Collection of studies

Hey everyone, thought it would be a cool idea to make one thread collecting all studies surrounding nutrition and performance. People could then post the link whenever they find interesting studies and I shall edit this post to keep it organized. I do realize how huge this project could end up being so a lot of sub categories may be needed, but I still think it would be really valuable. Let me know if you think it's a good idea.

Paleo diet

Grains:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract -paleo man ate grains

Mixed

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/meta ... a-calorie/

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/680 organic foods not nutritionally superior to conventional

Haha, there would be thousands and thousands.

That WOULD be cool, let's see what happens!

Its a mighty big task, i'm not so sure we even managed to get all the gymnastics and training related sites thread together, and this is much bigger. Still it would be a great resource, even if it wasn't exhaustive or perfectly organized.

Great idea for sure, but I think a Wiki-kind of format would work better. There's something called Wikiversity which aims to provide free educational content.

Maybe you can create a page, Razz, and put up the link here. In that way, everybody can add the links they found directly to the Wiki page.

Any other alternatives?

Hmm the wiki page doesn't sound too bad either, that'd save me a bunch of work too.

Here's a good one to get the ball rolling:

Paleo man ate grains: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract

European Paleolithic subsistence is assumed to have been largely based on animal protein and fat, whereas evidence for plant consumption is rare. We present evidence of starch grains from various wild plants on the surfaces of grinding tools at the sites of Bilancino II (Italy), Kostenki 16–Uglyanka (Russia), and Pavlov VI (Czech Republic). The samples originate from a variety of geographical and environmental contexts, ranging from northeastern Europe to the central Mediterranean, and dated to the Mid-Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian and Gorodtsovian). The three sites suggest that vegetal food processing, and possibly the production of flour, was a common practice, widespread across Europe from at least ~30,000 y ago. It is likely that high energy content plant foods were available and were used as components of the food economy of these mobile hunter–gatherers.

Ouch, that will surely spark some discussion

Of course it will. Triangle likes to do that, lol. I personally think he just wants someone to argue with, its cool, I do it a lot too.

Not a study per se, however a fantastic piece comparing two studies.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/is-a-calorie-always-a-calorie/

Thanks a lot for that article Ed, I knew I read it somewhere but couldn't find it anymore. It really confirms what I'm experiencing myself with my current Paleo-like eating habits.

not sure what kind of category that'd belong to ed, I made a mixed category so far..

It's not that H. Sapiens never ate starchy foods in the Palaeolithic era, they just had significantly less amounts than what is consumed today.

Link to full study:

Organic foods are not nutritionally superior to conventional food: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/680

Here's an interesting study which I just read:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16369817

The main finding of the study was thus:

The main finding of this study is that if the training response is low after endurance training, cardiorespiratory fitness may be improved effectively by the resistance training among the healthy male and female subjects.

Cool!

From the results, it showed that about 25% of untrained women actually get no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but do with strength training. The rest get a response with strength training a much bigger one with endurance training. Even more shocking is that 50% of untrained men get either a better or equal response from strength training on VO2max. 25% of men got almost no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but did with strength. 25% of the males got no improvement from strength training.

That is very interesting! Just goes to show that strength is the way to go

trianglechoke7 said:

Here's an interesting study which I just read:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16369817

The main finding of the study was thus:

The main finding of this study is that if the training response is low after endurance training, cardiorespiratory fitness may be improved effectively by the resistance training among the healthy male and female subjects.

Cool!

From the results, it showed that about 25% of untrained women actually get no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but do with strength training. The rest get a response with strength training a much bigger one with endurance training. Even more shocking is that 50% of untrained men get either a better or equal response from strength training on VO2max. 25% of men got almost no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but did with strength. 25% of the males got no improvement from strength training.

Thank you for this. I've experienced it myself, but it is nice to have an actual study to show non-believers.

Razz said:

That is very interesting! Just goes to show that strength is the way to go

Not so fast there. Don't let your biases distort your view of reality.

1) All the individuals in the study were untrained.

2) For the goal of improving VO2max, it's the way to go for 25% of men. For the other 25% that responded equally to both protocols, would strength training continue to elicit equal improvements in VO2max, or would endurance training improve it more in the long term? I would guess the later.

3) For the other 50% of men that responded better to endurance training, they responded FAR better to it than strength. Go strength isn't the way to go for them.

Nick_EOD said:

trianglechoke7 said:

Here's an interesting study which I just read:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16369817

The main finding of the study was thus:

The main finding of this study is that if the training response is low after endurance training, cardiorespiratory fitness may be improved effectively by the resistance training among the healthy male and female subjects.

Cool!

From the results, it showed that about 25% of untrained women actually get no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but do with strength training. The rest get a response with strength training a much bigger one with endurance training. Even more shocking is that 50% of untrained men get either a better or equal response from strength training on VO2max. 25% of men got almost no improvement in VO2max with endurance training but did with strength. 25% of the males got no improvement from strength training.

Thank you for this. I've experienced it myself, but it is nice to have an actual study to show non-believers.

I think I'm in the 50% that gets better cardiovascular results from endurance training.

I don't understand why this is a shock, if you think about it VO2MAX is actually a work capacity test, and the more of this research that is done the more clear it becomes that, despite what it appears, this test is not measuring oxygen utilization. It is measuring the body's capacity to handle work with a limited amount of oxygen. If this test was actually measuring oxygen utilization capacity then anaerobic training could not have an effect. This test is, in my opinion, showing our capacity to process metabolic byproducts and our ability to store and mobilize energy anaerobically. The oxygen uptake is something that is inherently limited by our blood and lungs, and we have shown that no matter how high the intensity, it takes a long time, over 30 minutes, to be deriving a majority of the energy being used from aerobic systems.

slizzardman said:

I don't understand why this is a shock, if you think about it VO2MAX is actually a work capacity test, and the more of this research that is done the more clear it becomes that, despite what it appears, this test is not measuring oxygen utilization.

Then where does the oxygen "go" if it is not being utilized? If the oxygen is not being utilized then the machine should read a lot of oxygen coming back out or something.

It is measuring the body's capacity to handle work with a limited amount of oxygen. If this test was actually measuring oxygen utilization capacity then anaerobic training could not have an effect.

No, for example, anaerobic training can enhance the activity of enzymes used in the citric acid cycle, which, as you know, is the second stage of carbohydrate breakdown and requires oxygen for it to continue (although oxygen is not directly used in the process). Anaerobic training can also push up the lactate threshold.

The oxygen uptake is something that is inherently limited by our blood and lungs, and we have shown that no matter how high the intensity, it takes a long time, over 30 minutes, to be deriving a majority of the energy being used from aerobic systems.

Where has this been shown? Aerobic processes contribute 50% of ATP production during maximal intensity of 2 minutes duration, longer than that and you tip the scales even more towards aerobic processes.

Not true according to several breakdowns of energy system contribution in activities. Even in a 5k race you don't hit 50% Aerobic contribution.

The oxygen will be utilized, but oxygen utilization is a pretty rate-limited thing as we do not grow more blood cells OR mutated hemoglobin or anything else because of aerobic training. We are limited by our blood. However, anaerobic processes are limited primarily by mitochondrial count and vascular density, which are both extremely plastic. Which one, then, will have a greater impact on performance... the variables that can actually vary a lot, or the variable that is very close to static? Does that make sense? There are not massive enough differences in oxygen exhalation content at the point of test failure to explain the differences in performance between a VO2MAX of 40 VS 70, for example. Oxygen is being utilized, but other processes are impacting the final result far more than relatively small increases in aerobic metabolism due to oxygen uptake modulation. It has been estimated that you can only alter your actual oxygen utilization by around 5%. All other changes are caused by anaerobic adaptations.

Aerobic metabolism is very efficient, but that means there is a very low energy output per second as compared to anaerobic processes. As VO2MAX is primarily measuring your oxygen uptake by figuring out how much work you can actually do, if you take into account the severe limitation on actual increases of the oxygen uptake that exist due to our basic physiology of the lungs and the blood's biochemical limitations you will come to the conclusion that VO2MAX is actually measuring the anaerobic contribution much more than the aerobic contribution. This would explain why study after study shows that anaerobically-oriented training impacts VO2MAX much more than aerobic training. Realistically, this is probably due to mitochondrial density increases more than any other single factor. Of course, mitochondria are involved in aerobic respiration as well, but much of the work done is still anaerobic since the mitochondria can only use as much oxygen as the blood can hold. Everything else will still be done anaerobically.

I want to take a step back for a second.

Even if everything you said is true, which I don't think it is, what does any of it have to do with you not being surprised at the results of the study? I don't see how any of it would lead you to a lack of surprise. I don't think you accurately looked at the results of the study. The novel finding was not that strength training improved VO2max in some individuals, (well they only really looked at VO2peak and I'm not sure if the participants actually made it to their true max) but that some people did not even respond to endurance training but did to strength training. If I believed everything you have said here how would I lack surprise at THAT?

Well, that's true. CNS efficiency will always be one of the key factors in performance, and strength training is where you build that the most as strength is primarily a function of the nervous system. You are right, I was definitely not looking at that part of the findings. This aspect of "endurance" is something that is fairly new to me, as I first ran across the idea a few months ago when reading the "Double Your Vertical Leap" program. It makes tons of sense though. It also makes sense to me personally (though I have not seen this explicitly stated anywhere) that as you build more myofibrils in various muscle fibers you will have a higher strength potential in each fiber, which means that you can use less fibers to produce the force you need, which means you'll have more motor groups to cycle between, which should mean it will A)take you longer to see a decrease in performance during steady state work and B) allow you to reach a higher intensity in a ramping up test like VO2 tests. I have already seen, from personal experience and direct observation, that strength training directly impacts endurance capability, and as VO2 tests are primarily tests of "endurance" it should follow that the strength training directly impacts the endurance capability.

I would THINK, but have not heard of such an evaluation done in a study, that determining which system is deficient (strength, meaning CNS efficiency and myofibril count; or endurance, meaning ability to process glycolysis metabolites) should determine what aspect of performance should be trained to improve VO2 marks the most. If you're already very metabolically capable you won't get much of any improvement from more endurance work as the percentile change of mitochondria and vascular density would be much smaller than someone who is deficient in this area. The same should go for strength training.

Given that hypothesis, I would add a second hypothesis that as strength generally takes longer to build than endurance the athletes who are strength deficient would see somewhat lesser gains in their VO2 marks than those who are endurance deficient. However, this could be wrong. There are some training systems that can considerably increase strength in a relatively short timeframe, and I would expect that the strength training modality would severely effect the affected strength gains and subsequent VO2MAX test results. This could be an excellent Master's thesis.

trianglechoke7 said:

I want to take a step back for a second.

Even if everything you said is true, which I don't think it is, what does any of it have to do with you not being surprised at the results of the study? I don't see how any of it would lead you to a lack of surprise. I don't think you accurately looked at the results of the study. The novel finding was not that strength training improved VO2max in some individuals, (well they only really looked at VO2peak and I'm not sure if the participants actually made it to their true max) but that some people did not even respond to endurance training but did to strength training. If I believed everything you have said here how would I lack surprise at THAT?

What I said is true, but the process is all jacked up. Metabolic byproducts that MUST be metabolized aerobically are build up much more quickly in anaerobic processes. This excess is part of what causes failure in an endurance set. In order to move these byproducts from the anaerobic muscle fibers to the aerobic muscle fibers the transport systems have to be improved and the aerobic cells will need to vastly increase mitochondria count (which will improve aerobic respiration performance at the same time). At the same time you have to have more mitochondria in the anaerobic cells because they make the enzymes that perform glycolysis. Because of these things happening simultaneously you get a much more rapid increase in mitochondrial count from high intensity endurance training than from anything else, but anaerobic endurance training in general gives the same response, with the scale of the response corresponding to the intensity of the training.