, leading to a 5% survival rate after 5 years.
    Clearly, it would be better to focus on techniques that would both prevent cancer, as well as stop it in its tracks before it has the chance to kill. In relation to prevention, diet and consuming certain nutrients, as well as exercise, all play prominent roles. It's been estimated that 40% of all types of cancer could be avoided through a proper diet. But right now, I'd like to talk about a possible way of stopping cancer before it has a chance to take hold.
       Cancer cells, more so than normal cells, are dependent on a process called glycolysis, or the breakdown of glucose into lactate. Doing so provides tumors with the ATP they need to proliferate and spread throughout the body. This process can occur either without oxygen being present (anaerobic) or with the presence of oxygen (aerobic glycolysis). The latter is referred to as "The Warburg effect," after the scientist who first described it in the 1930s. Warburg surmised that interfering with a tumor's energy supply would starve the tumor. Since normal cells are less susceptible to glucose deprivation compared to tumors, which rely exclusively on glucose, lowering glucose availability would be especially fatal to cancer cells. Normal cells can survive on other fuels, including lactate and ketones from fat. Imaging of the cancerous tissues of patients show that tumors do indeed accumulate glucose more readily than do normal cells. Cancer cells are limited to glucose because of damage to cellular mitochondria in the cancer cells, which prevents them from using other fuels.
      Depriving cancer cells of glucose leads to increased oxidative stress in the cells in test-tube studies, and often results in the death of the cancer cell. Cancer cells use glucose to produce ribose, another sugar that is important for the rapid proliferation of cancer cells. Based on this, it appears plausible that consuming a very low carbohydrate diet would provide less glucose to tumor cells. Indeed, recent studies have shown beneficial effects of a low carb diet in helping to prevent cancer. You could lower glucose levels by injecting insulin, but that would also block ketone production in the liver, which is needed to fuel normal cells during glucose deprivation, as would occur with a ketogenic, or very low carb diet (less than 50 grams a day of carbs).Insulin itself also acts as a growth factor, and can promote the release of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is known to speed cell division. Since the basic process of cancer involves uncontrolled cell division, you can see what the problem would be here. Another method would involve just enough insulin to lower blood glucose, followed by an infusion of glycerol. Glycerol, which serves as the backbone of the triglyceride or fat structure, can be converted into glucose in the liver, so you would be again supplying the tumor with glucose if you used glycerol.
    The best technique would be to lower blood glucose through a ketogenic diet, and control the production of glucose made in the liver. Doing this would involve using a drug called metformin, which is used to treat diabetes and insulin insensitivity. Metformin works to reduce the production of glucose in the liver, which results in lower blood glucose levels. But metformin does more than just that. It also interferes with the actions of mTOR, a protein that is involved in protein synthesis, but is also involved in tumor spread and survival in the body. Various recent studies show that lowering mTOR seems to control some types of cancer. Indeed, other studies have shown that metformin itself seems to offer preventive effects against several types of cancers. Lowering glucose in this manner would not produce bad effects, such as hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. The body will still produce ketones, which can be used as an energy source by most tissues in the body. Tumors themselves upgrade the production of lactate because of their reliance on anaerobic glycolysis. The lactate keeps the other cells alive while the tumor cells hoard all the glucose. Metformin is a relatively safe drug, with the main risk being a possible vitamin B12 deficiency when used long-term. This has to do with metformin interfering with the uptake of B12 into the body. It's a problem that can easily be managed by simply ingesting a sublingual B12 supplement a few hours prior to taking metformin.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Cocoa maintains endurance by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-18T02:46:00.000-08:00

Whenever training is curtailed, any gains that have been made gradually recede, an effect known as "detraining." While strength gains tend to last longer, any gains made in endurance can rapidly diminish. One reason for this is that endurance gains are based on mitochondria activity, as well as increased blood delivery and vascularity in muscles.But according to a new study involving mice, ingesting cocoa may actually be able to "freeze" any gains made in endurance that would otherwise be lost without training.
The study involved 32 male mice, who were divided into groups consisting of control, or those provided with epicatechin, and those who exercised, but weren't given epicatechin. thought to be the active element found in cocoa. It's also found in green tea and red wine, among other sources. The mice were detrained for 14 days. They had trained 5 days a week for 5 weeks prior to ceasing training, using an endurance mode, presumably a treadmill. Training was found to significantly induce capillary to muscle fiber ratios, as well as oxidative enzymes.The mice that exercised, but didn't receive the epicatechin (1 milligram per kilogram of bodyweight, twice a week), showed a definite detraining effect, in that the gains reverted to control levels. But those that did get the epicatechin were able to completely maintain all of their endurance gains for the entire 2 weeks of no exercise. It was thought to work by maintaining capillary patency and mitochondrial function.Although this was a mouse study, and thus may not be applicable to humans, it is known that cocoa is a potent stimulant to nitric oxide release, which would help maintain blood vessels and possibly mitochondrial function.
Huttemann, M, et al. Epicatechin maintains endurance training adaptation in mice after 14 days of detraining.FASB Journal 2011; in press.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

How safe and effective is methylhexanamine (DMAA)? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-16T15:50:00.000-08:00

Supplements containing methylhexanamine, also known as dimethylamylamine (DMAA) have emerged as popular pre-workout products. They are also said to provide thermogenic effects that would aid fat loss efforts.DMAA isn't a new substance. It was patented back in 1944 by the Lilly drug company, who waited until April, 1971 to trademark the substance as "Forthane," for use as a nasal decongestant. It works by either blocking the reuptake of norepinephrine, or stimulating its release. Norepinephrine is known to constrict blood vessels, and by doing so, it shrinks swollen nasal passages, thus relieving congestion. The patent for DMAA expired years ago, making it subject to use by anyone who wanted to market it. But since it is a drug, this isn't as easy as it sounds. There appeared to be a workaround, when an obscure Asian science journal study found that DMAA existed naturally in germanium oil at a concentration of 0.66-1%.
   The finding of DMAA in a natural source meant that it could be used in food supplements. This was made possible by the passage of the Dietary Health and Supplement Education Act in 1994, which opened the door to the use of countless substances, including many "pro hormones," as long as the substance was found in a natural source. Pat Arnold, a chemist known for his development of many of the early pro hormone supplements, as well as for being the brains behind the drugs used in the notorious BALCO sports drug scandal, found the obscure Asian study, and also noted that the patent on DMAA had long since expired. He was seeking an alternative to ephedrine, which was touted for its stimulant and fat-burning properties, but which had been removed from the market by the FDA in 2004. Arnold produced his own "germanium-based" supplement that he called Geranamine to the bodybuilding market. As is the usual nature of the supplement industry, others soon jumped on the DMAA bandwagon, especially with the emergence of anecdotal reports that it boosted workout intensity considerably.
    The stimulant effects of DMAA didn't go unnoticed by people who were not so interested in burning fat. It emerged as a popular "party" drug in New Zealand. But as is common with such home brew drugs, the amount of DMAA varied in the products, which lead to a few serious medical complications, including headaches, nausea, and strokes. The latter effect is more likley in those with existing high blood pressure, since anything that boosts norepinephrine also raises blood pressure slightly because of the vasoconstrictive effect of norepinephrine. The stimulant effect of DMAA also attracted the attention of the World Antidoping Agency, which banned it in 2009. Since then, a number of world-class athletes have been busted when DMAA emerged in their blood tests. But the question remains: how safe and effective is DMAA?
    The safety profile of DMAA is similar to that of caffeine. Caffeine also boost norepinephrine levels, accounting for its fat-mobilizing effects. In fact, the stimulation effect of DMAA is often compared to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee. While the Lilly company didn't perform much human testing of DMAA, some recent studies have tested its effects in human subjects. One problem with all of these studies is that they were paid for by supplement companies that sell DMAA products. As such, they stand to gain from the publication of positive studies about DMAA. Most of the studies have been "published' in online journals, in which you pay a fee to have the study published. On the other hand, the design of the studies were mostly double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover studies, meaning that they were scientifically acceptable, although all featured a small number of subjects.
     One such study showed that using a DMAA-based product resulted in a rise of glycerol (a marker of lipolysis, or fat breakdown in the blood) of 29% in men, 65% in women within 2 hours of ingesting a DMAA supplement. Free fatty acids in the blood rose by 92% in men;68% in women, while energy expenditure rose by 9% in men;24% in women. No explanation was offered for these gender-related differences. Another study tested the safety of DMAA products. This study found an average increase in heartbeat of 6 beats per minute after using a DMAA supplement, but no changes in blood pressure after 8 weeks of use compared to baseline measurements.There was also no effect in liver or kidney function. Men in the study averaged a 1.16% reduction in bodyfat, while women showed a 0.8% loss. The men also showed an average waist measurement reduction of 1.24 inches, while women showed a 0.78 inch loss.The subjects also reported a 24% drop in appetite after using the supplement. Other studies showed an slight rise in systolic blood pressure when DMAA supplement was first used, but the effect wore off after a few weeks. The study also showed that while subjects felt more energized after ingesting the DMAA supplement, their workout performance didn't change.
    Most of the stimulant and blood pressure effects of DMAA are comparable to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee.

But just as too much coffee can prove toxic, so can overuse of DMAA,as evidenced by what happened to the New Zealand party people. DMAA supplements have been criticized by some, who say that germanium oil doesn't actually contain naturally existing DMAA. This critique was recently confirmed by a study published in the journal,Drug Testing and Analysis, which tested germanium oil and found no evidence of any naturally existing DMAA. This led the authors of the study to conclude that any DMAA found in a dietary supplement had to have been added to the product. The problem with this is that DMAA sold OTC in supplement form is permitted by virtue of the Dietary Supplement act because of its alleged natural existence in germanium oil. The fact that it isn't found in the oil means that all supplements that contain DMAA are being sold in violation of the law, since the DMAA is added to the supplement, and DMAA is a drug. Thus far, the FDA hasn't received any adverse reports about DMAA supplements, so no action has been taken. However, judging by what happened with ephedrine (DMAA is weaker than ephedrine) it is likely only a matter of time before people start to overdose on DMAA. When the adverse reports start appearing, the FDA will be able to immediately remove DMAA from the market, since it's now established that DMAA doesn't occur naturally in food or germanium oil.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Snooze or Lose : Sleep deprivation can crush anabolic hormones by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-14T01:35:00.000-08:00

   While exercise is the primary catalyst for muscular growth, all such growth occurs when you’re at rest. That’s why adequate recovery is so vital for making muscular gains. Studies show that if you don’t get enough sleep, your testosterone levels may plummet as much as 40 percent. The body secretes maximum levels of growth hormone during sleep.

   A new study using lab rats as subjects tested the hormonal effects of sleep deprivation.1 In previous studies animals deprived of sleep showed lower levels of thyroid hormones and a blunted immune response. Since the low level of thyroid output occurred in the hypothalamus, the researchers wanted to see how other hormones secreted in the same area of the brain were affected by sleep.

   The experimenters found that sleep deprivation in the rats resulted in a suppression of other hormones, including growth hormone, insulinlike growth hormone 1 (IGF-1), prolactin and leptin. Corticosterone, the rodent version of cortisol, was unaffected by lack of sleep. That hormonal milieu favors a depression in anabolic reactions in the body, with an upgrading of catabolic effects, including possible muscle loss. Don’t take sleep for granted if any type of muscular progress is your goal.

1 Everson, C.A., et al. (2004). Reductions in circulating anabolic hormones induced by sustained sleep deprivation in rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 286:E1060-E1070.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Help! My fish oil has gone bad! by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-11T20:46:00.000-08:00

Omega-3 fatty acids, as found preformed in fatty fish and fish oil, provide a variety of health benefits. The primary benefits are related to cardiovascular health. Fish oil lowers elevated blood triglyceride (fat) levels, which is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Fish oil also seems to help control blood pressure, another CVD risk factor when elevated.Based on countess studies published over the last few years, the recommendation is to consume at least two fatty fish meals per week (such as mackerel,herring, sardines, and others), or ingest fish oil supplements if you refuse to eat fish.
    But there is a problem with fish oil supplements. Fish oil is a high polyunsaturated fat source. What this means is that it is prone to oxidation and rancidity. Oxidized fats have been shown to directly damage blood vessel linings, leading to accelerated atherosclerosis and subsequent CVD. Several studies that have tested commercial fish oil supplements have found that the supplements did contain oxidized fats. Since fish oil is prone to oxidation, does this mean that consuming fish oil may do more damage than good?
    Not according to a new study. The study consisted of healthy subjects with an age range of 18 to 50, who were divided into three groups. The first group ingested 8 grams of day of fish oil, which was consumed with two meals. The second group ingested 8 grams a day of oxidized fish oil capsules. The third group ingested 8 grams a day of high-oleic safflower oil, an omega-6 fat. Fasting blood samples were collected at the start of the study, and at weeks 3 and 7, with the study lasting 7 weeks.To determine the effects of oxidation, several tests that measure oxidative by-products were administered, as well as tests of the endogenous anti-oxidant system in the body (glutathione) and vitamin E levels to see if any changes occurred in the oxidative defense system of the body.
     The results after 7 weeks (and also at the 3-week mark) showed that both the fresh and oxidized fish oil were equally effective at increasing blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids. But no markers of oxidative stress were affected, nor was any indication of lipid peroxidation affected, or inflammation markers. In short, ingesting the oxidized fish oil had no bad effects. How can this be? The gastrointestinal tract acts as a barrier against the uptake of oxidized lipids into the blood. It this manner, it filters the potentially dangerous oxidized fats out of the fish oil. Although there is no evidence that is what happened in this study, this explanation is plausible, and would explain the lack of any side effects after ingesting oxidized fish oil for 7 weeks.
     So next time you read how "cheap" fish oil supplements contain oxidized fat and can harm your health, so you should instead purchase that $85 bottle of fresh "pharmacological grade" fish oil, just turn the page and save yourself some money.

Ottestad, I ,et al. Oxidized fish oil does not influence established markers of oxidative stress in healthy human subjects: a randomized controlled trial.Br J Nut 2011: in press.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Does beta-alanine work for older people? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-09T22:17:00.000-08:00

Beta-alanine (BA) is a precursor for the synthesis of carnosine in muscle.In muscle, carnosine acts to blunt the fatigue induced by high intensity exercise by buffering against acid build-up in muscle. Previous studies show that by supplementing with BA, younger subjects could increase their muscle carnosine levels by 64%, While exercise alone is known to boost muscle carnosine levels, various studies show that ingesting BA increases muscle carnosine levels more then just exercise alone does. The usual suggested dose for BA is 3.2 to 6.4 grams a day in divided doses. The only side effect thus far known to occur is a tingling feeling similar to a niacin-style flush. This can be avoided by either ingesting smaller doses (800 milligrams or less) or using a time-released BA, which releases BA in a more gradual fashion.
    While BA works well for younger subjects, it's effects in an older population until recently wasn't known. But a new study did test the effects of BA in subjects with an age range of 60 to 80. The subjects consisted of 10 women and 4 men, all of whom ingested either 3.2 grams of BA daily, or a placebo for 12 weeks. The BA was taken as two, 800 milligram tablets in a time-released form twice a day. Others received a placebo. The results after 12 weeks showed that those in the BA group showed an 85.4% increase of carnosine in the gastrocnemius muscle, compared to only 7.2% increase in the placebo group. More importantly, those who ingested the genuine BA showed significant improvements in several performance tests. In one test that looked at time to exhaustion, the BA group showed a 36.5% gain over baseline compared to the 8.6% gain showed in the placebo group. Other tests showed similar improvements in the BA group that were all significantly greater compared to those in the placebo group.
    Based on these findings, it's clear that BA is an effective supplement for older people. In fact, based on the findings of this study, BA appears to work better in older people than it does in those who are younger.This isn't surprising, since carnosine levels in the body decline with age. Not only that, but the higher carnosine levels produced by the BA supplementation could also provide anti-aging effects through inhibiting a process known as glycation, where protein tissues react with sugar. This process is a prime suspect in the stiffness and lack of mobility associated with aging. Thus, BA may not only boost exercise performance in older people, but may also provide some significant anti-aging effects.

del Favero, S, et al. Beta-alanine(Carnosyn) supplementation in elderly subjects (60-80 years): effects on muscle carnosine content and physical capacity.Amino acids;2011: in press.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Carnosine structure

Research determines the best training method—or does it? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-08T03:30:00.000-08:00

You may not know it, but some of the most common styles of training have little-known names. For example, the method in which you start light and increase the weight on each set is called the DeLorme technique, after the researcher who first suggested it in 1945. According to the DeLorme principles, you hold your reps to fewer than 30 per set, since he found that with more than 30 reps, a muscle doesn’t get enough resistance to promote growth.

   With the DeLorme technique you generally start with a weight that’s half the amount you can lift for 10 reps. On the second set you increase the weight to 75 percent of maximum for 10, and on the final set you do the maximum amount of weight you can lift for 10 reps. When you’ve achieved that goal, you increase the weight on all sets.

   The idea was that the lighter sets helped prevent excess muscle soreness while promoting proper exercise form. On the other hand, when the DeLorme technique was used by anyone but highly motivated athletes, people got too fatigued after the first two sets to reach 10 reps with a maximum weight on the final set.

   As a result, another technique was developed, known as the Oxford technique. It works in the opposite manner—you start with the heaviest weight for 10 reps and decrease the weight on each subsequent set. The idea was to diminish muscle fatigue while promoting exercise intensity, since you have to complete the full number of reps for each set.

   Most bodybuilders today use either or both of of these weight-training techniques. The DeLorme method is commonly known as pyramiding, and the Oxford technique is known as reverse pyramiding. Is one of them superior for promoting muscular gains? Researchers examined that question in a recent study featuring 50 subjects who used one technique or the other on the leg extension for nine weeks.1 Both techniques produce similar results, with neither clearly superior at promoting muscle increases.

   In practical terms that means it doesn’t make much difference which technique you favor; you’ll likely get the best results from the style that feels the most comfortable to you.

1 Fish, D.E., et al. (2003). Optimal resistance training: comparison of DeLorme and Oxford techniques. Am J Physic Med Rehab. 82:903-909.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Selenium Sabotage : Can too much of a good mineral derail weight loss? by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-03T02:29:00.000-08:00

Selenium is a trace mineral and antioxidant that’s a popular supplement, but some studies have found that increasing selenium intake to five times the recommended allowance, which is 55 micrograms, led to a modest weight gain in men. A new study shows that the effect likely stems from selenium’s role in thyroid hormone metabolism.1

   Selenium promotes the activity of enzymes called deiodinases, which convert the relatively inactive T4 thyroid hormone into the five times more active T3 form. In the study men living in a metabolic ward for four months were given foods either naturally high or low in selenium. During the initial 21 days all the subjects got 47 micrograms a day of selenium, or just below the minimum suggested intake of 55 micrograms. After that the men were divided into two groups, with one group getting only 14 micrograms of selenium a day and the others getting a whopping 297 micrograms. That part of the experiment lasted 99 days.

   At the 45-day mark those in the low-selenium group showed a 14 percent increase in T3, while those in the high-selenium group experienced a 23 percent drop. The men in the high-selenium group also showed an increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), which is secreted by the pituitary gland in the brain and controls thyroid output. The TSH increased in the high-selenium group because the body was attempting to compensate for the lower T3 levels.

   By the 64th day the men in the high-selenium group began to gain weight, while those in the low-selenium group lost it. The authors suggest that the high-selenium group had a subclinical hypothyroid, or low thyroid, which explained the weight gain. Just the opposite occurred in the men in the low-selenium group, who showed increases in blood fat and loss of bodyfat, pointing to hyperthyroidism, or thyroid-gland overactivity. Despite the rise in thyroid activity, none of the men in the low-selenium group lost any lean tissue, or muscle, which often accompanies an elevated thyroid state.

   One question not answered in the study was why selenium has these effects on thyroid metabolism. It may be that while a certain amount of selenium activates the deiodinase enzymes, past a certain point the mineral may have a paradoxical, inhibiting, effect. Hydrogen peroxidase is required for thyroid hormone synthesis, and it may be that selenium neutralizes the hydrogen peroxide found in the gland as part of glutathione peroxidase, which would interfere with thyroid hormone production. That effect, by the way, is one of the positive features of free radicals, along with helping immune cells kill invading organisms. It’s a type of “smart bomb.”

   Does that mean you should limit selenium intake as a means of promoting thyroid activity? The researchers suggest that eventually the body adjusts to the increased selenium intake and that thyroid hormone levels return to normal. I can attest to that, since I’ve taken at least 500 micrograms of selenium daily for more than a decade yet have never shown any low thyroid lab values.

   Considering the vital role that selenium plays in preventing the onset of the major killers cancer and cardiovascular disease, it would be sheer folly to limit selenium intake as a means of promoting thyroid activity. On the other hand, since taking more than 1,000 micrograms daily over an extended time can prove toxic, leading to such unpleasant effects as garlic breath and loss of nails and hair, it’s prudent to monitor your doses of this trace mineral.

1 Hawkes, W.C., et al. (2003). Dietary selenium intake modulates thyroid hormone and energy metabolism in men. J Nutr. 133:3443-3448.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.

See Jerry's book at   http://www.jerrybrainum.com

Nutrition Scientist Anthony Almada Talks Supplementation, Building Muscle and Losing Bodyfat by Jerry Brainum

2011-12-01T01:49:00.000-08:00

   In September 1992 Anthony Almada was doing his customary search of the recent medical literature at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Library when he came across a study that immediately aroused his interest. Almada had studied under legendary scientists and researchers Lester Packer and George Brooks at the University of California, Berkeley, where he’d observed the depletion of ATP and creatine phosphate in working muscle. He was intrigued when he saw that the new study reported on the effects of creatine as an ergogenic aid to athletes. Finding it that day led him to start a revolution in sports nutrition that continues to this day.

   Almada, who holds degrees in physiology and nutritional biochemistry, had been working in the supplement industry since 1975, specializing in product development. In 1989 he identified and introduced vanadyl sulfate to the nutrition industry, and in 1991 he introduced the first “fat-burning” supplement to use the word thermogenic. Almada contacted a former associate named Ed Byrd and discussed the possibility of marketing creatine. The two had previously supplied raw nutrient materials to food supplement companies and tried to offer creatine, at the time a rare and expensive product, to them. All the companies rejected creatine because it was not well known at the time.

   Almada and Byrd started their own company, initially named California Body Club and later Experimental and Applied Sciences, a.k.a. EAS. The first product Almada designed was a creatine compound called Phosphagen.

   In keeping with Almada’s science background, EAS set a standard of proof by sponsoring two studies during the first year of business, made possible by sales of $6 million. Not long after the company was formed, Almada offered to sell Bill Phillips creatine, but Phillips didn’t seem too interested. In June 1994, however, Phillips joined EAS, and the company was moved from California to Phillips’ home state of Colorado in 1995. In April of that year Phillips offered to buy EAS for $1 million, despite the company profits of $40 million. By October, however, Almada no longer wanted to make the weekly trek from California to EAS headquarters in Colorado, so he sold out to Phillips.

   While at EAS, Almada created the “cell volumizer” concept, pioneered the use of taurine in dietary supplements and created the first low-calorie weight gain/lean mass supplement—Phosphagain. After leaving EAS, he founded a medical food company that produced a product used to offset HIV-induced wasting.

   Almada has been an active researcher in more than 50 published studies, many of which examined the effects of popular dietary supplements. Currently, he is a founding partner in GENr8, which produces a product called Vitargo SG. Clearly he’s qualified to discuss performance and sports nutrition, so let’s get to it.

   JB: One of the reasons you opted to sell EAS to Bill Phillips was your growing disenchantment with the supplement industry. Has that opinion changed over the years?

   AA: I’m an outspoken critic of the industry because most of the major supplement companies have the funds to sponsor research yet don’t. The first question is, Why don’t they support such research? Some companies do sponsor research, but the findings are never made public, often because the studies found no beneficial effects associated with the tested products.

   The current trend is to have studies done by independent sources, where the results can be tightly controlled and not released if the findings aren’t favorable. In contrast, studies done by university labs aren’t subject to such stringent gag orders.

   Another relevant question is, How many companies are owned by people trained in nutrition science? If you look at pharmaceutical companies, many are run by people who hold science doctorates or medical degrees.

   JB: Are medical doctors good sources of information about nutrition?

   AA: Medical doctors are among the worst sources of information relevant to nutrition. The medical-school curriculum offers nutrition as an elective, or voluntary, course, and most med students feel they are already overburdened with the study of traditional medical courses, so few future doctors have even the minimal training in nutrition science.

Registered dietitians are also often considered a good source of nutrition information, but this, too, isn’t true. While RDs are experts at designing diets, their knowledge of supplements is surprisingly minor. In fact, they are indoctrinated during their training to believe that all required nutrients should be obtained solely through food, thus making any supplements superfluous and even dangerous in some instances. You’ll even find that most people in the sports supplement industry who have advanced degrees, such as doctorates, have them in physiology, not nutrition.

JB: What’s your general philosophy in designing nutritional supplements?

   AA: My philosophy is to create products that work and foster persistent consumer confidence, which leads to lasting brand allegiance. That creates a consumer base that is loyal to the particular product, not only because the product is based on science rather than speculation, but also because the product consistently works. Consumers often switch to other products, or search for the next “miracle” product, because past products simply have not produced the promised gains in muscle size, strength or bodyfat loss. It’s comparable to a marriage: If you’re fulfilled and satisfied with your current partner, you have no desire to seek a replacement.

JB: Many sports supplements don’t list specific amounts of contents on their labels, instead listing nonspecific amounts of nutrients as “proprietary formulas.” Is that ethical or, more important, honest?

   AA: Consumers often evaluate products based entirely on the label chemistry. Listing a bunch of exotic-sounding ingredients tends to obscure the fact that many such ingredients have no science behind them. To the unwary customer, though, they look impressive. The Food and Drug Administration permits the labeling of nonspecific amounts of substances that don’t have established dietary value, so the practice is legal.

   The only FDA requirement is to list the ingredients in descending order of content. So the first listed ingredient comprises 99.9 percent of the product, with the remaining ingredients representing about 00.1 percent of the total ingredients.

   The more relevant question is not what’s in the product but what the product will do for me. Another question to consider is, How many products have I purchased over the last decade that I no longer use? If the products matched their advertising claims, users would be getting exceptional results. Are they?

JB: Can the placebo effect play a role in results obtained from any particular food supplement?

   AA: It can play a role in the popularity of many supplements, but it’s also short-lived, in contrast to a true biological effect, which consistently lasts. Again, how many products are used year after year by most people? People don’t discard products that work. New products are constantly being introduced to replace products that have fallen out of popularity, mainly because they don’t produce consistent results.

JB: Are there any effective fat-burning supplements?

   AA: People don’t buy fat-burning supplements to “burn” fat; they buy them to lose fat. Then the question arises: Who cares if I’m burning fat, if I’m not actually losing fat? It’s analogous to testosterone. Who cares if my testosterone level rises if I don’t get bigger, stronger or both? People tend to get lost in the mechanism rather than the result.

   Unfortunately, most of the present ingredients touted as fat-burners have little or no effect in stimulating fat loss in humans. One current popular weight-loss herb, hoodia, has zero published science to support it. A major problem with botanicals, or plant-based products, is that the contents can vary enormously from batch to batch, even if the herb is supposed to contain the same level of active ingredients in each tablet or capsule. That explains the varying results of studies involving botanicals.

JB: What’s the truth about protein requirements for bodybuilders?

   AA: Again, you have to look at studies that directly examined the fate of dietary protein in an exercising population. Most bodybuilders, aware of the need for a high protein intake, take in some form of protein about every two to three hours. As a result, bodybuilders get a significant amount of protein from food sources alone. The consensus of studies that have examined protein needs for bodybuilders shows that taking in more than 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight leads to no added muscle or strength gains.

   In one study that I was involved in, we compared a popular meal-replacement product with maltodextrin, a carbohydrate source, and found that both supplements produced the same muscle and strength gains in trained football players. People tend to underestimate the amount of protein they are getting from ordinary foods. If you already take in the optimal amount of protein, taking anything above that will not further boost muscle gains. People are indoctrinated to believe that they must eat massive amounts of protein or lose muscle size.

JB: Can too much protein make you fat and damage your kidneys?

   AA: You have to view protein as a source of calories. Current studies show that taking in more than 30 grams of protein at a time produces no added benefits. While protein can take various metabolic routes in the body, the more protein you have above actual requirements, the less protein is used for building muscle. Eating small, frequent protein meals won’t produce any greater muscle gains if you exceed the amount of protein your body can use for muscle protein synthesis.

JB: Are some sources of protein superior to others?

   AA: Some studies show that soy is as good as whey, meat is as good as whey, and so on. I would say that the primary issues regarding protein intake are palatability and convenience. Soy protein is often said to lower testosterone counts. Yet if that’s true, how do you explain the other studies that show equal muscle gains when soy is compared to whey?

JB: What about the studies showing that whey has the highest biological value of any protein source?

   AA: Studies that measured biological values of various protein sources didn’t involve any subjects engaged in resistance training. Again, it’s a matter of what appears on paper compared to what happens in real life.

©,2011 Jerry Brainum.Any reprinting in any type of media, including electronic and foreign is expressly prohibited.
See Jerry's book at     http://www.jerrybrainum.com