|
by Lyle McDonald
Lyle McDonald is the author of the
Ketogenic Diet as well as the
Rapid Fat Loss
Handbook and the
Guide to
Flexible Dieting. He has been interested in all aspects of human
performance physiology since becoming involved in competitive sports as
a teenager. Pursuing a degree in Physiological Sciences from UCLA, he has
devoted nearly 20 years of his life to studying human physiology and the
science, art and practice of human performance, muscle gain, fat loss and
body recomposition.
Publication Date:
June 1998
Is Extra Protein to Gain Mass Dangerous?
Dear Lyle,
I'm having trouble gaining any mass. A
friend of mine told me that I should eat more protein. Is this the
answer? I am also concerned about possible health problems with high
protein intakes that dietitians always talk about.
The debate over protein intakes for athletes has been raging for
decades now. Strength and power athletes (bodybuilders, powerlifter,
etc) have always been big proponents of high protein intakes on the
(somewhat incorrect) premise that since muscle is made of protein,
more protein will equal more muscle. To be technically accurate,
muscle is actually about 70% water by weight and I wonder why
strength athletes (and supplement companies) didn't push water as an
anabolic. There are essentially two opposing camps in the protein
wars. On the one hand are the (generally conservative) dietitians
who will tell you that the RDA for protein (which is 0.8 grams
protein/kg body weight (0.36 grams/pound) or about 55 grams of
protein for an average sized male and 44 grams for a female) is
sufficient for everyone and that no studies have shown that
excessive protein intake is necessary for growth. They are wrong. On
the other hand, we have bodybuilders and supplement companies
suggesting truly massive amounts of protein for lifters, in excess
of 3-4 grams protein/kg bodyweight (about 1.5-2 grams/lb of
protein). It's quite convenient for a company selling protein powder
to convince lifters that they need this kind of excessive protein
intake. Guess what? They are wrong too. Outside of the pro ranks,
the de facto standard for protein intake has been about 1 gram of
protein/lb bodyweight (about 2.2 grams protein/kg body weight).
Looking at the research available (and most of the good studies have
been done by Dr. Peter Lemon at Kent State), the following protein
intakes are what is suggested.
Endurance athletes 1.2-1.4 grams protein/kg (0.54 - 0.63
grams/pound) Strength athletes: 1.6-1.8 grams protein/kg (0.72 -0.8
grams/pound)
Note: the studies on strength athletes
were done with lifter training up to 6 days per week, twice per day
and likely represents the absolute maximum needed.
While other studies have occasionally shown that greater protein
intakes (up to 3 grams/kg) increase nitrogen retention, they tend to
suffer from some methodological flaws discussed below.
The problem with the above values is that protein requirements
depend on a host of other factors including
1. Calorie/carbohydrate intake
2. Protein quality
3. Anabolic status
Calorie/carbohydrate intake
Outside of training volume and intensity, this is probably the
single biggest determinant of protein requirements. Reducing calorie
and carbohydrate intake (i.e. dieting) tends to raise protein
requirements as protein will be converted to glucose for fuel. By
the same token, raising calories (and carbohydrates) tends to lower
protein requirements since all incoming protein can be used for
tissue synthesis. This is also tied to the hormonal response to over
and underfeeding. Reducing calories tends to lower anabolic hormones
(especially insulin and IGF-1) while raising catabolic hormones
(glucagon, cortisol, the catecholamines) which increases protein
breakdown. Therefore more dietary protein is needed to help offset
this and prevent muscle loss. By the same token, increasing caloric
intake tends to raise anabolic hormones while decreasing catabolic
hormones, all of which increase protein synthesis. When lifters tell
me that they absolute MUST consume high amount of protein to grow,
the first question I ask them is how many calories they are
consuming. Invariably the answer is 'not enough' since they are
afraid of getting fat. Eating more protein is a very inefficient
(and costly) way to provide energy for the body. Protein is
expensive, carbohydrates are generally cheap (and taste better).
Rather than just increase protein to ridiculous levels, I would
rather see a lifter increase carbohydrate (and fat) intake to get
calories up to reasonable levels.
Protein quality
Proteins differ in their quality, which is primarily determined by
the relative amounts of the different amino acids present. Whey
protein is thought to be the highest quality protein, whole egg the
next highest, egg white next, milk protein, meat proteins, and
finally vegetable proteins. A lifter consuming only low quality
proteins would need a higher intake (to obtain sufficient essential
amino acids) of protein to compensate. Alternately consuming lower
quality proteins WITH higher quality proteins increases the quality
of the lower quality protein. So individuals on a tight budget (or
who wish to minimize meat protein intake for some reason) can
consume vegetable proteins but include a small amount of a higher
quality protein (such as milk or eggs) to improve the overall
quality of the meal.
Anabolic status
When you see your favorite pro-bodybuilder suggesting massive
amounts of protein for growth (500 grams per day is not unheard of)
ask yourself about the possible differences in their anabolic status
(as in steroids) compared to yourself. There is a limit to how much
protein can be synthesized per day in a non-drug using lifter. When
you add various anabolic substances to the body (especially
steroids), protein synthesis is increased to higher levels and
higher protein intakes are not only useful but probably necessary.
As well, consider the fact that sponsored athletes are being paid to
promote the products of their sponsor. If that sponsor happens to
sell protein powders, all the better that it's high-profile athletes
are recommending massive amounts of protein.
So to sum up, protein is only partially the answer to your growth
problems. As long as you're getting 1 gram/lb (or even a bit less)
of high quality protein AND enough calories per day (see next
question), adding more protein probably isn't the answer. Also look
at your training structure. Overtraining is known to decrease the
levels of anabolic hormone levels. If you're natural and you're in
the gym more than 3-4 hours per week, I think you will benefit from
cutting back.
So what about health problems?
Probably the biggest concerns regarding health problems from
excessive protein intake are:
1. Kidney stress
2. Calcium loss
Kidney stress. Since protein must
eventually be filtered through the kidney (as urea), there is some
concern that an excessive protein intake might be detrimental to
kidney function. The problem with this logic is twofold. First the
studies from which this is extrapolated used subjects with
pre-existing kidney problems. I wouldn't doubt that someone with
impaired kidney function would have problems with excess protein
intake but this can't automatically be extrapolated to individuals
with normal kidney function. Individuals with total kidney failure
(who have to undergo dialysis) have to consume a low protein diet to
avoid overloading their kidneys. In healthy individuals, this should
pose no problems. From a purely empirical point of view, when you
consider the number of individuals consuming high protein intakes
for long periods of time, there should be an increased incidence of
kidney problems but such is simply not seen in the scientific
literature. However it should be noted that the increased urea
production from excess protein intake can cause dehydration which
can cause some problems. Individuals consuming high levels of
protein must consume adequate water to avoid this.
Calcium loss. The high incidence of
osteoporosis (loss of bone calcium) has been correlated positively
in many countries (especially the United States) with a high protein
intake. As well some studies have shown a 'leaching' of calcium from
bones with protein. The problem with these studies is that protein
isolates were used, not whole dietary proteins. The phosphate
content of whole dietary proteins prevent urinary losses.
For those with a technical bent, I highly suggest the following
paper which addresses all the topics I've dicussed here. Peter Lemon
"Is increased dietary protein necessary or beneficial for
individuals with a physically active lifestyle?" Nutrition
Reviews (1996) 54 (4): S169-S175.
Calculating Metabolic Rate and Caloric Intake
Dear Lyle,
I am unclear on the determinants of
metabolic rate and how to determine how many calories I should be
taking in to either maintain my bodyweight, lose fat or gain muscle.
What determines metabolic rate and how can I determine mine?
There are three major factors which determine how many calories
we need on a daily basis.
- Resting Metabolic Rate
- Thermic Effect of Activity
- Thermic effect of Food
Resting energy expenditure (REE). REE
represents the number of calories needed by the body to sustain
itself at rest (I've joked that it should be called the couch energy
expenditure since it's how many calories you'd burn sitting on the
couch all day). REE typically comprises approximately 60-75% of the
total caloric expenditure per day. In general, REE is linked with
total body mass as well as lean body mass. Due to difficulties in
measuring lean body mass with 100% accuracy, I prefer to determine
REE using total body mass. There are numerous equations to estimate
REE. However the easiest method is to multiply total bodyweight in
pounds by 10-11 calories per pound total body weight. Women should
use the lower value, men the higher. Again, this number represents
how many calories the body will burn assuming zero activity.
Thermic Effect of Activity (TEA). TEA
includes general moving around, shivering, AND exercise. Depending
on the frequency, intensity and duration, exercise can increase
total caloric expenditure by 15% (very sedentary) to 30% or more
(very active) over baseline levels. Although it is possible to
calculate the number of calories burned with varying types of
exercise, it is generally sufficient to simply estimate the number
of calories burned with activity. The level of activity in a day
will determine the increase in caloric requirements over REE. Even
someone who is totally sedentary will need to adjust REE upwards by
at least 30%. See Fig 1 below for REE multipliers:
Fig 1: Multiplication modifiers for activity level Low activity:
1.3 Medium activity: 1.5 High activity: 1.7 Excessive activity: 2.0
The Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF).
TEF represents the slight increase in metabolic rate which occurs
when food is ingested. The term Specific Dynamic Action (SDA) of
food is also used. The three macronutrients: carbohydrate, protein
and fat have different SDA values. Protein has the highest SDA,
burning off 25% of it's total calories during digestion. That is, if
100 calories of protein is eaten, 25 calories will be burned during
digestion. Carbohydrate is slightly less, having a SDA of 15-20%.
Fat has the lowest SDA, approximately 3%. As a general rule, TEF
will increase caloric requirements by roughly 10% per day.
So an example calculation for a male, with moderate activity
(weight training 3 days per week) who weighs 170 lbs would be.
REE = 170 lbs * 11 cal/lb = 1870 cal/day TEA = 1870 * 1.5 = 2805
cal/day TEF = 2805 + 10% = 3080 cal/day
This is the number of calories needed to maintain body weight on
daily basis.
Fat loss
Losing fat is a function of burning more calories than you consume.
And to lose 1 lb of fat requires that you burn 3500 more calories
than you consume. Thus the typical recommendations are to either
decrease caloric intake by 500-1000 cal/day OR increase activity by
the same token. Alternately some mix of caloric restriction AND
increased activity is typically recommended. I generally find that
dieters tend to decrease calories by too much AND increase activity
(especially aerobics) far too much. And while this invariably works
fine for fat loss initially, a plateau is quickly hit and fat loss
slows. Frequently muscle is also lost, something which should be
avoided. The absolute largest caloric deficit that should EVER be
created is 1000 calories per day and this may even be too high for
some. Please note that this is the TOTAL deficit from caloric
restriction and increased activity. So you don't get to cut calories
by 1000 per day AND increase cardio at the same time. If you happen
to be involved in an endurance sport and are burning 1500 cal/day
with activity, this means that you would have to INCREASE caloric
intake by 500 per day for optimal fat loss to occur. I realize that
this is counter intuitive to everything dieters have been told but
please trust me that it works. In practice, this works out to a low
end caloric intake for optimal fat loss of around 11-12 calories per
pound (women should use the lower number, men the higher). Going
below that does not improve fat loss significantly but does increase
metabolic slowdown and muscle loss.
For our same 170 lb person above, maximal fat loss would be
achieved at 170 lb * 12 cal/lb = 2040 Which is right at a 1000
calories/day deficit.
Muscle gain
In the same way that fat loss requires a caloric deficit to occur,
in all but a few cases (see next question), muscle gain requires a
caloric excess of some sort. While it's wonderful to hope that
calories to support muscle growth will be pulled from fat stores,
this tends not to happen except in beginners and those using
repartitioning drugs like clenbuterol. Sadly there is no hard and
fast rule for just how many calories an individual may need to
support muscle growth. Someone with a very high metabolic rate may
need in excess of 25 cal/lb. Someone with a lower metabolic rate may
only need 20 cal/lb. I generally recommend 20% above maintenance as
a good starting point which, in practice, works out to 18 cal/lb or
so.
Adjusting caloric intake
Please note that all of these calculations are estimates only and
there is a great degree of variability in metabolic rate, etc. I
recommend that individuals use semi-frequent (every 2 weeks or so)
body composition measures to adjust their caloric intakes. If you
goal is fat loss, you want to find that ideal calorie level which
maximizes fat loss while minimizing (or eliminating if possible)
muscle loss. If muscle gain is you goal, there will be some optimal
level where muscle gain is optimized by fat loss is minimized
(keeping in mind that some fat must be gained as you are gaining
muscle). If at all possible, try not to change too many variables at
once when dialing in your caloric intake for either fat loss or
muscle gain. Decreasing calories and adding a thermogenic like
ephedrine will make it impossible to tell if the calorie change or
the ephedrine caused the fat loss.
Problems with Bingeing While Dieting
Dear Lyle,
I am trying to diet to lose bodyfat. I find
that I am generally very good about it but every once in a while, I
end up bingeing (which I call the 'hoover effect') and eating
everything in sight. Is this going to hurt my diet and is there
anything I can do about it?
Ahhh, dieting. You gotta love the starvation and suffering that
goes along with trying to reach that higher level of physical
perfection don't you? Yeah, right. Let's face it, dieting is no fun
no matter who you are or what you do. Think about it this way, if I
told you that you couldn't have something, no matter what it was,
simply knowing that you couldn't have it would make you want it even
more. Even if it was something that you didn't want in the first
place. This is human nature, we want those things which we cannot
have.
This especially pertains to dieting. Most people take a very all
or nothing approach to dieting for fat loss. Either they are on a
diet or they are in a full blown binge. Either they are perfect or
they are putting away as much junk as they can get their hands on. I
had a client once who took this to an incredible extreme. Came to me
one Monday with guilt all over her face. Told me she'd been 'bad'
over the weekend. She had eaten (get this) one whole candy bar.
Putting on my best sarcastic voice, I chided her for it, trying
simply to point out how irrational she was being.
The all or nothing approach that most take to fat loss is an
extremely dangerous mental state to get into. There are NO absolutes
in anything. We all miss workouts, we all 'cheat' (and I hate to use
that word because it's got so many negative connotations) on our
diets, etc, etc.
And here's what I"ve found, both in myself and in clients. The
more extreme you try to be with your dietary or training approach,
the LESS likely you are to follow it in the long term. We all know
of someone who decided to get into shape and jumps into it head
first. Extremely low calories, daily workouts. And they initially do
very well but without exception they drop out because they get
burned out or injured or something else. No one can be that perfect
all the time.
Which is all leading up to the fact that trying to be perfect on
your diet is ultimately a recipe for failure. What happens is this,
you've associated going off your diet with a lack of willpower or
mental strength. And as soon as you have that first cookie and
decide that you are a failure, you are much more likely to eat the
rest of the bag out of guilt. As a buddy of mine once put it
"Anything worth doing is worth overdoing."
Of course, I suggest an alternate approach. I encourage
individuals (and this of course assumes they don't have some
timeline, like a bodybuilding contest to get into shape) to plan
their cheating. That is, consider these two individuals.
1. The first individual follows a super strict diet 6 days
out of the week. But one day out of the week, when willpower
gives out, they have that first piece of pizza. Suddenly the
wave of guilt hits and the rest of the pizza disappears. To
atone for their 'sin' this person hits it that much harder the
next week, more restriction, more time on the bike, leading to
yet another (and probably bigger) binge the next weekend. This
cycle repeats until this person finally just gives up
completely.
2. The second person is following the same strict diet but
has decided that one meal per week, they get to eat whatever
they want. Pizza, donuts, whatever. Just eat it, be happy and
get on with their life. No guilt. No increased resolve to do
better the next week because this was a planned excursion from
the diet.
The end result is the same, 6 days of dieting with an excursion
to eat whatever you want. But the psychological effect is totally
different. The first person feels nothing but guilt for their
excursion from the diet because it wasn't part of the plan. The
second can easily go back to their diet the next day since the
excursion was part of the overall plan. Who do you think is more
likely to stick with their plan, the one who feels guilty every
weekend or the one who feels in control of what they are trying to
achieve?
Ok enough pop-psychology, what are the physiological effects of
bingeing while on a fat loss diet? In the short term at least, the
body is able to deal with an excessive influx of calories by raising
metabolic rate. Think about Thanksgiving Day. The average person
consumes from 4000-7000 calories on that one day. From a strictly
thermodynamic standpoint, that should equal a 'true' fat gain (not
including water and stuff) of 1-2 lbs. But it never does. Sure we
all gain a few pounds but it's mainly water and carbs being stored
as glycogen which is quickly lost. It's only when caloric intake is
higher than caloric expenditure in the long term that true fat gain
occurs.
Additionally a known effect of fat loss diets is a gradual
reduction in metabolic rate as the body adapts to lowered calories.
Many authorities recommend a 'cheat day' as I have described to
prevent some of the attenuation in metabolic rate. I happen to agree
with them. By planning your 'binge' day, you may be able to prevent
some of the fat loss plateaus which always tend to occur.
Finally individuals who are weight training (and you all should
be) while they diet tend to find that they fill out after their
cheat day. The body's first priority when calories (especially carbs)
reintroduced into the diet is to refill muscle glycogen stores. Only
when those are filled will the body start laying down bodyfat. This
means that, under ideal circumstances, your cheat day should
probably fall on a weight training day to ensure that all those
extra calories go to glycogen resynthesis instead of fat stores.
But unless you have a specific time frame to get into shape, I
don't see the occasional detour off you diet as a big deal. Simply
build it into the plan to avoid the negative psychological feelings
associated with it and get on with your life.
Fat Loss Plateaus
Dear Lyle,
I've been following a good fat loss diet
for about 5 weeks now and was losing fat consistently. But now I've
hit a plateau and I can't lose any more fat. What causes the plateau
and how can I get my fat loss started again?
To be absolutely honest, no one has all the answers to what
causes fat loss to plateau. Various mechanisms have been suggested
including a drop in thyroid levels, or increased leptin or decreased
catecholamine levels. While it's academically interesting to wonder
exactly why the body tries to attenuate fat loss by lowering
metabolism, from a purely practical standpoint, it's not that
critical. Simply accept that fat loss plateaus happen and worry less
about what causes them and more about what you can do about it. In
general terms, we can say that a fat loss plateau occurs when
metabolic rate slows to such a point that the caloric deficit you're
creating (through some combination of caloric restriction and
increased activity) is canceled out. The most common approach to
breaking fat loss plateaus is to either decrease calories even more
or increase activity. Both of which serve to create a further
caloric deficit, spurring more fat loss. But there's a limit to how
little you can eat or how much you can increase activity to
compensate. Additionally, it seems that the lower your calories go
(or the more activity you do) the more muscle and less fat you tend
to lose. To this approach is ultimately a dead end. The second, and
my preferred approach, is to take 5-7 days off your diet. While this
runs totally counter intuitive to what dieters have been taught
('Eat MORE to lose fat') it does work. Giving your body a break from
dieting for even a short period of time tends to upregulate
metabolism enough that going back to your diet for a few more weeks
will spur some further fat loss. My current recommendations
(assuming you don't have a specific time frame to get to a certain
bodyfat levels) are to diet no more than 4 weeks straight before
taking a week off. 4 weeks just seems to be the time point when the
body really starts to adjust metabolism downwards and fat loss tends
to slow. So this is the time to take a break from your diet. When
you do break from your diet, go back to eating roughly maintenance
calories and normal carbohydrates (especially if you've been lowcarb
dieting). For whatever reasons, this seems to really help the body
get past fat loss plateaus. And as long as you continue training
intensely, it's rare to put on a really significant amount of
bodyfat during this 5-7 day span. But you will refill muscle
glycogen (see previous question) and you might even rebuild any
muscle you may have lost during your previous 4 weeks of dieting. I
find that I tend to lean out even further during the week that I'm
off of the Cyclical Ketogenic Diet (CKD). Whether it's just filling
out my muscles or my body continuing to use fat for fuel or the
thermic effect of all those carbohydrates, I don't honestly know.
But it does work.
Guidelines for Pre-contest Bodybuilders
Dear Lyle,
I want to do a bodybuilding contest
sometime next year but am confused about how to get in ideal shape.
Do you have any general guidelines for pre-contest bodybuilders?
Although there is no one hard and fast plan to follow for getting
into contest shape, here are some good general guidelines so that
you can avoid the common traps I see people fall into. Keep in mind
that the goal for your contest diet should be to lose all the
bodyfat necessary while sacrificing minimal muscle mass. I say
minimal because it's nearly impossible to keep all your muscle mass
while dieting. My recommendations can hopefully prevent you from
losing more muscle than you have to. Unfortunately the dieting
advice available to natural lifters has gotten garbled by what the
pros are doing. Whenever you introduce steroids and other drugs
(especially thermogenics) into the mix, things change drastically.
It's much easier for someone using steroids to crash diet and lose a
lot of fat very quickly without dropping a lot of muscle.
1. Don't get too fat in the offseason.
A lot of lifters go into bulk-up mode in the offseason, see
their strength and mass coming up and put on 'fat blinders'.
Since they aren't keeping track of body composition, they end up
at too high a bodyfat percentage and end up sacrificing all that
nice muscle when they diet down. For men, the highest you should
let your bodyfat get is about 10-12%. You won't have abs at this
level but neither will you be 'fat' in the classic sense of the
word. Women should try to go no higher than 15% bodyfat or so.
What this means is that you will need to do short dieting cycles
during your mass phases to keep bodyfat under control. Basically
you should mass until you hit that high end bodyfat level (10-12
or 15%) and then diet for 3-4 weeks. This also gives you a
chance to dial in your dieting for when the real contest prep
starts. However neither should you try to maintain
super-leanness during the off-season. It's extremely difficult
to add much muscle while staying totally ripped and, as a
general rule, you will have to gain some bodyfat if you want to
gain any mass.
2. Start your diet too early rather than too
late. I've seen fat bodybuilders give themselves 8
weeks to get into shape for a contest.. There is a physiological
limit to how much bodyfat you can drop in a given amount of time
without losing muscle and it's about 2 lbs. Also it's better to
get into shape 2 weeks too early than 2 weeks too late. So many
lifters report looking just great a week after their contest
which doesn't do them a heck of a lot of good. Assuming you
didn't let your bodyfat get too high during the off-season, a 12
week dieting cycle should be plenty. Of course, if you really
let your bodyfat get out of control, you may need 16 weeks or
more to lose fat without losing muscle. Do you really want to
diet for 16-20 weeks? I didn't think so. Better to throw in
short dieting cycles during your mass phase. Starting your diet
early enough also gives you a chance to throw in a week off the
diet which seems to help break fat plateaus. That is, rather
than diet straight down for 12 weeks, you can diet 4 weeks, take
a week off, diet 4 weeks, take a week off, etc. Seems to work
better than one long diet cycle.
3. Dance with who brung ya'.
Meaning that you should maintain (to as great a degree possible)
the same training that you used during your mass cycle. There is
an erroneous idea out there that you should use high reps and
lighter weights to 'cut up' a muscle. My feeling is that this
idea came from the steroid users who had to lighten the weights
when they dropped the heavy androgens and their joints started
to hurt. The worst thing you can do during a diet is to drop the
stimulus to maintain your muscle mass which is heavy weights and
low reps. Now this doesn't mean that you should try to maintain
maximum intensity and go crazy with forced reps and negatives. I
think you should try as much as possible to maintain your
poundages and train to the point of concentric failure (or even
a rep short) but no further. You won't have the recovery to
handle set-intensification techniques.
4. Don't overtrain or overdiet. A
lot of lifters (who didn't follow rules #1 and #2) panic when it
comes time to diet. They cut calories too low and do hours upon
hours of cardio. While they lose fat, they lose a lot of muscle
too. By the same token that it's a bad idea to push yourself too
hard in the gym (rule #3), I think it's a bad idea to increase
your frequency in the gym during a diet. Yes you will burn more
calories but you won't have the calorie or hormonal levels to
handle a higher frequency of training. In the start of you diet,
I don't recommend any cardio. Simply cleaning things up food
wise and reducing calories slightly will get fat loss started.
Bring in cardio only when it's necessary (i.e. when fat loss
starts to slow for a given calorie level) but don't go nuts.
Some people can get plenty ripped with no cardio, others can't.
But I think that 4-5 days per week for an absolute maximum of 40
minutes is more than enough. More than that and you will whack
hormone level and start losing muscle.
Initial Opinion on Androstenedione
Dear Lyle,
I'm a 37 year old male who has been working
out for the last 5-6 months, after about 5 years of not working out.
I've been doing some reading about body building. It seems that most
articles are really just advertisements in disguise. But the most
impressive product I've seen appears to be 4-androstene3, 17-dione.
I've seen claims that it can increase your Testosterone level by up
to 350% and more. Is this true and does it actually benefit people
or are there some potential negative side effects? Finally what's up
with all of the androstene variants which are appearing?
Androstene does appear to have some neat things behind it,
doesn't it? There is only ONE peer-reviewed study (published way
back in 1962 in Acta Endocrinologica) which compared Androstene to
DHEA. They gave 100 mg of each to two women (two women in each
group). The androstene did significantly raise testosterone and I
seem to recall it was to the tune of about 300% with the peak
occurring around 90 minutes and the elevation in test. remaining for
about 3 hours total. But that's in women who have between 1/10th to
1/30th of the testosterone that men do.
So, I'd expect a supplement which converts to testosterone to
have MUCH greater effects in women than in men. DHEA falls into this
category, raising test. in women but not reliably in men (depends on
age). The other 'studies' which are being cited by the companies are
German patents for it's use as an anabolic, nothing peer reviewed.
At least not yet. Oh yeah, one of the studies people like to cite
looked at andro -> conversion in ovary slices. REAL applicable to
humans.
In any event, I think there *may* be something to androstene. I
used it for a month and noticed more aggressiveness in the gym, a
killer pump and increased libido (not good when you're single). I
have heard similar things from other individuals so I think it's way
more than a placebo effect.
The unanswered question is whether a 3 hour increase in
testosterone will have a *significant* effect on muscle mass. Right
now all we can do is speculate. I have a feeling that 24 hour
testosterone levels are arguably more important than any increase
which occurs over a short time period. However since testosterone
levels can begin to decrease during a workout (I've always seen one
hour given but have never found the studies supporting that), I
could see a rationale for taking androstene about 30 minutes before
you being training so that the androstene will be peaking (90
minutes remember) when your body's normal testosterone levels are
dropping. Might prevent a shift from anabolism to catabolism.
Now, you could always dose andro throughout the day (say one dose
every 3 hours) to increase testosterone all day long but you'd
increase the risk of side effects which are IDENTICAL to that of
anabolic steroids. These include shutdown of endogenous testosterone
production, aromatization to estrogen which can cause fat gain and
the development of gynocomastia (swelling of male breast tissue),
acne, etc. In fact, one of my female trainees has acne breakouts
(and gets real aggressive/libidinous) when she uses a DHEA/andro
combination.
I'd say that androstene is definitely doing *something*
physiologically. The question is whether it's going to have the
major impact on growth/recovery that everyone seems to be claiming.
Without peer reviewed research, it's hard for me to say with 100%
accuracy. Also considering the established increase in training
intensity with pre-workout androstene, it's always possible that
people are growing from using it because they are training harder.
As with most supplements, since so few studies are done on weight
trainers anyhow, you have to try it for yourself, try to keep all
other training variables (diet, training structure) constant and
just see what happens.
As far as all of the androstene variants which are now showing
up, I'll be honest that I haven't really kept up with any or all of
them. According to what little I've read and a few people I've
talked to, the variants may convert to testosterone through
different enzymatic pathways or convert to slightly different
molecules (i.e. norandrostene converts to nor-testosterone, aka
nandrolone).
Ephedrine, Caffeine, Aspirin plus Yohimbine
Dear Lyle,
Can you give me a brief rundown on the
Ephedrine/Caffeine/Aspirin stack I keep hearing so much about? The
guys at my gym tell me it's great for fat loss but I've also seen
stories in the media that it can be dangerous. What's the deal? Also
I've seen some suggest yohimbe for fat loss. Is it safe to take
yohimbe with ephedrine?
Ephedrine belongs to a class of compounds which are generally
called beta-agonists. To understand what this means, we have to look
at a little physiology. Tissues in the body (i.e. muscle cells,
heart cells, fat cells) contain both beta receptors and alpha
receptors. Without getting into nasty details, there are at least
three types of beta receptors (called Beta-1, Beta-2, and Beta-3)
and two types of alpha receptors (called Alpha-1 and Alpha-2). Beta
receptors tend to stimulate things like calorie burning, fat
breakdown and heart rate. I have described them in the past as being
like accelerators in that they accelerate certain metabolic systems.
By contrast alpha receptors are like brakes, slowing those same
systems.
Schematically we can show this as:
Net effect = beta receptors - alpha receptors
Take fat mobilization for example. When beta receptors are
stimulated (for example by adrenaline) it sends a signal to the fat
cell to breakdown Triglycerides to Free Fatty Acids (FFA) +
Glycerol. The FFA enter the bloodstream where they can be picked up
by muscle or heart and be burned for energy. When alpha receptors
are stimulated, they send the cell a signal NOT to breakdown
triglycerides.
So where does ephedrine fit into all of this?
Ephedrine is a beta-agonist meaning that it stimulates the
beta-receptors of cells. Additionally ephedrine signals the body to
release adrenaline and noradrenaline (also called epinephrine and
norepinephrine depending on what side of the Atlantic you're on)
which also stimulate beta-receptors.
When this occurs many processes are kicked into action. Fat
breakdown increases, muscles being burning more calories, and heart
rate and blood pressure go up. All of these processes being mediated
by beta-receptors. This is how ephedrine helps with fat loss. It
raises caloric expenditure (by stimulating muscles to burn more
calories) as well as increasing fat breakdown.
So what about the caffeine and aspirin?
In general, the body doesn't like change. This is why metabolism
will slow down when you try to diet by lowering calories. By the
same token, when you use ephedrine to stimulate metabolic rate and
fat burning, the body mobilizes a variety of other processes (such
as prostaglandins) to bring things back to normal. Caffeine and
aspirin help to prevent the body from adapting to the ephedrine.
Additionally, they allow less ephedrine to work more effectively
(i.e. they work synergistically) which is important in terms of side
effects. As mentioned above, in addition to it's fat burning
effects, ephedrine can also increase heart rate and blood pressure
which is where the possibility of danger occurs. Someone who had
pre-existing heart conditions (or high blood pressure) could
conceivably get into problems by taking too much ephedrine. And most
of the publicized deaths have been in individuals taking far more
than the recommended dosage. I knew a girl who took 10 times the
recommended dose of ephedrine one time (I have no idea why she did
this) and ended up in this hospital. Thing is, taking 10 aspirin
would be equally as bad. So it's not that ephedrine, used at the
proper dose, is necessarily dangerous. But like any drug, abusing it
and taking more than the proper dose can get you into problems.
So what is the proper dose? Numerous
studies have established that 20 milligrams of ephedrine with 200 mg
of caffeine works better than other doses. That is, caffeine should
be 10 times the dosage of ephedrine. One study I'm aware of used 30
mg of ephedrine with 300 mg of aspirin but most people seem to think
that this much aspirin is not necessary. As well, since the ECA
stack is generally taken three times a day, taking this much aspirin
could cause problems (like ulcers). Most take either 150 mg of
aspirin (just break a whole aspirin in half) or get the 81 mg baby
aspirins.
So the basic ECA stack, which would be taken three times a day
would consist of: 20 mg ephedrine 200 mg caffeine 81 mg of aspirin
Note that many companies prefer to use the herbal equivalents
(which are ephedra/MaHuang, guarana or kola nut, and white willow
bark respectively). It's important in this case to make sure that
the herbs are standardized to give the same dose each time. That is,
one popular brand of herbal ECA provides 334 mg of ephedra
standardized for 6% ephedra. 334 * 0.06 = 20 mg ephedra, the proper
dose. Personally, I refuse to buy any herbal supplement that doesn't
list the standardization of it's herbs since there's just no way to
know how much you're getting. There is some debate over whether
white willow bark (supposedly a natural form of aspirin) works as
well as aspirin. As well the studies show that aspirin has more of
an effect in obese individuals than in lean individuals. Finally,
aspirin *may* cause problems with testosterone synthesis by blocking
prostaglandin production.
What about side effects? The major side
effects from the ECA stack are just a general stimulant effect. The
first time I took ECA, I made the mistake of taking it around 8pm. I
think I finally fell asleep around 4am the next morning. Some people
are more affected by ECA's stimulant properties than others. The
best recommendation I can give is to start with 1/2 the recommended
dose once per day. After 2 days, move up to a full dose taken first
thing in the morning. As long as that doesn't over-stimulate you,
you can gradually increase to three doses per day with the last one
being taken around 4 pm (assuming that you like to sleep). An
interesting observation in the studies is that the stimulant effects
from ECA go away after about 2 weeks. However the fat
burning/metabolic rate effects appear to remain (and at least one
study suggests they increase) with chronic usage. This is beneficial
if you're using ECA for fat loss. however some people like to use
ECA as a pre-workout stimulant in which case regular dosing will be
detrimental. I typically notice an increase in lifting performance
of 5-10% when I take ECA but only if I haven't been using it
consistently.
What about yohimbe? Yohimbe approaches
fat mobilization from the opposite end. It is an alpha-antagonist
(meaning that it blocks the effects of the alpha receptors). Since
alpha receptors inhibit fat breakdown, and yohimbe inhibits alpha
receptors, the end result is that yohimbe increases fat breakdown
(got that, it's basically a double negative, inhibiting an inhibitor
means that you get an increase). One observation in the research is
that women's lower bodyfat has much higher levels of alpha receptors
than it does beta receptors. This is probably a big part of why a
lot of women will get very lean in their upper bodies but still
carry a lot of fat on their legs. Women probably have more to gain
from using yohimbe than men do. The standard dose of yohimbe is 8-24
mg per day but the problem is that most yohimbe products are poorly
standardized and there's no way to know how much of the active
ingredient is present. The problem is that yohimbe plus the ECA
stack *can* be relatively more dangerous than either one used
separately. Here's why. Recall from above that the beta receptors
are analogous to the accelerator on your car while alpha receptors
are kind of like the brakes. Taking ECA is like stomping on the
accelerator, taking yohimbe is like taking your foot off the brake.
Meaning that ECA + yohimbe will have an overall greater effect on
metabolism than either one taken alone. This is a good thing from
the standpoint of fat loss since you are both stimulating fat
breakdown and inhibiting the inhibition of fat breakdown. But the
heart also has both alpha and beta receptors. Stimulating beta
receptors in the heart raises heart rate. So does inhibiting the
alpha receptors. Doing both means that the heart rate and blood
pressure response to ECA + yohimbe will be greater than with either
one taken alone. For some people this is a non-issue. Others report
a racing heart rate and vastly increased blood pressure when they
take ECA + yohimbe and there is no way to know in advance if you'll
be susceptible or not. If you do choose to experiment with both, at
least show some common sense and monitor your heart rate and blood
pressure response. Normal heart rate for most individuals is 60-80
beats per minute and a resting heart rate over 100 is considered
dangerous. Normal blood pressure is about 120/80 and anything over
140/100 should be a major danger sign. Blood pressure cuffs are
cheap (or use the free ones at the grocery store). A trip to the
emergency room is most definitely not cheap. This isn't mean to be a
scare tactic. Just be smart about what you put into your body and do
the most you can do avoid having any problems.
Pre-Workout Meals and Pre-Bedtime Meals
Dear Lyle,
I have heard varying suggestions for
pre-workout meals and before bedtime. Several authorities seem to be
dead set against food (especially) carbohydrate consumption will
inhibit Growth Hormone release by raising insulin levels. I work out
late in the evening and I am not sure whether I should be eating
carbohydrates after my workout. On the one hand I want to replenish
my glycogen stores, but on the other I don't want to stop the
release of growth hormone when I go to bed. I would be grateful for
your thoughts on this subject.
It is true that insulin and growth hormone are antagonistic to
one another. Generally, high blood glucose/insulin levels reduces
growth hormone levels. By the same token, low insulin/blood glucose
causes growth hormone to go up. The problem with just looking at GH
levels is that GH per se is not that terribly anabolic (it is useful
for fat loss).
Most likely, any anabolic effects of GH are mediated through
something called IGF-1 (Insulin like Growth Factor 1, also called
somatomedin). When GH is released and a host of other factors are in
proper place (including adequate dietary energy, protein, etc), the
liver will produce IGF-1. Also, IGF-1 can be released by muscle
cells themselves (most likely due to eccentric muscle trauma).
As to effects on muscle growth, I happen to disagree on the
relative importance of GH for muscle growth. Studies that injected
GH into individuals weight training showed NO greater muscle growth
in the GH group vs. the non-GH group. Fasting actually raises GH the
highest and we all know how good fasting works for putting on
muscle.
The reason is that While it's true that high glucose/insulin will
decrease GH release, especially at rest, I have to wonder how much
effect it will have during exercise. Once exercise starts, insulin
levels start to drop almost immediately due to the release of
catecholamines so I'd guess a 5-10' warmup would lower any high
insulin levels from a high carb meal.
Thing is, I'm not convinced that the overall hormonal response to
training is that critical. That is to say, the effects of overall
tension, fatigue and muscle damage play a much greater role in my
mind than any hormonal release. Now, it may be that
maximizing/optimizing the hormonal response (GH or testosterone) to
training may increase gains but I still think that the overall
loading, etc is more important.
As to eating carbs before your evening workout, you have to weigh
this:
Is it more important to you that you: a. get a good GH response
from your training b. have adequate blood glucose (from your snack)
to support your high intensity training.
Yes, it's all wonderful to get a good GH response from training
but if it means having a crummy workout because you're running out
of steam, it's a moot point. The same thing applies to the debate
over eating before morning workouts. If you work out early in the
morning, yes you might get more of a GH response from training on an
empty stomach but weigh that against training with low blood sugar.
If your workout goes poorly because you don't have any energy, you
won't grow no matter how perfect the hormonal response is.
As far as post-workout carbohydrates, at least one study has
shown that the combination of protein and carbohydrates raised both
insulin and GH after a workout. The reason is that the carbohydrates
raised insulin which then caused a drop in blood glucose (which is
what insulin does) which caused a GH release. Ultimately, I think
replenishing muscle and liver glycogen after a workout are
relatively more important than worrying *too* much about GH release
during sleep, etc.
Training While on Low-Carb Zone Diet
Dear Lyle,
I am following Dr. Sear's Zone diet to lose
some bodyfat before I start my mountain bike racing season this
year. Because of my training schedule I have to do several high
intensity workouts during the week and I find that I am unable to
recover from workout to workout on the carbohydrate intake I am
currently consuming. Though I usually try to keep my carb level at
about 220-250 grams for the day, on the days I indulge in the Ultra
Fuel/Whey Protein post work-out shake nearly half of the day's carbs
are in the shake (100 grams). On workout days should I account for
the nutrients in the shake in a different way? Possibly allowing for
a higher carb intake on workout days?
Although the lowered carbohydrate diets like the Zone are
excellent for fat loss, it is a reality of life that high intensity
exercise absolutely requires carbohydrate. Simply put, free fatty
acids are not able to fuel exercise above a certain level. This
applies both to weight training and to high intensity (above lactate
threshold) endurance workouts. So your solution is a good one.
Although much is made recently about problems with insulin
sensitivity and how the insulin released from carbohydrates can
result in fat gain, there is one time point where a high insulin
response is not only useful but desired, and that is right after
workout.
For reasons which are not entirely understood, high intensity
exercise raises insulin sensitivity. Meaning that the muscle can
more effectively utilize the insulin which is released.
Additionally, since the muscle tends to use the insulin which is
released, fat cells (which require higher insulin levels than muscle
cells) are not stimulated to store fat during this time period. Most
likely the increase in insulin sensitivity with exercise is related
both the glycogen depletion as well as the fact that muscular
contractions cause things called GLUT-4 receptors (which stands for
GLUcose Transporters) to move to the membrane of the cell.
Ultimately though, all you need to understand is that high intensity
exercise will allow you to use more insulin (and by extension more
carbohydrates) without having to worry about gaining fat.
A good guideline for post-workout carbohydrate intake is 1.5
grams of carbs/kilogram lean body mass (divide lean body mass in
pounds by 2.2 to get kilos) which works out to 75-150 grams for most
people. Additionally, as mentioned in the last question, adding
protein to these post-workout carbs seems to help with recovery and
get a better hormonal response.
Now the problem comes in when you are trying to design a diet
around a specific ratio of nutrients, as in the Zone. Sears makes an
argument that the ideal ratio of protein to carbohydrate is 3:4. But
he also makes a big deal (and I agree) that you don't want to
consume more protein than you need. So you are faced with somewhat
of a dilemma. Personally (and a mountain biker I train who uses the
Zone does this with good results) I would suggest that you follow
the Zone ratios for all of your meals and simply count your
post-workout carbohydrates separately. So if you add the 100 grams
of carbs as a post-workout drink, don't try to balance it out with
protein and fat so make the days ratios come out to Zone ratios
|
