The Effects of 5-HTP on Body Composition: An 8-Week Preliminary RCT.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of supplementing with 100 mg daily of 5-Hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) on indices of body composition in exercise-trained men and women. Sixty-one subjects volunteered for this investigation. Forty-eight subjects were randomized into a treatment (n = 31, 12 male/19 female; 100 mg 5-HTP daily; CLEANMOOD™) or a placebo (n = 17, six male/11 female; maltodextrin). Body composition was assessed pre- and post-treatment after eight weeks via a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance device (InBody® 270). Subjects were instructed to not change their training or eating habits; moreover, they were instructed to track their diet ∼2-3 days per week using a mobile app (MyFitnessPal). There were no changes in food intake (i.e. total energy intake or grams of macronutrients) between or within groups. Lean body mass, total body water, and % body fat did not change significantly in either group. Fat mass decreased significantly post versus pre in the 5-HTP group (p = 0.02) but did not change in the placebo group (p = 0.58). Moreover, changes in fat mass were significantly different between the 5-HTP and placebo group (p = 0.048). Based on the limited data from this investigation, daily supplementation with 100 mg of 5-HTP may affect body composition.

Assessment of the FTO gene polymorphisms (rs1421085, rs17817449 and rs9939609) in exercise-trained men and women: the effects of a 4-week hypocaloric diet.

BACKGROUND: Variations in the fat mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO) are associated with obesity; however, it is unclear if changes in energy intake affect the adaptive response to caloric restriction in those with risk variants. The three FTO single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs1421085, rs17817449 and rs9939609, are in strong linkage disequilibrium. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the role of these FTO SNPs vis-à-vis the effects of a 4-week hypocaloric diet on body composition in exercise-trained men and women. Two salivary biomarkers that associate with energy expenditure were also assessed (cortisol and salivary alpha-amylase, sAA). METHODS: Forty-seven exercise-trained men (n = 11) and women (n = 36) (mean ± SD: age 32 ± 9 years; height 169 ± 8 cm, body mass index 24.5 ± 2.9 kg/m2, hours of aerobic training per week 4.9 ± 3.8, hours of weight training per week 3.9 ± 2.4, years of training experience 13.4 ± 7.0) completed a 4-week hypocaloric diet (i.e., decrease total calories by ~ 20-25% while maintaining a protein intake of ~ 2.0 g/kg/d). Subjects were instructed to maintain the same training regimen and to decrease energy intake via carbohydrate and/or fat restriction during the treatment period. Body composition was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Model: Hologic Horizon W; Hologic Inc., Danbury CT USA). Total body water was determined via a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance (BIA) device (InBody 770). Saliva samples were collected pre and post intervention in order to genotype the participants as well as to determine the concentrations of cortisol and sAA. RESULTS: Of the 47 subjects, 15 were of normal risk for obesity whereas 32 were carriers of the FTO gene risk alleles. Subjects were grouped based on their genotype for the three FTO SNPs (i.e., rs1421085, rs17817449 and rs9939609) due to their strong linkage disequilibrium. We have classified those with the normal obesity risk as "non-risk allele" versus those that carry the "risk allele" (i.e., both heterozygous and homozygous). Both groups experienced a significant decrease in total energy intake (p < 0.01); non-risk allele: pre kcal 2081 ± 618, post kcal 1703 ± 495; risk allele: pre kcal 1886 ± 515, post kcal 1502 ± 366). Both groups lost a significant amount of body weight (p < 0.01); however, there was no difference between groups for the change (post minus pre) in each group (risk allele change: - 1.0 ± 1.2 kg, non-risk allele change: - 1.2 ± 1.4 kg). Additionally, both groups lost a significant amount of fat mass (p < 0.01) with no differences between groups for the change in fat mass (risk allele change for fat mass: 1.1 ± 0.7 kg, non-risk allele change - 0.9 ± 0.4 kg). There were no significant changes in either group for fat free mass or total body water. The change in salivary alpha-amylase or cortisol was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term (i.e., 4 weeks), exercise-trained men and women consuming a hypocaloric diet that is relatively high in protein experience similar changes in body composition due exclusively to a decrement in fat mass and independent of FTO allele status. Therefore, weight and fat loss on a hypocaloric diet is, at least in the short-term, unaffected by the FTO gene.

Comparison of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Versus a Multi-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance (InBody 770) Device for Body Composition Assessment after a 4-Week Hypoenergetic Diet.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare two different methods of assessing body composition (i.e., a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)) over a four-week treatment period in exercise-trained men and women. Subjects were instructed to reduce their energy intake while maintaining the same exercise regimen for a period of four weeks. Pre and post assessments for body composition (i.e., fat-free mass, fat mass, percent body fat) were determined via the MF-BIA and DXA. On average, subjects reduced their energy intake by ~18 percent. The MF-BIA underestimated fat mass and percentage body fat and overestimated fat-free mass in comparison to the DXA. However, when assessing the change in fat mass, fat-free mass or percent body fat, there were no statistically significant differences between the MF-BIA vs. DXA. Overall, the change in percent body fat using the DXA vs. the MF-BIA was -1.3 ± 0.9 and -1.4 ± 1.8, respectively. Our data suggest that when tracking body composition over a period of four weeks, the MF-BIA may be a viable alternative to the DXA in exercise-trained men and women.

The Effects of an Energy Drink on Psychomotor Vigilance in Trained Individuals.

The psychomotor vigilance test (PVT) measures one's behavioral alertness. It is a visual test that involves measuring the speed at which a person reacts to visual stimuli over a fixed time frame (e.g., 5 min). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of an energy drink on psychomotor vigilance as well as a simple measure of muscular endurance (i.e., push-ups). A total of 20 exercise-trained men (n = 11) and women (n = 9) (mean ± SD: age 32 ± 7 years; height 169 ± 10 cm; weight; 74.5 ± 14.5 kg; percent body fat 20.3 ± 6.2%; years of training 14 ± 9; daily caffeine intake 463 ± 510 mg) volunteered for this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. In a randomized counterbalanced order, they consumed either the energy drink (ED) (product: BANG®, Weston Florida) or a similar tasting placebo drink (PL). In the second visit after a 1-week washout period, they consumed the alternate drink. A full 30 min post-consumption, they performed the following tests in this order: a 5-min psychomotor vigilance test, three sets of push-ups, followed once more by a 5-min psychomotor vigilance test. Reaction time was recorded. For the psychomotor vigilance test, lapses, false starts and efficiency score are also assessed. There were no differences between groups for the number of push-ups that were performed or the number of false starts during the psychomotor vigilance test. However, the ED treatment resulted in a significantly lower (i.e., faster) psychomotor vigilance mean reaction time compared to the PL (p = 0.0220) (ED 473.8 ± 42.0 milliseconds, PL 482.4 ± 54.0 milliseconds). There was a trend for the ED to lower the number of lapses (i.e., reaction time > 500 milliseconds) (p = 0.0608). The acute consumption of a commercially available ED produced a significant improvement in psychomotor vigilance in exercise-trained men and women.

High protein consumption in trained women: bad to the bone?

BACKGROUND: It has been posited that the consumption of extra protein (> 0.8 g/kg/d) may be deleterious to bone mineral content. However, there is no direct evidence to show that consuming a high-protein diet results in a demineralization of the skeleton. Thus, the primary endpoint of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if a high-protein diet affected various parameters of whole body and lumbar bone mineral content in exercise-trained women. METHODS: Twenty-four women volunteered for this 6-month investigation (n = 12 control, n = 12 high-protein). The control group was instructed to consume their habitual diet; however, the high-protein group was instructed to consume ≥2.2 g of protein per kilogram body weight daily (g/kg/d). Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Subjects were instructed to keep a food diary via the mobile app MyFitnessPal®. Exercise or activity level was not controlled. Subjects were asked to maintain their current levels of exercise. RESULTS: During the 6-month treatment period, there was a significant difference in protein intake between the control and high-protein groups (mean±SD; control: 1.5±0.3, high-protein: 2.8±1.1 g/kg/d); however, there were no differences in the consumption total calories, carbohydrate or fat. Whole body bone mineral density did not change in the control (pre: 1.22±0.08, post: 1.22±0.09 g/cm2) or high-protein group (pre: 1.25±0.11, post: 1.24±0.10 g/cm2). Similarly, lumbar bone mineral density did not change in the control (pre: 1.08±0.16, post: 1.05±0.13 g/cm2) or high-protein group (pre: 1.07±0.11, post: 1.08±0.12 g/cm2). In addition, there were no changes in whole body or lumbar T-Scores in either group. Furthermore, there were no changes in fat mass or lean body mass. CONCLUSION: Despite an 87% higher protein intake (high-protein versus control), 6 months of a high-protein diet had no effect on whole body bone mineral density, lumbar bone mineral density, T-scores, lean body mass or fat mass.

The Effects of a High-Protein Diet on Bone Mineral Density in Exercise-Trained Women: A 1-Year Investigation.

The effects of long-term high-protein consumption (i.e., >2.2 g/kg/day) are unclear as it relates to bone mineral content. Thus, the primary endpoint of this investigation was to determine if consuming a high-protein diet for one year affected various parameters of body composition in exercise-trained women. This investigation is a follow-up to a prior 6-month study. Subjects were instructed to consume a high-protein diet (>2.2 g/kg/day) for one year. Body composition was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Subjects were instructed to keep a food diary (i.e., log their food ~three days per week for a year) via the mobile app MyFitnessPal®. Furthermore, a subset of subjects had their blood analyzed (i.e., basic metabolic panel). Subjects consumed a high-protein diet for one year (mean ± SD: 2.3 ± 1.1 grams per kilogram body weight daily [g/kg/day]). There were no significant changes for any measure of body composition over the course of the year (i.e., body weight, fat mass, lean body mass, percent fat, whole body bone mineral content, whole body T-score, whole body bone mineral density, lumbar bone mineral content, lumbar bone mineral density and lumbar T-score). In addition, we found no adverse effects on kidney function. Based on this 1-year within-subjects investigation, it is evident that a diet high in protein has no adverse effects on bone mineral density or kidney function.

Casein Protein Supplementation in Trained Men and Women: Morning versus Evening.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of casein supplementation (54 grams) in the morning (Casein-MOR) or evening (Casein-EVE) (90 minutes or less prior to sleep) on measures of body composition and exercise performance in trained men and women. Twenty-six healthy men and women who had been training regularly for greater than 12 months completed this 8-week study (mean±SD; Casein-MOR group [n=14, seven male, seven female]: 30.0±8.2 yr; 170.7±9.5 cm; 70.9±13.9 kg. Casein-EVE group [n=12, nine male, three female]: 28.9±9.5 yr; 172.9±7.3 cm; 72.6±10.9 kg). Subjects in each group supplemented with casein protein (54 grams) either in the morning (prior to 12:00pm) or evening (~90 minutes or less prior to sleep). Subjects were advised to not significantly alter their training program as well as to keep a diary of their workouts. Body composition was assessed via the Bod Pod®. In addition, subjects provided dietary self-reports via MyFitnessPal®. Approximately 24 daily dietary self-reports were provided from each subject that self-monitored their diet. The investigators monitored their diet throughout the study. Both the Casein-MOR and Casein-EVE groups consumed significantly more protein (post versus pre; p<0.05); however, there were no between-group differences regarding protein intake. Furthermore, there were no within- or between-group differences for any other measure. In trained subjects who did not significantly alter their training program, the addition of 54 grams of casein protein in the morning or evening had no significant effects on body composition. Furthermore, the additional consumption of protein calories did not result in an increase in fat mass despite the fact that exercise volume did not change.

A High Protein Diet Has No Harmful Effects: A One-Year Crossover Study in Resistance-Trained Males.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a high protein diet over a one-year period. Fourteen healthy resistance-trained men completed the study (mean ± SD; age 26.3 ± 3.9 yr; height 178.5 ± 8.4 cm; and average years of training 8.9 ± 3.4 yr). In a randomized crossover design, subjects consumed their habitual or normal diet for 2 months and 4 months and alternated that with a higher protein diet (>3 g/kg/d) for 2 months and 4 months. Thus, on average, each subject was on their normal diet for 6 months and a higher protein diet for 6 months. Body composition was assessed via the Bod Pod®. Each subject provided approximately 100-168 daily dietary self-reports. During the subjects' normal eating phase, they consumed (mean ± SD) 29.94 ± 5.65 kcals/kg/day and 2.51 ± 0.69 g/kg/day of protein. This significantly increased (p < 0.05) during the high protein phase to 34.37 ± 5.88 kcals/kg/day and 3.32 ± 0.87 g/kg/day of protein. Our investigation discovered that, in resistance-trained men that consumed a high protein diet (~2.51-3.32 g/kg/d) for one year, there were no harmful effects on measures of blood lipids as well as liver and kidney function. In addition, despite the total increase in energy intake during the high protein phase, subjects did not experience an increase in fat mass.

The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition--a crossover trial in resistance-trained men.

BACKGROUND: Eight weeks of a high protein diet (>3 g/kg/day) coupled with a periodized heavy resistance training program has been shown to positively affect body composition with no deleterious effects on health. Using a randomized, crossover design, resistance-trained male subjects underwent a 16-week intervention (i.e., two 8-week periods) in which they consumed either their normal (i.e., habitual) or a higher protein diet (>3 g/kg/day). Thus, the purpose of this study was to ascertain if significantly increasing protein intake would affect clinical markers of health (i.e., lipids, kidney function, etc.) as well as performance and body composition in young males with extensive resistance training experience. METHODS: Twelve healthy resistance-trained men volunteered for this study (mean ± SD: age 25.9 ± 3.7 years; height 178.0 ± 8.5 cm; years of resistance training experience 7.6 ± 3.6) with 11 subjects completing most of the assessments. In a randomized crossover trial, subjects were tested at baseline and after two 8-week treatment periods (i.e., habitual [normal] diet and high protein diet) for body composition, measures of health (i.e., blood lipids, comprehensive metabolic panel) and performance. Each subject maintained a food diary for the 16-week treatment period (i.e., 8 weeks on their normal or habitual diet and 8 weeks on a high protein diet). Each subject provided a food diary of two weekdays and one weekend day per week. In addition, subjects kept a diary of their training regimen that was used to calculate total work performed. RESULTS: During the normal and high protein phase of the treatment period, subjects consumed 2.6 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.8 g/kg/day of dietary protein, respectively. The mean protein intake over the 4-month period was 2.9 ± 0.9 g/kg/day. The high protein group consumed significantly more calories and protein (p < 0.05) than the normal protein group. There were no differences in dietary intake between the groups for any other measure. Moreover, there were no significant changes in body composition or markers of health in either group. There were no side effects (i.e., blood lipids, glucose, renal, kidney function etc.) regarding high protein consumption. CONCLUSION: In resistance-trained young men who do not significantly alter their training regimen, consuming a high protein diet (2.6 to 3.3 g/kg/day) over a 4-month period has no effect on blood lipids or markers of renal and hepatic function. Nor were there any changes in performance or body composition. This is the first crossover trial using resistance-trained subjects in which the elevation of protein intake to over four times the recommended dietary allowance has shown no harmful effects.

A high protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) combined with a heavy resistance training program improves body composition in healthy trained men and women--a follow-up investigation.

BACKGROUND: The consumption of a high protein diet (>4 g/kg/d) in trained men and women who did not alter their exercise program has been previously shown to have no significant effect on body composition. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine if a high protein diet in conjunction with a periodized heavy resistance training program would affect indices of body composition, performance and health. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy resistance-trained men and women completed this study (mean ± SD; Normal Protein group [NP n = 17, four female and 13 male]: 24.8 ± 6.9 yr; 174.0 ± 9.5 cm height; 74.7 ± 9.6 kg body weight; 2.4 ± 1.7 yr of training; High Protein group [HP n = 31, seven female and 24 male]: 22.9 ± 3.1 yr; 172.3 ± 7.7 cm; 74.3 ± 12.4 kg; 4.9 ± 4.1 yr of training). Moreover, all subjects participated in a split-routine, periodized heavy resistance-training program. Training and daily diet logs were kept by each subject. Subjects in the NP and HP groups were instructed to consume their baseline (~2 g/kg/d) and >3 g/kg/d of dietary protein, respectively. RESULTS: Subjects in the NP and HP groups consumed 2.3 and 3.4 g/kg/day of dietary protein during the treatment period. The NP group consumed significantly (p < 0.05) more protein during the treatment period compared to their baseline intake. The HP group consumed more (p < 0.05) total energy and protein during the treatment period compared to their baseline intake. Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more (p < 0.05) total calories and protein compared to the NP group. There were significant time by group (p ≤ 0.05) changes in body weight (change: +1.3 ± 1.3 kg NP, -0.1 ± 2.5 HP), fat mass (change: -0.3 ± 2.2 kg NP, -1.7 ± 2.3 HP), and % body fat (change: -0.7 ± 2.8 NP, -2.4 ± 2.9 HP). The NP group gained significantly more body weight than the HP group; however, the HP group experienced a greater decrease in fat mass and % body fat. There was a significant time effect for FFM; however, there was a non-significant time by group effect for FFM (change: +1.5 ± 1.8 NP, +1.5 ± 2.2 HP). Furthermore, a significant time effect (p ≤ 0.05) was seen in both groups vis a vis improvements in maximal strength (i.e., 1-RM squat and bench) vertical jump and pull-ups; however, there were no significant time by group effects (p ≥ 0.05) for all exercise performance measures. Additionally, there were no changes in any of the blood parameters (i.e., basic metabolic panel). CONCLUSION: Consuming a high protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) in conjunction with a heavy resistance-training program may confer benefits with regards to body composition. Furthermore, there is no evidence that consuming a high protein diet has any deleterious effects.

The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals.

BACKGROUND: The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a very high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained men and women. METHODS: Thirty healthy resistance-trained individuals participated in this study (mean ± SD; age: 24.1 ± 5.6 yr; height: 171.4 ± 8.8 cm; weight: 73.3 ± 11.5 kg). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: Control (CON) or high protein (HP). The CON group was instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits over the course of the 8 week study. The HP group was instructed to consume 4.4 grams of protein per kg body weight daily. They were also instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits (e.g. maintain the same fat and carbohydrate intake). Body composition (Bod Pod®), training volume (i.e. volume load), and food intake were determined at baseline and over the 8 week treatment period. RESULTS: The HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories pre vs post (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories than the CON (p < 0.05). The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. When expressed per unit body weight, the HP group consumed 4.4 ± 0.8 g/kg/d of protein versus 1.8 ± 0.4 g/kg/d in the CON. There were no changes in training volume for either group. Moreover, there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat. CONCLUSIONS: Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.