This is not going to be a long in-depth blog. In fact, it will simply provide a very condensed review of the paper recently published by Churchward-Venne et al (2016) in the Sports Medicine journal where they discuss: “the current state of evidence regarding the dose-dependent relationship between dietary protein ingestion and changes in skeletal muscle protein synthesis during recovery from resistance-type exercise in older adults. They provide recommendations on the amount of protein that may be required to maximize skeletal muscle reconditioning in response to resistance-type exercise in older adults.”
With an approximately $US50 cost to access this article, most will simply not be willing to fork out that sort of money. So I wanted to outline the key points that were made in this article and provide a little bit more than what appears in the below online abstract. If you have any questions or want further information just leave a comment at the end of the article and I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
Whey Protein Increases Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Rates
ABSTRACT: Hyperaminoacidemia following protein ingestion enhances the anabolic effect of resistance-type exercise by increasing the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis and attenuating the exercise-mediated increase in muscle protein breakdown rates. Although factors such as the source of protein ingested and the timing of intake relative to exercise can impact post-exercise muscle protein synthesis rates, the amount of protein ingested after exercise appears to be the key nutritional factor dictating the magnitude of the muscle protein synthetic response during post-exercise recovery. In younger adults, muscle protein synthesis rates after resistance-type exercise respond in a dose-dependent manner to ingested protein and are maximally stimulated following ingestion of ~20 g of protein. In contrast to younger adults, older adults are less sensitive to smaller doses of ingested protein (less than ~20 g) after exercise, as evidenced by an attenuated increase in muscle protein synthesis rates during post-exercise recovery. However, older muscle appears to retain the capacity to display a robust stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in response to the ingestion of greater doses of protein (~40 g), and such an amount may be required for older adults to achieve a robust stimulation of muscle protein synthesis during post-exercise recovery. The aim of this article is to discuss the current state of evidence regarding the dose-dependent relationship between dietary protein ingestion and changes in skeletal muscle protein synthesis during recovery from resistance-type exercise in older adults. We provide recommendations on the amount of protein that may be required to maximize skeletal muscle reconditioning in response to resistance-type exercise in older adults.
Key points
The key question often posed in relation to diet and resistance training is: “How much protein should I consume after a workout/training session to maximise the adaptive response to resistance-type exercise?”
Whilst the answer to this question is not entirely clear what is known is that this depends on 4 key things: age, bodyweight, energy balance and possibly training status.
Evidence shows that maximising skeletal muscle protein synthesis rates during recovery from resistance training exercise in younger adults is sufficiently accommodated by the ingestion of ∼20 g of protein or ∼0.25 g protein/kilogram bodyweight.
Older adults demonstrate a blunted post-prandial muscle protein synthetic response.
However, older adults as opposed to younger adults require higher amounts of protein during recovery from resistance training exercise to optimally stimulate muscle protein syntheis. Intakes even up to ∼40 g appear necessary.
No consensus currently exists regarding the amount of protein required to maximally stimulate skeletal muscle protein synethsis rates during recovery from resistance training exercise in older adults.
The Future Treatment For Sarcopenia-induced Muscle Atrophy?
Given that older adults not involved in resistance training or vigourous physical activity require an increased intake of protein relative to younger adults, a higher protein intake seems warranted post-exercise after performing resistance training.
Leucine-enriched whey protein or increased EAA providing 3.5 g leucine have prolonged the duration of the increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis rates following resistive exercise in older men.
Technically, the capacity of older skeletal muscle to robustly respond with increased protein synthetic response post-resistive exercise may relate to leucine-mediated increases in p70S6K1 (Thr389) phosphorylation and/or amino acid transporter expression.
The availability of dietary protein-derived amino acids within the circulation following protein ingestion is reduced in older adults.
The ‘optimal’ dose of ingested protein as previously mentioned may therefore be double (∼40 g) that required by younger adults.
The dose of ingested protein to induce a maximal stimulation of muscle protein synethesis following resistive exercise appears to increase during energy deficit versus energy balance.
Greater rates of muscle protein synethesis have been demonstrated when 30 g versus 15 g of whey protein were consumed after training in younger adults when under conditions of mild energy deficit.
Older adults in energy deficit and engaged in resistive exercise may require even higher amounts of post-exercise protein >40 g but <50 g; however, this is based entirely from extrapolating from younger adults and is therefore speculative at this point in time
There is a lack of data as to the amount of ingested protein required to maximally stimulate skeletal muscle protein synthesis after resistance-type exercise in younger and older women.
Continued research is required to unravel the contribution of ageing versus age-related decreases in physical activity on anabolic resistance and whether or not resistive exercise and/or increases in physical activity can reduce age-related anabolic resistance to protein feeding.
Work on masters athletes with above-average fitness and muscular strength will hopefully help researchers decipher the exact nature of anabolic age-related resistance.
It is envisaged that this will provide valuable guidance on how best to attenuate these changes through resistive exercise and/or physical activity in addition to nutritional strategies aimed at facilitating maximal muscle protein synthesis.
Reference
Churchward-Venne TA. et al. (2016) “What is the Optimal Amount of Protein to Support Post-Exercise Skeletal Muscle Reconditioning in the Older Adult?” Sports Medicine (see here for publication)
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to improve muscular strength, physical function (how you move around during the day) and quality of life or programs to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
There has been a significant amount of research conducted and published recently that seeks to better understand the precise resistance training parameters required to maximise muscle strength and morphology in healthy old adults. This has been driven largely by the growing acknowledgment and concern related to the process of sacropenia that occurs with ageing whereby muscle mass, strength and functional capacity decline. Both the practical and clinical implications of this are far reaching for each individual affected, but have far wider social, economic and political ramifications regarding future health care policy in relation to the ageing population. Of the many interventions explored, resistance training has been shown to rapidly improve various aspects of muscle morphology and function. In fact, results of studies looking at this form of exercise suggest that most, if not all adults over the course of their lifespan, should indulge in regular, challenging resistance training.
Resistance training facilitates rapid improvements in muscle strength and function
The rest between each set of repetitions performed during a resistance training session – known as the inter-set rest period – is something that has been recently explored. Attempts to discover the optimal inter-set rest period of time to maximise the effectiveness of a training program continues, but so far consensus has been difficult to establish. Results from studies (see below) conducted in healthy old untrained men compared to young resistance-trained men produced completely opposite conclusions with shorter 1-minute rests augmenting strength and hypertrophy better in the former group but longer 3-minute rests working better for the latter group. The question arises, how is this possible? At face value, these results suggest that resistive exercise adaptations may be training-status and/or age-specific.
I recently emailed the authors of these papers to canvass some of the possible methodological confounders that may have influenced the results by skewing them in favour of one group over another. Given that such research often informs future recommendations regarding best practice when designing resistance training programs, any possible confounders affecting the results need to be highlighted. Robust discussion is required in an effort to further strengthen and validate the conclusions of these studies so that bodies like National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) can make accurate and evidence-based recommendations.
The following analysis is a summary of the email I sent to the authors for comment. Unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback which was pretty disappointing. The 2 key papers are (with full citation at the end):
“Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis”
“Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men”
COMMENT: Whilst I am open to the possibility that shorter interset rest periods could potentially lead to greater muscular strength and hypertrophic adaptations in untrained healthy older men, I am also trying to reconcile results of another recently published paper by Schoenfeld and colleagues titled “Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men” that found the direct opposite. Perhaps this is not so surprising if most of the decline in skeletal muscle mass with ageing, as shown by Nilwik et al (2013) a few years ago, results almost exclusively from atrophy of type II muscle fibres. Taken together these divergent results would suggest that resistive exercise adaptations may be training-status and/or age specific.
Are shorter inter-set rest periods better?
I have not come across any discussion or research so far that has attempted to correlate the relationship of the effectiveness of shorter or longer interset rest periods with the observed selective atrophy of type II muscle fibres which has been shown to occur in untrained older men. It would be interesting to see if the disproportionate representation of slow twitch muscle fibres in untrained older men somehow decreases the effectiveness of longer interset rest periods.
My proposition, however, is this. The key finding – that a shorter interset rest period was found to be superior – could have been confounded by:
The testing protocol utilised and;
A small group of participants reducing the power to detect whether significant differences exist in true baseline training status and “responsiveness” to training during week 0 to week 4 of the matched groups.
I should point out that the statistical analysis as it stands doesn’t support my comments so please bear this in mind.
The variables and areas that I would like to focus on and discuss are:
The testing protocol utilised to assess 1-RM performance.
Age differences found and whether age was adjusted for all phases.
Baseline Margaria stair-climbing power.
The rate and percentage improvement differences found for Bilateral Leg Press 1RM (kg) week 0 to week 4 when all subjects were doing the same program during Mesocycle I.
The rate and percentage improvement differences from week 0 to week 4 for the walking test when all subjects were doing the same program during Mesocycle I.
Some statistical and data anomalies that I couldn’t make sense of.
For the remainder of the article I will use SS to refer to short inter-set rest periods and SL will refer to longer inter-set rest periods.
After reading through the testing protocol used to assess 1-RM performance it seems to me that this unfairly advantages the SS group. The strength training phase for the SS group from week 4 to 12 used 1-minute interset rest periods whilst the SL group used 4 minutes. With the testing protocol using 1-2 minute rests between 1-RM attempts the SS group would have been far better adapted both physically and mentally to perform maximally for this testing protocol because their training closely resembled testing procedures. Maybe some of the testing should have included 4-minute rests between 1-RM attempts to control for this. As it stands, the methodological approach taken for this study could have produced significantly greater 1-RM strength testing outcomes in the SS group.
Ironically, the study by Schoenfeld and co. (younger trained men) found that longer rests (3-minutes) were superior to shorter (1-minute) for strength and hypertrophy gains. But once again the results may have been skewed because the testing protocol more closely matched the longer rest period group where they used 3-5 minute rest periods during testing.
During Mesocycle II an 8 week strength training phase was completed where only the interset rest period differed. This phase was adjusted for values at week -4 and 0, as well as age. During Mesocycle I, a 4 week high-volume, moderate-intensity hypertrophic training phase was followed by all participants. After adjusting for values at week -4 results showed all subjects significantly improved in training and testing parameters. However, I’m wondering if age was adjusted for during Mesocycle I as there is no reference that this was done in the results described for this phase on p.301.
At baseline most variables in Table 1 page 297 show that there were no significant differences between the SS and SL groups. The variable that caught my eye that I found interesting was Margaria stair-climbing power (W) with a trend toward a significant difference (p=0.07) in favour of SS. Whilst not reaching p<0.05 level, the 26.6% greater power achieved for the week 0 Margaria test in the SS vs. SL group is fairly large by any measure. This test would be the best indicator of lower body power and would also be the most challenging in terms of motor pattern complexity thus making it perhaps the most sensitive in determining baseline group differences in training status compared to the other variables measured. By extension, if we assume that there was perhaps some sort of training status difference at baseline between SS vs SL, the overall improvements from training would be skewed in favour of the SS group.
What’s the best way to increase muscle mass with ageing?
During Mesocycle I all subjects performed the same training program. Results showed that following this phase of training, the 2 treatment groups were comparable for most variables apart from the narrow/neutral lat pulldown and some of the SEBT tests. The significant difference found for the pulldown is surprising with an increase in the SS group from 336.2 kg to 380.2 kg (+13.1% increase over baseline) vs SL from 299.4 kg to 339.9 kg (+13.5% increase over baseline).
In relation to the Bilateral leg press 1-RM (kg) baseline values for SS vs SL were 224.0 kg and 215.3 kg, respectively, increasing to 327.9 kg and 278.7 kg at week 4. The average absolute increase in kilograms lifted for 1-RM were thus 103.9 kg for SS and 63.4 kg for SL. So a baseline difference of 8.7 kg increased to 40.5 kg by week 4. Figure 1b for the Leg Press is quite telling too for the week 0 to week 4 period. The improvement of the SS group compared to the SL group during Mesocycle I is visually very noticeable with the gradient of improvement of the SS group much steeper than the SL group.
In relation to the 400-meter walking test baseline values for SS vs SL were 182.8 and 187.2 seconds, respectively, decreasing to 164.6 and 176.3 seconds after 4 weeks training. Absolute decreases in time taken to perform the walking test were therefore 18.2 seconds for SS and 10.9 seconds for SL. This comparison I think is illustrated even better if both groups are compared for the distance differential after completion of this test. At baseline, the SS group would have finished 9.4 metres in front of the SL group. After 4 weeks of Mesocycle I training the SS group would have finished 26.5 metres in front of the SL group.
These testing results seen over Mesocycle I are pretty decent and if observed in a field situation would constitute a difference in training responsiveness.
For the Margaria stair-climbing power test the week 12 data as presented in Figure 3b has to be either a mistake or a misprint. In table 2 the SD for this test at week 12 was 1117.3 W compared to what appears to be almost 2300 W in figure 3.
SUMMARY: The single biggest issue with the finding that shorter 1-minute rests augment strength better in older untrained men, is that the testing protocol utilised a short rest period between maximal efforts thereby favouring the group that trained in this fashion.
Possible baseline differences in lower body power and differences in training “responsiveness” during the first Mesocycle phase are other potential issues that I would have liked investigated or explored further.
References
Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T. and Granacher, U. (2015) “Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis” Sports Med. 45: 1693-1720
Nilwik, R. et al. (2013) “The decline in skeletal muscle mass with aging is mainly attributed to a reduction of type II muscle fiber size” Experimental Gerontology. 48: 492-498.
Schoenfeld, B.J. et al. (2015) “Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. November http://www.researchgate.net/publication/284711582
Villanueva, M.G., Lane, C.J. and Schroeder, E.T. (2015) “Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men” Eur J Appl Physiol. 115: 295-308.
FitGreyStrong fact: Weight gain occurs when total caloric daily consumption exceeds total daily energy expenditure. To achieve weight or fat loss there must be an energy or caloric deficit. Over 80 years of scientific research has confirmed this to be fact.
FitGreyStrong Advice: Don’t believe the hype. Food quality is a must and essential to good health. However, weight or fat loss will not be realised no matter how good your diet is unless an energy deficit exists. Increased total physical activity during all waking hours and an energy-deficit diet that is wholesome, natural, minimally-processed and nutrient-dense will provide a significant opportunity for weight loss to be achieved.
I’m going to make a confession. I have laboured over the last month to write this blog. I’ve spent hour upon hour trying my best to explain what I think is a simple concept. The strangest thing is the evidence published so far is conclusive but with so much shit floating around anyone looking to lose a few kilo’s in the New Year is faced with a major challenge. What info is good and what is bad? How does one decipher what advice to act on and what advice to send to the computer’s recycle bin?
As I explained recently the media and ‘rogue’ researchers have, in some ways, muddied the weight loss debate by promoting the idea that exercise doesn’t help (see here). There are many examples of the media misleading consumers by sensationalising material that has been poorly researched, lacks objectivity and obfuscates the facts.
Ironically, it is this type of questionable and controversial material that gains the most traction with the public. The confusion created by such reporting has had a truly dreadful impact on the public’s perception regarding the role of exercise for weight loss. Many health care professionals working in the field have also raised serious concerns about this too because there is the feeling that some people may simply avoid physical activity altogether.
Notwithstanding that compensatory mechanisms mitigate the efficacy of exercise in some people (see here), widespread consensus remains elusive regarding the very basic underpinnings of weight loss. It seems incredible in fact that in the year 2016 vigorous debate and disagreement continues to swirl. However, I believe that the writing was on the wall when Generation X’s were still kids. There was sufficient scientific research carried out from the 1930s to the 1980s to put to bed and move on from some of the most hotly contested questions relevant to weight loss. The two questions which continue to inspire fierce debate are:
1. Do calories really matter?
2. Is weight loss simply a matter of expending more energy than you consume?
Before outlining what the specific focus of this blog is I need to digress. I want to make clear that it is not my intention here to assess whether manipulating the macronutrient makeup of the diet – e.g. high fat versus high carb diets – yields superior benefits on metabolic outcomes such as fasting blood glucose or lipid profile. Of course, this is a very important question to address but I’ll have bitten off way more than I can chew to do this justice, so I’ll come back to this another time.
The only thing I will say is that the actual published research is mixed. Three meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been completed over the last 18 months assessing whether metabolic outcomes are affected by manipulating macronutrient composition. Two of the these (see hereand here) concluded that there were no differences on metabolic outcomes when the protein, carbohydrate and fat composition of the diet was varied; whilst the other paper (see here) suggested the opposite stating that dietary manipulation did alter metabolic outcomes.
Ok, let’s get back to what the focus of this blog is then.
Is obesity a disease?
The aim of the following is to shine a spotlight on and explore the mechanistic aspect of weight loss. You may be wondering…………. what the bloody hell does that mean? What I mean by ‘mechanistic’ is the basic physiological state required – in our species, Homo sapiens – to bring about weight loss.
To state this as simply as possible, when it comes to weight loss the single most important factor from a physiological perspective is that there exists an energy or caloric deficit. Eighty-five years of scientific research and investigation has demonstrated without equivocation that for weight loss to occur an energy deficit must exist. Total daily energy expenditure has to exceed total daily energy intake for any reduction in body mass to occur or vice versa for any increase to occur. Regardless of one’s age, race or gender this holds true. This really is the only conclusion you can draw if you actually read the studies that have been published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals relevant to this area (see here).
Now some of you may disagree with me on this and you are not alone. Unfortunately, in my view, there are a number of dissenting voices from a variety of quarters that simply don’t believe this to be true. They passionately dispute this and contend that the total energy provided by the diet matters very little. What really counts is the metabolic effect food has on our body. An example of this type of thinking can be found here.
Supporters of such thinking, decouple weight loss and calories. They propose that the “metabolic propensity” to increase and store fat in the adipose cells is driven primarily by the quality of the foodstuffs ingested and the proportion of protein, carbohydrates and fat in the diet. “A calorie is not a calorie” because different foods of different qualities have different effects on our digestion, hormones, biochemistry, metabolism, thermogenesis, physiology and associated internal feedback loops.
Whilst the total energy or calorie content of food matters, what is significantly more important is the metabolic effect that food has on our body. All calories are not created equal, therefore, with the quality and type of food choices made and the subsequent metabolic effect that such choices have on our body ultimately determining if fat loss is successful or not.
The most significant and telling problem with this line of thinking is that there are virtually no respected and acknowledged researchers who believe it. I see this as a telltale sign that the dissenters are simply barking up the wrong tree. Virtually all leading obesity experts worldwide concur that unless there is an energy deficit, decreases to weight or fat mass are not possible irrespective of how good the diet is. The question needs to be asked, why is this the case?
FitGreyStrong’s take-home message to you up to this point is:
Unless you expend more than you take-in you ain’t going to see any changes to your weight or fat.
Resistance and weight training shows great promise to maximise fat loss
There exists consensus amongst nearly all scientists because of the following. Research undertaken with participants confined to an in-patient hospital setting or in facilities known as metabolic units are currently the most accurate way to scientifically determine the specific energy requirements needed for weight change. Such studies are usually expensive because they are very resource and equipment intensive. However, what they allow researchers to do is measure what is being consumed (energy in) and what is being expended (energy out) quite precisely – or at least, a lot more precisely than studies that involve free-living subjects.
In brief, the methodology of such studies looks something like this:
For the duration of the trial subjects have to remain in the hospital or unit.
Participants of these studies are allocated and given all consumables (food and drink) for the duration of the intervention.
The caloric content of what is consumed is a known entity and has been prepared and accurately measured.
The macronutrient percentages of the diet for protein, carbs and fat has been determined.
Physical activity is closely monitored, measured and accounted for.
Resting energy expenditure (REE) and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is estimated as accurately as possible based on the equipment utilised and methods employed in the study.
With energy intake and energy expenditure measured as close to actual as possible, investigators can now establish whether the prerequisite for weight loss is an energy deficit. Over the last 80 years or so there have been over 20 studies carried out that have assessed the effect of calorie and macronutrient manipulation on weight loss whilst in the strict confines of hospital or metabolic unit.
Evaluation of such research has shown that no major differences have been found for weight or fat loss when diets of different macronutrient composition but with the same amount of energy (i.e. isoenergetic diets) were compared. Results from these studies show beyond dispute that the key determinant for decreased weight is a caloric or energy deficit, not diet composition.
To look at the evidence another way, not one of these trials – not even one – has ever demonstrated an increase in body weight when daily energy intake is less than daily energy expenditure. Likewise, no such study has ever shown a decrease in body weight when daily energy intake exceeds daily energy expenditure. This remains so irrespective of the macronutrient breakdown.
To give you a taste of the studies that have incorporated some of the methods referred to above, let’s take a quick look at a few of these:
Study 1 – Graves and colleagues conducted a randomized trial comparing an energy-restricted high-protein versus high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in the morbidly obese which was published in the Obesity Journal (see here). Eighty-eight obese participants (mean age, 46.7; mean BMI, 45.6 kg m squared) were enrolled in a 3-week inpatient and 48-week outpatient treatment. The study was novel in that it included cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment. All subjects consumed a restricted diet (1,200 kcal/day for women, 1,500 kcal/day for men; 20% energy from fat, <10% saturated fat). The high-protein diet derived 34% energy from proteins, 46% from carbohydrates; the high carb diet derived 17% from proteins, 64% from carbohydrates. The primary outcome was 1-year percent weight loss and secondary outcomes were attrition rates, changes in cardiovascular risk factors and psychological profile. The three week in-patient period closely monitored and provided all food with the total energy content and macronutrient composition known.
No difference in BMI or weight reduction was detected for this period between each diet.
The authors concluded (pg.1774) that:
“the relative carbohydrate and protein content of the diet, when combined with intensive CBT, does not significantly affect attrition rate, weight loss and psychosocial outcome in patients with severe obesity”.
Study 2 – Golay and co-workers compared diets equally low in energy (1000 kcal) but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbs on body weight reduction in 43 obese adults during a 6-week period of hospitalisation (see here). The diets were composed of 32% protein, 15% carb and 53% fat versus 29% protein, 45% carb and 26% fat. The first diet could be described quite well as a low-carb, high-fat diet and the second diet as a more balanced diet. After 6 weeks no significant differences were seen for weight loss, fat loss or waist-to-hip circumference. Energy intake, not nutrient composition, determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets.
Study 3 – Leibel and co-workers established in 1992 that even during very wide variations in the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake) there was no significant variation in energy need and changes in body weight (see here). Sixteen human subjects were confined to a metabolic ward for an average of 33 days and fed precisely known liquid diets with protein derived from milk and fat varied from different amounts of corn oil. Total energy intake, not diet composition was once again the key determinant in modulating energy balance.
I could continue and summarise the other studies published but the overall findings are much the same as that described above. For a more extensive review of these type of studies please see here.
Confusion around this topic, I think, has been created by other research and weight loss trials that don’t take place in the confines of a hospital or metabolic unit, but rather use free-living subjects. These studies cannot accurately quantify energy intake and expenditure and they are hence plagued by problems.
Firstly, participants often have to record or attempt to recall what they ate and drank. It probably doesn’t surprise you then that this has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate. Even those studies that provide free-living subjects with their allotment of food and drink can’t completely prevent or control for individuals eating or not eating the food on their assigned ‘menu’. Secondly, energy expenditure is estimated via physical activity logs, diaries, pedometers or fancy equipment like activPAL (see here). Consequently, energy expenditure can often be under- or over-estimated so such data can be terrible misleading. To state the obvious, deriving definitive results and conclusions from these types of studies is going to be challenging.
In spite of the caveats mentioned above, the results from the many studies using free-living subjects concurs with the hospitalisation and metabolic unit studies. Two meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in 2014 and 2015 concluded the same thing:
“Both types of macronutrient-centered weight loss diets produced weight loss. Manipulation of macronutrient composition of weight loss diets does not appear to be associated with significantly different weight loss or metabolic outcomes.”
The massive 2014 review by Naude and colleagues (see here) assessed 228 studies making it one of the largest meta-analyses and systematic reviews available. Provided one reads and reviews such research with an objective and impartial mind it is implausible to reach any other conclusion.
A final comment: The one thing that I believe provides the biggest hint that total calories are indeed fundamental to weight loss is something that is noticeable in the methodology of the more scientifically robust studies. Of the research that has taken place in a hospital or metabolic unit setting there is one key characteristic that most of these studies determine before proceeding to the weight loss phase of the trial. Can you guess what it is? Researchers establish energy requirements (i.e. total daily caloric intake) for weight maintenance over a period of 1 to 2 weeks (see here). If for arguments sake, calories were not important for inducing weight loss, then establishing energy requirements for weight maintenance in these studies would be a pointless exercise.
Before I finish up I need to make some clarifying comments.
1. Those that make the claim that calories are not important in relation to the obesity problem or when trying to decrease body fat are doing, I think, either one of two things. They are ignoring the data produced from hospital/metabolic unit-based studies and/or they are misinterpreting and taking at face value the results of research conducted with free-living subjects.
2. There will be those that read this and conclude that what I am advocating or all that I think matters is calories, with diet quality just a cursory concern. I can hear some of you saying right now “….but surely 2500 calories of jelly beans or junk food is different to 2500 calories of atlantic salmon, walnuts, broccoli and berries.” Really? Well, yes, of course it is, thanks for pointing that out. A diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods is paramount to ensuring good health. I should state now that I am not suggesting for one moment that the quality of the diet is not important.
Food quality is key for health and weight management
3. Irrespective of how good a diet is in optimising the metabolic effect on your body, the fact remains nonetheless that it is still possible to gain weight eating a wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense diet. It is probably more difficult to do so, but regardless, you cannot escape the fact that you have to be in a consistent calorie deficit to lose fat or a chronic caloric surplus to gain fat.
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to lose weight, improve muscular strength, physical function (how you move around during the day) and quality of life or programs to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
The standard Deadlift is one of the best exercises available to develop many of the largest and strongest muscles in the body and is essential to any resistance or strength training program. It is one of the few standard weight lifting exercises in which the start of the movement begins with ‘dead’ weight. The Deadlift is a fantastic exercise for anybody over 40, provided it is performed correctly with good technique and with proper progression. It is a compound movement that stimulates many different muscle groups and provides excellent weight-bearing loads to several critical joints in our body. For more information on the basics of the Deadlift please see here.
How to do the Deadlift and key things to remember
Standard Deadlift: This exercise can be broken down into three parts.
The setup;
The pull or drive;
The lockout.
The Setup:
Set-up position
During the set-up the gluteus maximus and minimus (glutes/buttocks), quadriceps muscle group (thigh), all muscles of the hamstring group and the triceps surae (calf) will be eccentrically loaded.
The erector spinae muscles (lower back) and assisting core muscles will contract isometrically to stabilise the spine.
The bar should be resting against the lower tibia or shin bone.
To maximise recruitment of the lower body musculature – for general purposes and sports specific training – I would suggest that there be sufficient knee flexion at set-up so that both hip and knee extensors are both major contributors during the Deadlift. Too many do this exercise with too little knee flexion thereby making it predominantly a hip dominant movement rather than a hip and quad combined movement. This advice is not applicable to powerlifting with less knee flexion used for competition.
Hip-to-shoulder body angle in relation to the floor (or horizontal) should be somewhere between 20° to 40°. This can be varied depending on the load desired on the hip dominant or quad dominant muscles. Generally speaking, reducing this angle will place more stress or load on the hip dominant muscles (glutes) by increasing the leverage and length of these muscles.
The bar can be gripped either between or on the outside of the legs. Most standard Deadlifts however will have the bar gripped on the outside of the legs.
Hand grip can be pronated (palms facing legs) or an alternative grip with one hand pronated and one supinated (palm facing away from body) being also popular. For heavier lifts most will use the latter grip mentioned above as this will synergistically create better upper body stability and linkage to the lower limbs during the move.
The scapulae need to be retracted or depressed with the shoulders held firmly in place so that the load is distributed via the lats and erectors. The idea is that the linkage between where the hands grip the bar and where the feet contact the floor remains at greatest tension so that the forces generated can be translated efficiently.
Drive:
The highest amount of force is produced during the drive phase.
The key movement concept to think about when commencing the Deadlift is not to “push up” but rather to “push away”. So when you initiate the movement imagine you are pushing the floor away from your feet with the body virtually staying in place.
During this initial drive phase which finishes just around the knee, the upper body angle should stay the same.
The movement of the bar from the floor to the knees should be mainly achieved by the recruitment of the glutes, quads and hamstrings.
The spinal column should stay straight. To the naked eye from an observer, the spinal curves at lumber, thoracic and cervical sections should look the same or remain neutral as they would appear if you were standing erect.
From the lateral view, the knees should approximately fall over the feet and as the drive phase is carried out the knees will slightly move behind the feet.
By driving through the floor with flat feet and unhinging at the hips and knees, the bar should travel very close to or in fact scrap the tibia or shin bone all the way up to the knee. You may require some tights, long socks or something to cover the lower legs as once the technique is mastered (if you are using an Olympic bar with a roughed surface) you may otherwise take skin off and possibly bleed. This is a good sign that the bar is travelling along the correct path if all else is being performed well.
Safety for this exercise is primarily based on ensuring that correct technique is developed before progressing the weight up. If sufficient knee flexion is utilised for the standard Deadlift with the drive phase being completed with the upper body angle constant with neutral spinal alignment held, lumbar load and integrity is maintained.
Performing the valsalva manoeuvre (see here) also assists in stabilising the bodily structures and core during the whole femoral-lumbopelvic movement.
Mid-drive position
Lockout:
The lockout phase for FitGreyStrong followers commences from the knees to the standing upright position.
Following the drive from the floor to the knees, the upper body angle now changes from the 20° to 40° that was held for the drive phase.
From this point you are now trying to stand upright. To do this, once the bar has cleared the patella or is just above the knees, driving or thrusting the hips forward whilst attempting to stand upright is the movement concept to be thinking. This is where the glutes, hamstrings and erectors are required to work in unison to complete the Deadlift.
There is still some knee extension left to complete so the quads will still be required to contract forcefully in sync with the primary contraction of the glutes, hamstrings and erectors to complete the entire movement.
The core musculature (abs, obliques, TA) and supportive muscle such as the lats are needed to be held tight and strong so that the prime movers can work optimally.
The bar should finish resting fully against the upper quads with the thighs and hips fully extended, arms extended, shoulders back and head in normal position and eyes looking forward.
Mid-lockout position
Lowering the weight:
Lowering from the lockout position does not have to but can mirror the concentric stand-up movement of the Deadlift. This is an individual’s preference.
FitGreyStrong’s recommendation would be to slide the bar down against the quads, over the knees and down the tibia/shin bone until you can return it to the floor.
The spinal alignment and maintenance of correct form as outlined above would still be imperative and will, in general, minimise risk of injury.
Knee and hip flexion would be gradually increased as one lowers the bar toward the ground.
Final comments:
The standard Deadlift is one of the very best resistive-based exercises available in the gym setting for anybody of any level of fitness or anyone of any sporting background wanting to increase full-body strength for performance enhancement. If you haven’t tried this exercise before make this one of your top priorities to learn and master; it will pay huge dividends irrespective of what you are trying to achieve.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong or FGS website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
