Tag Archives: gym training

Strength, Nutrition, Tidbits

What is the Optimal Amount of Protein to Support Post-Exercise Skeletal Muscle Reconditioning in the Older Adult?

1 Comment
Share this:

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 and muscle recovery
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.
Resistance training room
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.
© FitGreyStrong

Share this:
Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Mobility, News/Media

Dose-Response Relationships Of Resistance Training In Healthy Old Adults: The Inter-Set Rest Period

2 Comments
Share this:

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.

Sarcopenia, resistance training, strength, older adult
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.

Shorter inter-set rest periods for resistance training in older adults
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:

  1. The testing protocol utilised to assess 1-RM performance.
  2. Age differences found and whether age was adjusted for all phases.
  3. Baseline Margaria stair-climbing power.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

Muscle hypertrophy in older adults
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.

Share this:
Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Mobility, Exercises

How To Do A Standard Deadlift

Leave a comment
Share this:

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.

  1. The setup;
  2. The pull or drive;
  3. The lockout.

The Setup:

 

How to do a deadlift
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.
How to do a deadlift
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.
how to do a deadlift
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.
Share this:
Psychology, Strength, Weight/Fat loss, Nutrition, Endurance

The Unspoken Truth: Why People Struggle To Lose Weight

Leave a comment
Share this:

In my article titled “It can’t possibly be true, can it?” I questioned whether there was any foundation to the claim that inactivity is not a chief cause obesity and provided scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Today I will try explain to you what the bottom-line is as to why exercise doesn’t work for everybody trying to lose weight. One thing I have noticed is that there isn’t enough time or effort – either in the media or on the net – dedicated to informing the public about why exercise does not work for some people and what can be done about.

Exercise has been successfully applied as an essential ingredient of many weight loss programs. By increasing total daily energy expenditure, creating a caloric deficit state is theoretically, at least, more likely. It naturally follows that the weight loss achieved will be correlated to the magnitude of the energy deficit created. In practice however this does not always happen. In fact, there are a number of studies and anecdotal evidence that show a significant proportion of exercisers eating an ad libitum diet (possibly as high as 50%) do not achieve the weight loss expected with as many as 15% actually gaining weight. These individuals are often referred to as ‘non–responders‘. Those on the other hand that do achieve weight loss from exercise are referred to as ‘responders‘. The question is, how is this possible and are there any practical solutions?
exercise doesn't work for everybody trying to lose weight
Energy compensation and exercise-induced fat loss
People respond differently to exercise:
Non-responders vs responders
These differences in response to exercise include:
  1. Non-responders increase whilst responders decrease, total daily energy intake (all the food and drinks you consume on a daily basis).
  2. Some of these differences apparently occur unbeknownst to the exerciser so there is some sort of compensation going on to offset the extra energy expended from exercise.
  3. Non-responders increase their consumption of fat.
  4. Non-responders experience much greater subjective sensations of fasted hunger (upon waking) and hunger across the day compared to responders.
  5. Non-responders demonstrate an increased whereas responders show a decreased, desire to eat.
  6. Non-responders satisfaction or feelings of fullness from meals is significantly reduced whilst there are no changes in responders.
  7. Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women showed the loss of weight/fat mass or lack thereof, was attributable to an increase or decrease in spontaneous physical activity, respectively.
  8. Resting metabolic rate may be reduced in non-responders but not in responders.
Appetite is controlled by the brain
Brain function and weight control is poorly understood

If you are struggling to lose weight after starting an exercise regimen then you could be classified as a non-responder and should consider the following:

  • If possible, have some measurements taken by a knowledgeable professional that includes girths (such as hips, waist, thighs etc) and skinfolds where the subcutaneous fat can be approximately measured by calipers. By doing this you will be able to work out more precisely what changes are actually taking place. This is pretty important because some ‘non-responders’ will lose a considerable amount of fat but total weight loss may be only slight or actually increase (see King et al 2008). This will affect roughly 10% of exercisers that are trying to lose weight but these body composition changes are in fact desirable and favourable.
  • Monitor energy intake more closely and consider recording actual food and beverage intakes so you can keep tabs on this as you go. Given that ad libitum diets don’t seem to work too well for non-responders, recording your intake is a good place to start. Assuringly, research shows that those that diarise what they are eating and drinking are much more successful at weight loss and weight management compared to those that don’t, so start recording.
  • Recognise that if you keep accurate records of these things and create an energy deficit – the research that has been conducted in metabolic-ward studies suggests – that weight loss is highly probable. Based on an account of energy intake and energy expenditure, if the creation of an energy deficit does not elicit any change in body composition, it is likely that there has been an over-estimation of energy expenditure or an under-estimation of energy intake, or a combination of both. However, this now allows subtle changes to be made to energy expenditure or intake so that body fat mass reduction can be realised  (see here and here for great discussions on the crucial role calories play when it comes to fat loss or fat gain).
  • Ensure that your exercise program includes some resistance or weight training. The response to exercise of non-responders as outlined above is related specifically to 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise (i.e. walking, running, cycling etc). You may ironically achieve better weight loss if you back off the aerobic exercise but place a bit more emphasis on weight training or resistance-type exercise. Some research has shown that appetite is suppressed more so with resistance versus aerobic exercise and it is the changes of increased appetite in non-responders that presents a major problem when attempting to bring about sustainable weight loss. With respect to adults who are overweight or obese, Drenowatz & colleagues clearly demonstrated that resistance exercise but not aerobic exercise reduced fat mass.
Weight training and aging
Resistance training is very effective to facilitate fat loss
  • This form of activity also substantially reduces the risk of losing LBM (lean body mass = muscle tissue) in older adults (see Villareal et al). It is very common to see exercisers lose significant amounts of LBM when only aerobic exercise is undertaken while in an energy deficit state.
  • The loss of LBM is not desirable for 2 key reasons. Firstly, functional physical capacity could be affected in both the short and long term (see Villreal et al). Secondly, resting metabolic rate will be reduced thereby making weight loss more difficult and weight regain more likely (see here for further discussion).
  • “Don’t put the cart before the horse.” By that I mean, the quality of what you decide to eat will have a massive impact on your success. A caloric deficit is the goal but it should be achieved with a diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods. Not only is this essential to weight loss success but more importantly generating good health.
To lose weight you need to expend more than you eat
No caloric deficit = no fat loss
  • To combat increased subjective sensations of hunger, then, as a start please make sure that the diet is high in a variety of vegetables, has several serves of fruit each day, contains sufficient and varied sources of protein and includes things like nuts, seeds and oils. This is pretty commonsense stuff but you need to put into practice what actually works. The make-up or quality of the diet appears to impact on subsequent appetite, sensations of hunger and feelings of fullness, so anything that assists in keeping the physiological drives to eat at bay are only going to be helpful (see Blundell et al).

References (in no particular order)

Drenowatz, C. et al. (2015) “The prospective association between different types of exercise and body composition” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 47(12): 2535-2541.

Manthou, E. and Gill, J.M.R. and Wright, A. and Malkova, D. (2010) Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42 (6). pp. 1121- 1128.

Melanson, E.L. et al. (2013) “Resistance to exercise-induced weight loss: compensatory behavioural adaptations” Med Sci Sports Exerc.August; 45(8): 1600-1609.

King N.A. et al. (2008) “Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss.” International Journal of Obesity. 32: 177-184

King N.A. et al. (2009) “Dual-process action of exercise on appetite control: increase in orexigenic drive but improvement in meal-induced satiety.” Am J Clin Nutr. 90: 921-927

Peterson N.D. et al. (2014) “Dietary Self-Monitoring and Long-Term Success with Weight Management”. Obesity 22, 1962–1967

Broom, D.R. (2008) “Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, and peptide YY in healthy males” American Journal of Physiology. 296(1): R29-R35.

King, N.A. et al (2012) “Exercise, appetite and weight management: understanding the compensatory responses in eating behaviour and how they contribute to variability in exercise-induced weight loss.”British Journal of Sports Medicine 46(5):315-22.

Villareal D.T. et al. (2011) “Weight Loss, Exercise, or Both and Physical Function in Obese Older Adults.” N Engl J Med 364(13): 1218-1229

Blundell J. et al. (2010) “Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.” Obe Rev 11(3): 251-270

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or 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.

© FitGreyStrong
Share this: