It is likely you have heard of apple cider vinegar, as it is a very popular item in health food stores due to the many health and weight management benefits ascribed to it by many “health experts,” most noteably the Braggs. Recently, I came across another glowing recommendation for the use of ACV from the Tone It Up Fat Burning System by Katrina Hodgson and Karena Dawn. I recently highlighted some of their bullshit HERE and will highlight a bit more of it now, so put on your hip waders as we will be up to our waist in poo.

Here is their second most important “Tone It Up Fat Burning Secrets” (I guess its not a secret anymore)

from page 9;

#2 Tone It Up Metabolism

This is our daily Metabolism Boosting Drink… Meta-D for short Have

it after your morning walk with Meal 1 or Meal 2. It’s most effective early in the day!

Mix the following ingredients together in a shaker:

• 2 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar

• 6 ounces of water

• 2 ounces of no sugar added, all natural apple juice

• 1 small shake of cayenne pepper

• 2 shakes of cinnamon

Your apple cider vinegar is important to keep your pH levels constant and balance your alkalinity state. If you drink coffee or wine, your Meta-D is extremely important. Cinnamon has been proven to lower LDL cholesterol and it has anti-clotting effects on your blood. It also helps to maintain blood sugar levels, keeping your appetite under control. This mixture also contains antioxidants, which helps prevent oxidative damage, aids in digestion, increases your metabolism and improves functions in your urogenital area. It provides better circulation by dilating blood vessels which increases the blood flow to major organs throughout the body and aids in the absorption of valuable nutrients from food that your body needs to be strong, lean and healthy!

It also raises your body temperature by stimulating your circulatory system. This

means you will burn more calories per day thereby increasing your metabolic rate.

Where to begin? First, a couple of good things. There is nothing bad about this drink and the ingredients do have the potential to be health promoting. However, only the apple cider vinegar is used in a quantity that will likely cause beneficial outcomes, such as a lowered glucose and insulin response to a meal and increased satiety (Johnston et al; Ostman et al).  If someone used this drink, which only has 26 calories from the apple juice, instead of a full glass of juice or other sugary beverage then it would be a good thing for health and probably weight loss. However, that’s not what they are saying. That’s it for the good stuff.

They call the drink “Metabolism Boosting Drink” and in fact they say “This means you will burn more calories per day thereby increasing your metabolic rate”(p.9). Any chance they have any references for this statement or for any of the other benefits of this drink? Not a chance. No references for anything they say.

There are three “important” ingredients in their drink, apple cider vinegar, cayenne pepper, and cinnamon. Let’s look at vinegar first. The review papers I found on the subject do not mention anything about an increase in metabolic rate from the use of vinegar; I guess it is a secret. There seems to be only 1 study done on humans that tested if the use of vinegar would help with weight loss (Kondo et al). The results did show that the use of vinegar, a low-dose (1 tbs/day) and high-dose (2 tbs/day), divided into two servings, one in the morning and one in the evening, resulted in a loss of about 2lbs and 4lbs, respectively, in 12 weeks. But hold on, let’s not get to excited yet. First, the 2 and 4lb loss would equate to about 1/6lb and 1/3lb, respectively, per week. Second, the authors say nothing about a “metabolic boosting”effect. Third, the dietary control for the study was poor. Fourth, based on Table 3 (p.1840), there was a small decrease in caloric intake during the study that would account for much of the reported weight loss. Overall, even though this study found a very small decrease in weight it is not likely due to any metabolic boosting effects. One final thing regarding their statement “It’s [Meta-D] most effective early in the day” (p.9). They have no evidence for this, shocker! I find it funny that the one study that showed a possible benefit from the use of vinegar for weight loss had one of their servings in the evening. So, why the “effectiveness” disclaimer? I would love to see the Tone It Up girls produce some evidence for that one. Overall, there is currently no good evidence that using vinegar, whatever type, will boost your metabolism.

The next ingredient is cayenne pepper, the hot stuff. Cayenne pepper and particularly capsaicin, the major pungent component, has the potential to increase fat oxidation, overall metabolic rate, and decrease food intake (Lejeune et al; Smeets et al). Well that’s all good! However, there are two important caveats. First, the amount of change in the aforementioned aspects  are usually relatively small. Yet, over the long-term these could potentially be a useful adjunct for weight loss and weight maintenance. Second, the AMOUNTS used to elicit these positive changes are fairly substantial. If using cayenne powder, the dosages used in the research are typically 1 to 2 TABLESPOONS at a meal (Yoshioka et al). If using a capsaicin extract supplement, the dosages used range from 1.2 to 135 mg/day (Lejeune et al; Smeets et al; Diepvens et al). One recent paper concluded “Capsaicin has been shown to be effective, yet when it is used clinically, it requires a strong compliance to a certain dosage, which has net been shown to be feasible yet” (Diepvens et al, p.82). The point here is the amounts used to get any meaningful metabolic effect are far more than the “1 small shake of cayenne pepper” that the Tone It Up girls would have you believe.

The final ingredient is cinnamon. Yummy. There is no doubt that this is a very tasty spice and there is some good evidence that it can have a number of positive effects (Qin et al; Hlebowicz et al; Dugua et al). But, this is very important, the amounts used to elicit these types of benefits where substantially more than “2 shakes of cinnamon”. Additionally, much of the research used a cinnamon extract (Cinnulin PF), which is also very different from the “2 shakes”. In fact, the typical dosage of 500mg is equal to about 10 grams of cinnamon powder (Ziegenfuss et al). It is completely unjustified to associate the benefits from the extract to a couple of shakes of the cinnamon shaker. When it comes to “boosting” your metabolism, there is no evidence that the larger amounts, often 3 to 6 grams/day, or the cinnamon extract will have any affect on it (Dugoua et al; Qin et al). Therefore, “2 shakes” of cinnamon, although tasty, will NOT boost your metabolism nor will it cause the other beneficial responses attributed to the use of much higher doses of cinnamon.

The use of vinegar with meals, on the food or in a drink, is a tasty and inexpensive dietary habit that can have positive effects on blood sugar and appetite.  Also, the use of large amounts of cinnamon and cayenne or the extract forms of each (supplement) with meals can have some positive effects as well. Therefore, these substances, if used in the proper amounts, could be useful (although a relatively small effect) with weight management. However, I hope it is clear that drinking this drink (Meta-D) will NOT boost your metabolism and the Tone It Up girls have done an  excellent job in passing along more half-truths and just plain nonsense. Maybe before they say “It is all just science” (p.6) they will actually read and understand some “science”.

References;

Dugoua, J.J. et al (2007). From type 2 diabetes to antioxidant activity: a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of common and cassia cinnamon bark. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 85

Diepvens, K. et al (2007). Obesity and thermogenesis related to the consumption of caffeine, ephedrine, capsaicin, and green tea. Am J Physiol Regul Comp Physiol; 292

Hlebowicz, J. et al (2007). Effect of cinnamon on postprandial blood glucose, gastric emptying, and satiety in healthy subjects. AmJ Clin Nutri; 85

Hlebowicz, J et al (2007). Effect of apple cider vinegar on delayed gastric emptying in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. BMC Gastroenterology; 7(26)

Johnston, C. & Gaas, C. (2006). Vinegar: Medicinal uses and antiglycemic effect. Med Gen Med; 8(2): 61

Kondo, T. et al (2009). Vinegar intake reduces body weight, body fat mass, and serum triglycerides levels in obese Japanese subjects. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem; 73(8)

Hotness (2012). I am good looking so I don’t need any references. HaHa, just seeing if anyone even looks at these.

Lejeune, M. et al (2003). Effect of capsaicin on substrate oxidation and weight maintenance after modest body-weight loss in human subjects. Br J Nutr; 90

Ostman, E. et al (2005). Vinegar supplementation lowers glucose and insulin responses and increases satiety after a bread meal in healthy subjects. Euro J Clin Nutr; 59

Smeets, A. et al (2009). The acute effects of a lunch containing capsaicin on energy and substrate utilisation, hormones, and satiety. Eur J Clin Nutr; 48

Qin, B. et al (2010). Cinnamon: Potential role in the prevention of insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol; 4(3)

Yoshioka, M. et al (1999). Effects of red pepper on appetite and energy intake. Br J Nutr; 82.

Ziegenfuss, T. et al (2006). Effect of a water-soluble cinnamon extract on body composition and features of the metabolic syndrome in pre-diabetic men and women. J Inter Society Sports Nutr. 3(2).

I really can’t believe I feel the need to bring this subject up as I thought this long-time myth had finally been eradicated. But, some recent comments by clients, family members, and some exercise and nutrition “experts” have clearly demonstrated that this stupid-ass myth is still prevalent.

I give a pass to my clients as they are not suppose to be experts on the subject and their view of the subject usually originated from some expert they worked with or read. However, it is the “experts” who give out this information that need to be held accountable. They should know better, and deserve a nice slap to the back of the head. I think if they would actually read some of the research on the subject (I will get to that in a minute) then they would realize that they are making a foolish statement when they say “eating more meals a day speeds up your metabolism and makes you lose more weight”.

It is “experts” (I am using the term very loosely) like Katrina Hodgson and Karena Dawn who wrote the Tone It Up Diet Plan and Fat Burning System who say a number of silly things, such as “It’s crucial that you get healthy fuel early in the day to kick start your metabolism…” (p.18) and “You will be eating five meals a day. No skipping meals! Skipping meals will lower your metabolism and your body will use your muscle as fuel, not your fat stores.” (p.7), give me a break. Do they give any quality evidence for their assertion? Of course not. There is not a single reference in their entire e-book. But, hey they look good, so they must know what they are talking about (was my sarcasm too subtle?). Sorry for the digression, but it is this type of bullshit, put out by people that should know better, that leads to the rampant confusion for laypeople, i.e., my clients.

I am not going to go into the details on meal frequency and weight management. The reason is a number of other people have already done a good job of covering this topic, so I will strongly suggest that you go read their stuff, HERE and HERE. Also, Anthony Coplo covers this subject well in his Fat Loss Bible book.

For those of you interested, and especially for those “experts” that keep this myth alive, I will be listing a few of the key papers on this topic (the articles I referred to earlier also listed many of the important research articles in their work). I want to have a place that lists the key information, so I can send people, especially those “experts” that keep saying silly shit, to.

Bellisle, R.et al (1997). Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutrition

Stone, K. et al (2007). A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without calorie restriction in healthy,normal weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clinical Nutrition

Farshchi,H. et al (2007). Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogensis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women. Am J Clinical Nutrition

Mattson, M. (2005). Energy intake, meal frequency, and health: A neurobiological perspective. Annu Review of Nutrition

Tai, M.et al (1991). Meal size and frequency; effect on the thermic effect of food. Am J Clinical Nutrition

Taylor, MA & Garrow, JS (2001). Compared with nibb;ling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Inter J Obesity

Leidy, H. & Campbell, W. (2011). The effect of eating frequency on appetite control and food intake: Brief synopsis of controlled feeding studies. J Nutrition

To conclude, and to make it as clear as possible, eating many times a day will NOT speed up your metabolism and will NOT make you lose weight if you eat the same amount of calories for the day. If I am wrong then show me the evidence.

First, HERE is the segment about the supplement,which is green coffee bean extract (GCE). Did you watch it? This will all make more sense if you do. It is clear that Dr Oz agrees that this supplement is amazing. He states that he was skeptical. So what did he do to help confirm the benefits of the supplement? Did he actually read the available research on the subject? From what he agreed to and what he said on the show we can assume he did NOT. Instead he gives the supplement to 2 viewers so they could take it for 5 days to see if they would lose weight. Really!? WTF! Is he serious about this type of testing? Apparently he is. The two viewers did lose weight, 2 and 6 lbs. That’s great, but come on. That really does not tell us if the “supplement” actually did something on a physiological level or if it just made them modify their eating behavior so that they would lose weight. Basically, having the 2 viewers take the supplement for 5 days is a big waste of time! Dr. Oz should know better.

The guest on the show, Dr.Lindsey Duncan,  says a bunch of, how should I say this, ah… BULLSHIT! That sums it up well. Here are some statements by Dr.Duncan; (some paraphrased)

• “each participant lost 17lbs in 12 weeks”
• “lost 10% of body weight with no change in eating or activity”
• “sugar turns into fat”
• “makes the body burn fat in the liver”
• “take 800 mg 2 times a day”
• “roasting coffee beans removes the chlorogenic acid, so coffee does not contain this compound”

These are apparently the important aspects about what the supplement does, how it works and how much to take. Really! Well, I guess it is time to look at this study as it seems to be the impetus for all the hubbub.

The paper is freely available, click HERE if you would like to read it, attention Dr Oz, I am referring to you as well.

Vinson, J et al (2012). Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes; 5: 21–27.

Overall, I think this was a decent study. However, there are two very important limitations to it. First, there where only 16 total participants. Second, the dietary intake was NOT tightly regulated. Dietary intake was assessed through dietary recall, however the specifics of this aspect are not clearly stated in the paper. This is very important because dietary recall is well know to be a rather poor method of assessing true food/calorie intake. A nice 8 to 12 week, metabolic ward study with a few dozen, overweight and obese, male and female participants would go a long way in determining the true physiological benefit of this supplement. Until then we have to go with what we have.

There where 3 groups (treatment arms)

• HD (high dose): 350 mg of GCA (green coffee extract) taken 3 x day, total of 1,050 mg/day
• LD (low dose): 350 mg of GCA taken 2 x day, total of 700 mg/day
• PL (placebo): 350 mg of a placebo taken 3 x day

Each arm was followed for 6 weeks.

Results (p.24) at the end of each arm (6 weeks each)

• HD: average decrease of 4.48lbs, lose of x .75 lbs per week
• LD: average decrease of 3.39lbs, lose of x .57 lbs per week
• PL: no real change

Combining the HD and the LD arms resulted in a grand total of 7.87lbs lost during 12 weeks, which is a bit less than 5% of bodyweight. This averages to a decrease of .66 lbs per week. Not bad. In fact, I would say the results were pretty damn good for just taking a relatively safe supplement.

Based on the numbers above, how did the authors of the paper conclude “Significant reductions were observed in body weight (-8.04 +/- 2.31kg)” (p.21), which equates to 17.69 lbs? I am confused on how they got to this calculation. The numbers that are in the table and in the paper do not add up to their conclusion number.

Obviously this “17lb” number from the conclusion is the number Mr Duncan used. This number also equated with the “loss of 10% of bodyweight” statement which is actually shown in the Chart 1 on page 22 (the average weight  of the study participants was 169lbs). So Mr. Duncan did not make these numbers up per se, but based the data in the  paper they are not correct and way overstate the  results. Did Mr Duncan actually read the whole paper? It is actually relatively short, just a couple of pages contain the pertinent information, so 10 minutes of effort would have likely lead to a better understanding of the results (see my above calculations).

Why does he recommend 800 mg 2 x day, so 1,600 mg/day? Where did this amount come from. It certainly did NOT come from the above study as the HD arm used 1,050mg/day, which is the largest dose every used with humans, see below (Onakpoya et al).

Mr Duncan’s emphatic “Sugar turns into fat” statement really has nothing to do with this supplements ability to make you lose weight. Also, this statement is really NOT true. As much as I think a lower carb diet can be useful for weight loss for many people it is NOT because “sugar turns into fat” or that carbs, which causes an increase in insulin secretion, actually inhibits fat loss (Guyenet).

Finally, the supplement “increases fat use in the liver” may be true (Onakpoya et al), but is really meaningless unless there is some level of calorie deficit created through a decrease in intake and/or an increase in expenditure.

Before moving on to my conclusion, I want to highlight a few things from a recent review paper on green coffee extract as a weight loss supplement. Click HERE to read it. This paper was published in 2011, so it was likely available BEFORE the show. The authors only found 3 human studies that fit the quality criteria. These 3 studies were published in 2007, 2009,and 2006,which means they were all definitely available BEFORE the taping of the show. Therefore, they could have been reviewed by Dr Oz or his staff and Dr.Duncan.

From the abstract of the paper;

“The purpose of this paper is to assess the efficacy of green coffee extract (GCE) as a weight loss supplement, using data from human clinical trials…Five eligible trials were identified, and three of these were included. All studies were associated with a high risk of bias. The meta-analytic result reveals a significant difference in body weight in GCE compared with placebo (mean difference: − 2 . 4 7kg; 95%CI: − 4 . 2 3, − 0 . 7 2). The magnitude of the effect is moderate, and there is significant heterogeneity amongst the studies. It is concluded that the results from these trials are promising, but the studies are all of poor methodological quality. More rigorous trials are needed to assess the usefulness of GCE as a weight loss tool.”

From the 3 studies included, there was an average of .6lbs of weight loss per week from the use of the GCE supplement. Not bad. This amount is about the same as the results from the most recent study (Vinson et al) which was the one being referred to in the Dr Oz show. Interestingly, the dosages in these trials where only 180mg/day, 200mg/day,and 200mg/day,much less than the amounts used in the most current study.

Mr Duncan states that roasting coffee beans eliminated the chlorogenic acid (CGA), possibly one of the main chemicals found in coffee beans that can elicit the weight loss effects. However, the review paper by Onakpoya et al states “The daily intake of CGA in persons drinking coffee varies from .5 to 1 g” (p.1). From the current evidence, that range of intake would likely be enough to elicit the potential benefits from CGA. Therefore, from what I can tell Mr Duncan is wrong about the content of CGA in roasted coffee.

This supplement does seem promising for weight management. I am not shocked as Matt and I stated in our book that we thought caffeine and coffee were likely to be useful for weight management. So my problem is not with the use of this supplement, but with the unnecessary hype and lack of a critical view of it taken by Dr. Oz and his guest. Here is the conclusion, which I agree with, from the review paper on GCE;

 ”The evidence from RCTs seems to indicate that the intake of GCE can promote weight loss. However, several caveats exist. The size of the effect is small, and the clinical relevance of this effect is uncertain. More rigorous trials with longer duration are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of GCE as a weight loss supplement.” (Onakpoya et al)

Why was this type of realistic view not presented on the show? Dr Oz has repeatedly misrepresented the facts on supplements, see Matts posts HERE,  HERE and HERE. What’s the deal Dr.Oz? I thought you were all about giving your audience and viewers the most up-to-date evidence-based information. Read these post for more on that topic, HERE and HERE.  To me, it looks like Dr Oz is selling out and that’s why I have lost a lot of respect for him.

Anthony Colpo must read DoingSPEED.com.

Steve Kamb must read DoingSPEED.com.

I’m just being silly, of course. I doubt these guys spend much time reading blogs at all, let alone other fitness sites. But I like the fact that in one day, I can find two articles which share a theme: simplify and get shit done. Now do that day after day. Now that’s refreshing!

We’ve already established that weight loss is not all that simple, right? If you don’t agree, please chime in and tell us why. Not everyone is out to lose weight, so let me back up and broaden the scope a bit. Fitness – whatever the hell that means, is a pretty complex subject as well when you start to consider everything that goes into achieving it. For the typical fitness-achiever, the psychological and social ramifications of making sure your behaviors stick out in a crowd of out-of-shape sloths are bad enough. Now add in the extra time and scheduling conflicts, the dietary modifications to support your new level of fitness and activity, yada yada yada and you’ve got a lot of stuff going on. This is a good thing, I think, because as Red states, “get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’.”

What I see all around the fitness industry are programs that try to sell themselves by being more complex. Because complexity breeds results, right? Muscle confusion, food pairing, 7-tiered corrective exercise continuum, blood type diets, functional movement assessments, hybrid non-linear periodization, and on and on. Just in case you’re wondering, I didn’t make any of those up. Hybrid non-linear periodization? WTF? Most of my clients are just trying to find time to squeeze in a workout around their kids soccer schedules and a 50 hour/week job and you want them to worry about hybrid non-linear periodization? Get the hell out of here! The research on periodization sucks anyway. (Carpinelli)

It’s Time to Simplify

Much effort is required for a person to make a real lifestyle change. I can only imagine how daunting it must be for someone to be on the outside of fitness looking in, wondering where to start. This is one thing I’ll give to the basics of the Paleo movement – the rules are simple. Guys like Erwan Le Corre make the exercise portion easy – get out and move around. The dietary principles are pretty easy to understand. The only difficult part is the same as every other program, plan, or paradigm out there; now do it consistently for the rest of your life. You see, that’s the complex part, the shaping and molding of your healthy habits so they fit around whatever life throws at you. Now imagine trying to do that with hybrid non-linear periodization! How about instead you just take a day off here and there when you start to feel run-down due to extra workload, the kids’ tournaments and the resulting lack of sleep? And how about instead of worrying about which blood type you are so you know which foods to eat you just take in a variety of veggies, fruit and animal products you like and have a freakin’ pizza every once in a while?

You might have certain results you expect or certain goals you’re trying to achieve and maybe you’re not getting them with your current rules. Make them simpler. Counting calories isn’t working? Use smaller plates and bowls and limit yourself to one serving at each meal and you’ll be limiting your caloric intake. Can’t get to the gym four times/week like you planned? Make the new goal to get movement four times/week and go for a walk or bike ride instead. Having a hard time juggling your new dietary habits with your group of lunch friends at work? Get a smaller, more supportive group of lunch buddies.

So, I admonish you to simplify your fitness routine, whatever it consists of. Whether you’re getting results or you’re awash in stagnation, simplify. Simplify, because fitness is complicated enough already.

This is the main reason Jeff and I wrote SPEED - to clear up the ridiculousness and give you a how-to manual for fat loss. You can be sure that if we tell you to do something, it’s because that something has been proven to work, unequivocally. We’ve already simplified the fat loss conundrum, now you just have to put SPEED to use!

Reference

Carpinelli, R. N., Otto, R. M., & Winett, R. A. (2004). A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training: Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols. Journal of Exercise Physiology, 7(3), 1-60.

Before you read about the supplements below, keep in mind that we’re going to be discussing the scientific evidence for these supplements, if there is any. This can sometimes include some technical jargon that might get a bit confusing. Don’t worry, we’ll have a general recommendation for each supplement that will help you if you get lost in the science.

One more thing before we get into the fun stuff. These are the questions you should ask yourself when you want to know if a supplement is worth taking:

Is it safe?

Does it work?

Do its effects justify its cost?

(Modified for brevity from SPEED)

We’ll answer these questions after the scientific research is discussed for each supplement.

Caraway Seeds – First, understand that Dr. Oz promotes these as an anti-bloating aide. While being less bloated is a nice thing, it doesn’t mean you’re any slimmer than you were a week ago. While I could find no research on the effectiveness of caraway seeds as an anti-gas/anti-bloating agent, the seeds may have some antioxidative qualities (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814604005412) . This research was done on the oil from caraway seeds, but I imagine the seeds themselves would have the same qualities. Should you eat them after a meal to stop gas and bloating? It can’t hurt, I guess. You might do better to find out what food is causing the gas and bloating and eliminate that instead.

Is it safe? Yes.

Does it work? No research available.

Do its effects justify its cost? Maybe.

Raspberry Ketone – we’ve reviewed this supplement previously here.

7-Keto – This one has some research to discuss, so excuse the length of this section. First, for those who are uninterested in understanding the science behind this product, let me just say that I think 7-Keto may help your fat loss efforts, but only minimally so. If you have extra cash you’re looking to burn on a dietary supplement, go ahead and spend it on 7-Keto. If you’d rather save your money and just trust hard work and consistency to do their job, then do that.

The first study, to my knowledge, to look at 7-keto (or 7-oxo-DHEA) is Kalman et al from 2000. This study compared 7-Keto to placebo in subjects eating 1800 calories/day and exercising 3 times/week for 60 minutes. Over 8 weeks, the 7-Keto group lost 2.88kg (6.3 lbs) while the placebo group lost 0.97kg (2.1 lbs). Subjects in the 7-Keto group also experienced a significant rise in triiodothyronine (T3), the most active form of thyroid hormone, without a rise in TSH or T4. The researchers concluded the extra fat loss associated with the 7-Keto group was due to the effects of the supplement and not because the placebo group were a bunch of non-compliant slouches.

Next up, the first of three studies by Zenk et al from 2002. This study compared the use of 7-Keto Naturalean to placebo. The former is a product which contains 7-Keto as well as a few other ingredients the researchers believed to be synergistic to 7-Keto. After 8 weeks, the 7-Keto Naturalean group lost about 2.15 kg compared to a loss of 0.72kg for the placebo group. Levels of all thyroid hormones did not differ between groups, which is in opposition to the findings of Kalman et al. There was also no difference in metabolic rate between groups measured by indirect calorimetry.

The 2^nd of 3 from Zenk et al came in 2005, where they compared a weight loss product which contained, among other ingredients, 7-Keto. The researchers found a significant increase in resting metabolic rate (RMR) of 7.2% and a significant difference in hip circumference measurement change in the supplement group when compared to placebo. There is some head-scratching material in this study, however. It’s strange to get a difference in hip circumference when weight, lean tissue and fat tissue levels all changed similarly in both supplement and placebo groups. This is explained by a higher proportion of females in the study population than males, about 70% female. It should be noted that while this formulation elicited a change in RMR, a previous product which included 7-Keto but differing other ingredients did not. The product in this study included a few central nervous system stimulants, including yerba mate and guarana (caffeine). These ingredients may be largely responsible for the increase in metabolic rate.

The 3^rd Zenk paper is from 2007 and investigated the effects of both 7-Keto and a formulation containing 7-Keto as compared to placebo. RMR was greater in the formula and 7-Keto groups as compared to placebo, but no differences were found between the formula and 7-Keto (there was a trend for the formula to be higher). No significant changes were found between any group for weight, fat, or lean tissue. It should be noted the formula included green tea extract which may help raise RMR through sympathetic nervous stimulation.

All-in-all, it seems that 7-Keto may help attenuate the drop in RMR seen with weight loss diets, but it seems this effect can be had by good old caffeine or green tea extracts. Combining the two (7-Keto and caffeine) may work synergistically to a greater effect but cost per real world effect is a concern. After all, as stated in this previous post, a bottle of simple caffeine anhydrous can be bought for about $10/100 grams (about 500 servings). I would put 7-Keto on my list of supplements that may help a little bit, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend it. Then again, I don’t have a show on which I need to keep overweight people frothing at the mouth for the next magic bullet.

Is it safe? Yes

Does it work? Yes, but better in combination with other ingredients.

Do its effects justify its cost? Probably not.

Forskolin – There is one study that investigated the effects of forskolin on human body composition in men. The paper by Goddard et al from 2005 administered 250mg of forskolin (10%) twice daily for 12 weeks to 15 subjects and placebo to 15 subjects. The supplement group lost a mean 4.52kg of fat mass and gained 3.71kg of lean mass – get this – with no exercise or dietary changes. Well, at least none reported. In most studies like this one, the paper will specifically say that all subjects were encouraged to keep diet and activity levels the same throughout the study period. While dietary recall was performed, no mention of activity levels was given. There was also an increase in bone mass shown in the supplement group as compared to placebo and  a significant difference in free testosterone in the supplement group over time.

I’ll be honest, I’m skeptical about this one. This seems a little too good to be true although there is some other research in rats showing proposed mechanisms of action for forskolin. I’d love to see more research performed in men with a little tighter control on diet and exercise.

There is one other study investigating the effects of forskolin supplementation in women. To make a long story short : no significant differences were seen in body weight, bone mineral area, bone mineral density, fat mass, lean mass, % body fat, or % body water. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Could the difference here be between the sexes? Without further research it’s hard to say.

Is it safe? Yes.

Does it work? Maybe. More research is needed.

Do its effects justify its cost? Maybe in men.

Saffron – One study from 2010 investigated saffron’s ability to reduce snacking in slightly overweight women who were frequent snackers (spell check is telling me snackers is not a real word. It should be). While there was a statistically significant reduction in snacking events after 8 weeks (12.1 to 5.8 vs 12.5 to 8.9 events per 2 weeks in the saffron vs placebo groups, respectively), the reduction in snacking did not result in significant weight loss (only about 1 kg or 2 lbs.) Saffron might help reduce your appetite and so may be helpful paired with a diet and exercise program, but much more research is necessary before I’d give it the green light. Depending on cost, it may be worth experimenting yourself to see if you find it helpful.

Is it safe? Yes

Does it work? Maybe. It needs to be studied with a diet and exercise program.

Do its effects justify its cost? Probably not.

Conclusion

Supplements are called supplements for a reason. The term assumes you have the rest of your healthy lifestyle plan in place. There are just a few supplements that have stood the test of rigorous scientific scrutiny and come out on the other side. We’ve reviewed the evidence for a ton of supplements to figure out which ones we feel are safe, effective and justify the cost and we’ve listed them in the Diet chapter of our book, SPEED. Interestingly, while reviewing the evidence for the above supplements, a substantial amount of research popped up for green tea extract. Will GTE end up on the SPEED Approved Supplements list in the 2^nd edition? Who knows?

References

Godard, M. P., Johnson, B. a, & Richmond, S. R. (2005). Body composition and hormonal adaptations associated with forskolin consumption in overweight and obese men. Obesity research, 13(8), 1335-43. doi:10.1038/oby.2005.162

Gout, B., Bourges, C., & Paineau-Dubreuil, S. (2010). Satiereal, a Crocus sativus L extract, reduces snacking and increases satiety in a randomized placebo-controlled study of mildly overweight, healthy women. Nutrition research (New York, N.Y.), 30(5), 305-13. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2010.04.008

Hasan, I., Ansari, A. H., Sherwani, A. M. K., & Zulkifle, M. (2011). The incredible health benefits of saffron : A Review. Bmc Complementary And Alternative Medicine, 4(7), 2156-2158.

Henderson, S., Magu, B., Rasmussen, C., Lancaster, S., Kerksick, C., Smith, P., Melton, C., et al. (2005). Effects of coleus forskohlii supplementation on body composition and hematological profiles in mildly overweight women. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2(2), 54-62. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-2-2-54

Kalman, D. S., Colker, C. M., Swain, M. A., & Torina, G. C. (2000). A Randomized , Double-Blind , Study of 3-Acetyl-7-Oxo-Dehydroepiandrosterone in Healthy Overweight Adults. Current, 61(7).

Kavitha, C., Rajamani, K., & Vadivel, E. (2010). Coleus forskohlii : A comprehensive review on morphology , phytochemistry and pharmacological aspects. Journal Of Medicinal Plants, 4(4), 278-285.

Wu, J.-jung, Wang, K.-lee, Mao, I.-fang, Chen, M.-lien, Hsia, S.-min, & Wang, P. S. (2010). Effects of Oral Nonylphenol on Testosterone Production in Rat Leydig Cells. Blood, 2(1), 47-52. doi:10.4247/AM.2010.ABA001

Zenk, J. L., Frestedt, J. L., & Kuskowski, M. a. (2007). HUM5007, a novel combination of thermogenic compounds, and 3-acetyl-7-oxo-dehydroepiandrosterone: each increases the resting metabolic rate of overweight adults. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 18(9), 629-34. doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2006.11.008

Zenk, J. L., Helmer, T. R., Kassen, L. J., & Kuskowski, M. A. (2002). The Effect of 7-Keto Naturalean on Weight Loss : A Randomized , Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Current Therapeutic Research, 63(4), 263-272.

Zenk, J. L., Leikam, S. a, Kassen, L. J., & Kuskowski, M. a. (2005). Effect of lean system 7 on metabolic rate and body composition. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 21(2), 179-85. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2004.05.025

The first step in our psychology chapter is creating a compelling vision and it’s something I bet most of our readers skip right over. I don’t blame them, it sounds like psycho-babble self-help bullshit if you don’t take time to think about it. I hate that stuff, too. We try to convince our readers as to the importance of having a compelling vision by quoting Stephen J Kraus:

“Envisioning our future selves is not only common, it actually plays an important role in our performance and our psychological well being. Far from idle daydreams, images of our future lives contribute to our self-esteem, our happiness, and the sense that we can control our own destinies. Moreover, empirical research backs up the very old notion that those who envision themselves as successful perform better, particularly if they envision themselves as being successful as a result of their own hard work. Future selves provide concrete ways of understanding how accomplishing our goals will change our lives, boosting motivation (p.40).”

I recently revisited Kraus’s book and was reminded of the rest of the vision section, having been in need of some vision searching myself lately. Two things became readily apparent:

1. Creating a vision takes some serious introspection and will most likely make you uncomfortable. In fact, I would go so far as to say if you’re not uncomfortable, you’re not doing it right.
2. Conflicting visions are deadly to achieving goals.

Why would creating a vision of your future self make you uncomfortable? You have to decide what you really want out of life, which causes you to reflect on your priorities – both the priorities you think you have and the ones you actually have. It causes you to recognize fears you have and how they’re standing in the way of you getting what you want. Then you ask yourself whether or not you have the ability to overcome those fears. You are forced to think about what things in your life really make you happy and often you find it’s not what you expect, not if you’re being honest with yourself. You may even start to realize how much other people’s opinions influence how you think about yourself, even though you think you’re unscathed by their remarks. It’s an uncomfortable experience, but you come out refreshed on the other side (the results justify the effort/discomfort).

Conflicting Visions

I’ve spoken about conflicting visions with just about every person I’ve coached, in one way or another, over the past few years. I think it comes up so often because we compartmentalize our lives in our minds, focusing on one area or another at a time and ignoring the overlap. For instance, consider the following scenario:

Flo knows she wants to achieve the following:

• Rise to upper-level management in her company.
• Raise 3 wonderful kids the way her parents raised her.
• Train for and compete in marathons and other distance events.

While these aren’t directly conflicting visions, parts my overlap and will require a good amount of planning to occur simultaneously. 60+ hour workweeks will be required to rise in her company, long training runs will chew up much of her free time, and can we even really put a tag on how many hours it takes to raise 3 kids? What Flo must do is decide whether these are simultaneously achievable and if not, which of these align most with her true priorities. Maybe she can modify one or two so the set is more congruent. Maybe 5k races are more realistic than marathons and will still provide her the challenge, fitness and social outlet she’s looking for.

Let’s consider another example, this time Jake, a 25 year old male who wants to look like a fitness model. He currently as an active social life, going to bars with friends Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Sundays are added to the list during football season. While creating his vision, he may only consider his goal of achieving a fitness model physique, but not think to consider his status as a socialite as part of his overall vision. Here we have an example of an unrealized vision that may conflict with a realized vision. Jake has to consider how his fitness model vision/goal is going to affect other aspects of his life. If not, he may be discouraged in one year when he finds himself struggling to achieve a lowered body fat percentage while maintaining his busy social schedule. He may start to think it’s a lack of willpower holding him back when, in reality, he has two conflicting sets of behaviors happening because of two conflicting visions.

This is far from self-help quackery. A compelling vision will motivate you, help pull you out of setbacks, and guide you toward success. So, spend some time creating a vision of your future self. If you have SPEED, re-read that section in the Psychology chapter. If you feel you need more help, Kraus provides more insight and a few guided questions in his book. This section alone is worth the cost and there is much more great self-success information found there. Good luck!

References:

Kraus, S. Psychological foundations of success. San Francisco. Change Plant Press; 2002.

Oh, and it would be nearly a crime if all this talk of vision didn’t prompt a posting of this:

It is amazing how many times I have heard “muscle weighs more than fat”, from both my clients and other fitness professionals. The statement, as it is usually stated, is really nonsensical without a specific VOLUME qualifier. Here is an example; if I would to say that “lead weighs more than feathers” then I would be making another illogical statement; does 5lbs of lead weigh more than 5lbs of feathers? I hope you said no! Obviously 5lbs is 5lbs. However, if I would to say that lead has a very high-density of weight and for the same amount of space (density) lead would be much heavier, then I would be making a logical and likely obvious statement. The weight density is greater for lead than feathers, think a feather pillow versus a lead block of the same size. This is what I think people really mean when they say “muscle weighs more than fat”. They mean 5lbs of muscle is smaller than 5lbs or fat. So muscle does not weigh more than fat, again 5lbs of muscle is the same as 5lbs of fat, but rather muscle has a higher weight density. Therefore, the correct statement should be “a given amount of muscle tissue will take up less space than fat tissue”. That leads me to the next important aspect; how big of difference is there in size?

Is the weight density of skeletal muscle and fat similar to the lead versus feathers example? Hardly! It seems that the weight density difference between muscle and fat is a whopping, wait for it….18% (wiki). This is much less than what is typically said about the difference between these two tissue, which is usually in the range of 50 to 100%. However, this approximately 20% difference in volume could potentially make a difference in girth measurements, i.e., the size of your waist, hips, thighs, etc. This difference in waist size, etc. could occur even if you did not lose any weight. If you would to replace (more on that in a minute) say 5lbs of fat with 5lbs of muscle your measurements could get smaller but your weight on the scale would not change. Would you be 20% smaller? Probably not. It is likely not that simple as there are other tissues (bones in the arms and legs and organs, along with the bones from the spine for a waist measurement) that also account for the size of a specific area. The point being that the circumference of an area is not solely determined by the amount of fat and muscle. At this point I am not sure how to figure out how to determine exactly how much of a specific area’s measurement is determined by the amount of muscle and fat, so I am unable to give any concrete answers on what would happen if you lost 5lbs of fat around your waist and gained 5lbs of muscle in that same exact area. This scenario is not likely (see next section) but it would be cool to know what would happen. Anyway, for today (hopefully someone can give me some specifics) I am going to assume it is 50% (half of the tissue in a certain area), therefore an equal exchange of fat for muscle tissue could cause a 9% (half of the 18%) change in the size of an area if you lost ALL of the fat in that area and gained an equal amount of muscle in that area (anybody confused yet, my head hurts a bit). To illustrate this point, if you had a thigh measurement of 25 inches and you lost all of the fat in that area, we will say it is 5lbs, and replaced it with 5 lbs of muscle, then it would be possible to change the size of your thigh circumference by 2.25 inches (9% of 25) resulting in a thigh circumference measurement of 22.75 inches (25 minus 2.25). There is certainly a difference and the exchange of muscle for fat can make a difference in your measurements but will that likely happen?

The previous paragraph was mostly a thought experiment because gaining large amounts of skeletal muscle (5lbs is a large amount) while you are trying to lose fat is not likely to happen. This aspect of the discussion really deserves a separate post (a related post here, also read the exercise chapter in the book), but I will highlight a few aspects now to make my point.

During weight loss it is generally not easy to gain ANY muscle (Hansen et al; Stiegler et al). There are a number of variables, such as total calorie intake, amount of protein intake, exercise or not, type of exercise, age, and gender, that will determine the change (Hansen et al; Stiegler et al). Here are the results from some of the research to drive home this point.

Schmitz, KH et al (2003). Strength training for obesity prevention in midlife women. Inter J Obesity; 27

• 60 women, aged 30-50 years old
• strength training 2 times a week, 50 minutes each, doing 8-10 repetitions per exercise
• followed closely for 15 weeks
• not following a hypocaloric diet (the aim of the study was not weight loss)

Results;

• at the end of 15 weeks: an average gain of about 2 lbs of muscle (fat-free mass)
• An important aspect; the women where NOT following a hypocaloric diet, meaning they were not trying to lose weight

Meckling, K & Sherfey, R. (2007). A randomized trial of a hypocaloric high-protein diet, with and without exercise, on weight loss, fitness, and markers of the Metabolic Syndrome in overweight and obese women. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab; 32

• 60 overweight or obese women, average age of 41
• 4 hypocaloric treatment groups, all of which reduced total daily calorie intake by 500

1. control diet
2. control diet with exercise (3 days a week of a 36 minute circuit training program)
3. high-protein diet (1.5 g/kg of protein/day)
4. high protein diet with exercise (same as above)

• Followed for 12 weeks

Results;

• after 12 weeks: all interventions produced weight loss, ranged from 4.6 to 15.4 lbs, there was no loss of muscle mass in any of the interventions, and a few of the groups gained some muscle, with the maximum average of 2.6 lbs

Demling, R. & DeSanti, L. (2000). Effect of a hypocaloric diet, increased protein intake and resistance training on lean mass gains and fat mass loss in overweight police officers. Ann Nutr Metab; 44

• 12 week study
• males, aged 28 to 40
• 3 treatment groups

1. hypocaloric (HC) diet only (80% of predicted need)
2. HC diet with a high protein intake (1.5g/kg/day) using a casein protein supplement, plus 4 days a week of weight training lasting 30-35 minutes, doing a variety of exercises for 8 to 10 repetitions each
3. HC diet with a high protein intake (1.5g/kg/day) using a whey protein supplement

Results;

• Group 1: (average) lost 5.5 pounds of fat and no change in muscle mass
• Group 2: (average) lost 6.2 pounds of fat and gained 8.8 lbs of muscle mass
• Group 3: (average) lost 5 pounds of fat and gained 4.4 lbs of muscle mass

A couple of interesting aspects to this study. First, the diet only group lost no muscle mass. This is not typical in diet only weight loss interventions (Hansen et al; Stiegler et al). Second, Group 2 and 3 both gained a substantial amount of muscle mass in 12 weeks. The authors of the study were also a bit surprised by this results and stated;

“We consider the large gains in lean [muscle] mass in the police officers to be in large part restoration of lost lean mass rather than gaining new muscle, a process similar to lean mass gains in the post-injury period or in the deconditioned elderly” (p.28).

Continuing with the last point made by the authors of the Demling et al study, I think it is important to realize that many of the studies that show an increase in muscle mass during weight loss used participants that are initially sedentary so there is a potential for a greater initial change due to their beginning physical condition. This also means that after an initial increase in muscle tissue there will likely be no change or little change in the amount of muscle tissue over the long-term.  A final thing to point out is the likely difference between males and females with respect to muscle gain. As the above studies show, as well as the review papers by Hansen et al and Stiegler et al, women will generally gain less muscle, if any at all, during weight loss, compared to males.

A recap of the studies mentioned above. There are many more studies pertinent to the question of muscle gain or loss during weight loss. I pick these to show that it is possible to gain some muscle during weight loss. However, there are many studies that have found only a maintenance of muscle or a loss of muscle during weight loss. If I wanted to cherry-pick the data, I could have just presented that information, but that would not be an honest representation of the facts. The first study does show that older women can gain some muscle mass from doing resistance training when not following a hypocaloric diet. The second and third studies demonstrate that some muscle can be gained during a reduced calorie diet. However, when the sum of studies are evaluated the general trend during weight loss, if resistance training or possibly cardiovascular exercise is done, is the amount of muscle tissue a person has will stay about the same, plus or minus a couple of pounds (Hansen et al; Stiegler et al).

The use of the “muscle weighs more than fat” and “I haven’t lost weight but I have probably gained some muscle” are usually used to make us (trainers, nutritionist, doctors, etc and clients) feel better when they don’t lose weight. While there is a small kernel of truth in the second statement (see above for why it is likely small) the use of “I must of gained some muscle” is really a diversion tactic. It is a way to avoid the hard truth that you are likely eating too many calories and not moving enough. I am not saying that it is easy to lose weight (see this post on that aspect), but avoiding the reality of the situation will not help the situation.

IF you are 30 years or older, trying to lose 20 or more pounds of fat, eating a reduced calorie diet with ample protein, and you exercise on a regular basis (5 x week with at least 2 x week of intense weight training) your are still NOT likely to gain more than 5lbs of muscle tissue. In fact, it is common for people to NOT gain any lean tissue and sometimes actually lose muscle tissue during weight loss (Hansen et al; Stiegler et al). Here is an example/common scenario that should help to illustrate my point;

• goal is to lose 30lbs
• lose an average of 2 lbs a week
• will take 15 weeks to reach goal
• will gain 5lbs of muscle during the 15 weeks, would average out to an increase of .3lbs/wk
• if we minus the .3lbs of muscle tissue per week, that still leaves about 1.7 lbs of fat that you will still need to lose per week.

The example above is a bit simplistic and very linear but it is still a good example of the fact that you should still be seeing a decrease in the scale most weeks, even if you gain a good amount (2 to 5lbs) of muscle tissue. Therefore, if the scale is not going down, then you need to re-evaluate your diet and activity levels.

Muscle has a bit higher weight density than fat does so it is possible to change the size of your body a bit by replacing some of your fat with muscle tissue. However, for most people, particularly women, the amount of muscle tissue that will be gained is usually not enough to make any significant changes in the size of their body. For those of you who’s goal is to lose fat, then the scale should be moving down on a regular basis and saying “I must be gaining muscle” is not likely true and will not help you reach your goal as it will likely divert your attention away from what  is likely happening; you are eating more than you body needs in order to lose weight.

References

Hansen, D. et al (2007). The effects of exercise training on fat-mass loss in obese patients during energy intake restriction. Sports Med; 37(1)

Stiegler, P. & Cunliffe, A. (2006). The role of diet and exercise for the maintenance of fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate during weight loss. Sports Med; 36(3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle

After taking the dog for what turned out to be a 4 mile run (she runs, I ride the bike) I decided on a whim to head up to Piestewa Peak in Phoenix. That’s a link to the simple map of the area (here’s the main site address). I was mostly on trail 302 and went up and back to the summit in the middle. I’d forgotten how much I enjoy that trail, maybe just because of the obvious comparison to the summit trail. The main difference? The summit trail is crowded on a day like today and it’s half a fashion show. These are the people that dress to be seen on their hike and never smile at anybody. The circumference trail (302) is much less crowded and the people who are on the trail actually smile and say hi. I’m not saying you have to be everyone’s friend, but the vibe I get on the summit trail just annoys me. I stopped about 40 feet from the top and turned around since it was such a crowded mess up there.

Anywho, now that I’m home I decided to look up and calculate how many calories I burned today. I used this MET chart to figure out at what rate I was burning calories. I’m using 8.0, which is equivalent to walking up stairs. The summit trail is pretty much the same as stair walking and the 302 trail is a mix. I ran where possible on the flats and descents so I think 8.0 is a fair average. Once you get this number you multiply by your weight in kilograms to calculate how many calories you burn per hour.

72 (my weight in kg) X 8.0 = 576.

Since I was out there for about an hour and 40 minutes:

576 X 1.66 = 956 kcal.

This is probably a conservative estimate since I wasn’t exactly strolling up the hill. I was hauling ass whenever possible. It’s no matter though, since this I don’t really use this information for anything and since it’s only a small part of the only equation that really matters:

Sunshine + smiley people + a few dogs + 950 calories burned = Happy Matt.

Nice job Fed Up Female!