Lose Fat! Gain Muscle! In Before Newbie Gains!

EvgeniZyntx

What if you could gain1/2 lb of lean mass per week while dieting?

4 week study, overweight men, calories restricted by 40% (!) from maintenance. Average weight loss 10 lbs.

PRO group had 2.4 g/kg body weight of protein.
CON group had 1.2 g/kg body weight of protein. (Close to RDA)
(note - to keep diets isocaloric they reduced fat, not carbs)

both followed a program of resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 days a week.



I've posted the original study here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fqrvn62mahzfs8y/Longland Clin Nutr 2016.pdf

Seems like a significant gain in LBM for the period.

Exercise regimen:

exercise training that consisted of the following: 1) a full-body resistance exercise circuit, which was completed 2 times/wk with circuits (no rest between exercises). Circuits included 10 repetitions/set for 3 sets at 80% of 1RM, with the last set of each exercise to volitional failure, with 1 min of rest between sets; 2) HIT/SIT, which took place 2 times/wk. Sessions consisted of one session of SIT (progressing from four to eight 30-s Wingate bouts) with a 4-min rest between bouts (protocol described in detail below), and a second session of modified HIT consisting of 10 bouts of an all-out sprint for 1 min at 90% of peak power (watts at V_O2max),with1-minrestintervalspedalingat50W;3)weekly 250-kJ time trial on a cycle ergometer during which participants were instructed to complete the trial as quickly as possible while self-adjusting the ergometer resistance; and 4) a plyometric body weight circuit with a 30-s rest between exercises.

Note 1) that this is contrary to what other authors have found at these supplementation levels - the authors recognise this and suggest it might be related to exercise intensity and supplement timing.

Note 2) weight loss in the CON group was almost solely fat - this suggests to me that the exercise mode was highly LBM sparing at these large cuts. (To illustrate a 40% cut corresponds to the upper limits of "safe weight loss" - 1100-1300 cals for me.)

Note 3) research protocol is excellent, all meals provided, blind, etc... wish more research was presented like this.


Tl;DR In before newbie gains.

(and the article that got me reading this one: http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/gain-muscle-lose-fat)

yarwell

Is the LBM all muscle or other stuff too ? "Total body volume was determined with the use of air-displacement plethysmography (BodPod; Cosmed), total body water was determined with the use of bioelectrical impedance (Maltron Bio-Scan MPR 920-II; Maltron International),and bone mineral content was determined with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (QDR 4500A, software version12.31; Hologic). "

EvgeniZyntx

LBM is fat free mass

yarwell wrote: »

Is the LBM all muscle or other stuff too ? "Total body volume was determined with the use of air-displacement plethysmography (BodPod; Cosmed), total body water was determined with the use of bioelectrical impedance (Maltron Bio-Scan MPR 920-II; Maltron International),and bone mineral content was determined with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (QDR 4500A, software version12.31; Hologic). "

The 4 compartment model measures fat then fat free mass (mineral, bone, protein, and water). LBM can be any of that.

LBM = Body Weight - Body Fat.

So yeah, LBM can be anything. But should also note that:

Subjects were euhydrated (according to urine specific gravity) and abstained from physical activity for 48 h before their body composition testing to minimize variability

stevencloser

Newbie gains!
Okay, now that we've got this over with...
There's nothing I can really see in their nutrition or exercise that would be special enough to facilitate muscle gain outside of the water retention that is usual when starting a new exercise regiment.
The exercise style they used also goes against the results of a different study I saw a while ago while looking for something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807
Longer rest periods between sets lead to more gains here. That is very different to their no rest circuit here, and if you'd combine them it would mean they could have gained even more than half a pound per week? On a 40% deficit? I don't really think so.

Also interesting to note is that the performance of both groups was nearly identical despite the observed difference in muscular gains.

And I've got a question:
The difference between the two groups LBM gains had statistical significance p<0.05, okay. But the CON group's value by itself was not significant at all p<0.45. Would that mean that the significance of the comparison is only given if the value of the CON group by itself was not just a fluke?
And now I'm seeing that in their results it says it was p<0.45 but in the table it has the little * saying it is significant compared to pre-intervention. Could be a typo in one of the two.

psuLemon

Tagging.

EvgeniZyntx

stevencloser wrote: »

Newbie gains!
Okay, now that we've got this over with...
There's nothing I can really see in their nutrition or exercise that would be special enough to facilitate muscle gain outside of the water retention that is usual when starting a new exercise regiment.
The exercise style they used also goes against the results of a different study I saw a while ago while looking for something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807
Longer rest periods between sets lead to more gains here. That is very different to their no rest circuit here, and if you'd combine them it would mean they could have gained even more than half a pound per week? On a 40% deficit? I don't really think so.

Also interesting to note is that the performance of both groups was nearly identical despite the observed difference in muscular gains.

And I've got a question:
The difference between the two groups LBM gains had statistical significance p<0.05, okay. But the CON group's value by itself was not significant at all p<0.45. Would that mean that the significance of the comparison is only given if the value of the CON group by itself was not just a fluke?
And now I'm seeing that in their results it says it was p<0.45 but in the table it has the little * saying it is significant compared to pre-intervention. Could be a typo in one of the two.

Water retention? - CHO was constant across both branches and exercise was the same for both. So if present I'd expect it in both, wouldn't you?

To your question:

There was no significant change between before and after in the CON group (hence the P<0.45). The PRO was significant vs CON (hence the stars in the graph and P<0.05)

stevencloser

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Newbie gains!
Okay, now that we've got this over with...
There's nothing I can really see in their nutrition or exercise that would be special enough to facilitate muscle gain outside of the water retention that is usual when starting a new exercise regiment.
The exercise style they used also goes against the results of a different study I saw a while ago while looking for something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807
Longer rest periods between sets lead to more gains here. That is very different to their no rest circuit here, and if you'd combine them it would mean they could have gained even more than half a pound per week? On a 40% deficit? I don't really think so.

Also interesting to note is that the performance of both groups was nearly identical despite the observed difference in muscular gains.

And I've got a question:
The difference between the two groups LBM gains had statistical significance p<0.05, okay. But the CON group's value by itself was not significant at all p<0.45. Would that mean that the significance of the comparison is only given if the value of the CON group by itself was not just a fluke?
And now I'm seeing that in their results it says it was p<0.45 but in the table it has the little * saying it is significant compared to pre-intervention. Could be a typo in one of the two.

Water retention? - CHO was constant across both branches and exercise was the same for both. So if present I'd expect it in both, wouldn't you?

To your question:

There was no significant change between before and after in the CON group (hence the P<0.45). The PRO was significant vs CON (hence the stars in the graph and P<0.05)

Maybe the higher protein content lead to higher retention in one group? It was double the amount of CON and even by itself an average of 245g in the PRO group which is a huge amount.

And in the table the significance in PRO vs CON was shown with crosses, significance of itself with before the intervention with a * and there was a * at LBM.
Also what I was wondering was that if the value itself was not statistically significant if you can even say the comparison between the value and the other is significant.

EvgeniZyntx

stevencloser wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Newbie gains!
Okay, now that we've got this over with...
There's nothing I can really see in their nutrition or exercise that would be special enough to facilitate muscle gain outside of the water retention that is usual when starting a new exercise regiment.
The exercise style they used also goes against the results of a different study I saw a while ago while looking for something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26605807
Longer rest periods between sets lead to more gains here. That is very different to their no rest circuit here, and if you'd combine them it would mean they could have gained even more than half a pound per week? On a 40% deficit? I don't really think so.

Also interesting to note is that the performance of both groups was nearly identical despite the observed difference in muscular gains.

And I've got a question:
The difference between the two groups LBM gains had statistical significance p<0.05, okay. But the CON group's value by itself was not significant at all p<0.45. Would that mean that the significance of the comparison is only given if the value of the CON group by itself was not just a fluke?
And now I'm seeing that in their results it says it was p<0.45 but in the table it has the little * saying it is significant compared to pre-intervention. Could be a typo in one of the two.

Water retention? - CHO was constant across both branches and exercise was the same for both. So if present I'd expect it in both, wouldn't you?

To your question:

There was no significant change between before and after in the CON group (hence the P<0.45). The PRO was significant vs CON (hence the stars in the graph and P<0.05)

Maybe the higher protein content lead to higher retention in one group? It was double the amount of CON and even by itself an average of 245g in the PRO group which is a huge amount.

And in the table the significance in PRO vs CON was shown with crosses, significance of itself with before the intervention with a * and there was a * at LBM.
Also what I was wondering was that if the value itself was not statistically significant if you can even say the comparison between the value and the other is significant.

You're right, nice catch, on the table that is a typo. Cleary the two CON values for LBM are not statistically different (both 69.2 +- 6.1) - (this might have gotten fixed, this is the authors' preprint.)

Second part: It isn't that a value itself isn't statistically significant. It is that the change between two series (CON before vs CON after) was not significant. This has no impact between comparing that first series and the PRO endpoints.

Does that makes sense?

change between CON before and CON after --- not significant.
change between CON before and PRO after --- significant.

senecarr

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

LBM is fat free mass

yarwell wrote: »

Is the LBM all muscle or other stuff too ? "Total body volume was determined with the use of air-displacement plethysmography (BodPod; Cosmed), total body water was determined with the use of bioelectrical impedance (Maltron Bio-Scan MPR 920-II; Maltron International),and bone mineral content was determined with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (QDR 4500A, software version12.31; Hologic). "

The 4 compartment model measures fat then fat free mass (mineral, bone, protein, and water). LBM can be any of that.

LBM = Body Weight - Body Fat.

So yeah, LBM can be anything. But should also note that:

Subjects were euhydrated (according to urine specific gravity) and abstained from physical activity for 48 h before their body composition testing to minimize variability

Given they used a four-compartment, the researchers would have had a good indication if any LBM was bone mineral content or not, though chances of already overweight (near obese from the BMI numbers) individuals gaining much in terms of BMC are low.

yarwell

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

LBM is fat free mass

Seems odd to deploy all that technology to just end up with a 2 compartment answer that the Bodpod or the DEXA alone would have provided.

I'm not convinced though, as the PRO group lost 4.8 kg of fat and gained 1.2 kg of LBM but lost 5.9 kg of body weight.

CON group was closer, lost 3.7 kg of fat, 3.6 kg of body weight and LBM unchanged. Is it just the averaging ?

EvgeniZyntx

yarwell wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

LBM is fat free mass

Seems odd to deploy all that technology to just end up with a 2 compartment answer that the Bodpod or the DEXA alone would have provided.

I'm not convinced though, as the PRO group lost 4.8 kg of fat and gained 1.2 kg of LBM but lost 5.9 kg of body weight.

CON group was closer, lost 3.7 kg of fat, 3.6 kg of body weight and LBM unchanged. Is it just the averaging ?

You're right, the standard def. for LBM doesn't fit. It would seem that they mean protein mass by LBM. In this case it is estimated as the residual mass when fat, water, and bone mineral content (BMC) components are removed from the total mass via the model they use. Here is the reference paper:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/3/497.long

Azdak

BTW, these were not "newbie gains". While the subjects were not currently "training" in an intense way, they were all experienced lifters.

Dr Phillips addressed this specifically in a recent podcast discussing the study. He also had some interesting criticisms of the use of DEXA for body fat analysis and its coronation as the "gold standard".

If anyone wants to listen to the podcast: http://guruperformance.com/episode-74-gaining-muscle-losing-fat-in-an-energy-deficit-with-professor-stu-phillips/

sunnybeaches105

Tagging.

EvgeniZyntx

Azdak wrote: »

BTW, these were not "newbie gains". While the subjects were not currently "training" in an intense way, they were all experienced lifters.

Dr Phillips addressed this specifically in a recent podcast discussing the study. He also had some interesting criticisms of the use of DEXA for body fat analysis and its coronation as the "gold standard".

If anyone wants to listen to the podcast: http://guruperformance.com/episode-74-gaining-muscle-losing-fat-in-an-energy-deficit-with-professor-stu-phillips/

The title was tongue in cheek as people often claim that these "must be newbie gains".
Thanks for the podcast. If others are listening to it, you can skip the first 27 minutes before the actual discussion on the research takes place.