The Effect of Carbohydrate Intake on Strength and Resistance Training Performance: A Systematic Review

High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength training performance has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic literature search was conducted for trials that manipulated carbohydrate intake, including supplements, and measured strength, resistance training or power either acutely or after a diet and strength training program. Studies were categorized as either (1) acute supplementation, (2) exercise-induced glycogen depletion with subsequent carbohydrate manipulation, (3) short-term (2–7 days) carbohydrate manipulation or (4) changes in performance after longer-term diet manipulation and strength training. Forty-nine studies were included: 19 acute, six glycogen depletion, seven short-term and 17 long-term studies. Participants were strength trainees or athletes (39 studies), recreationally active (six studies) or untrained (four studies). Acutely, higher carbohydrate intake did not improve performance in 13 studies and enhanced performance in six studies, primarily in those with fasted control groups and workouts with over 10 sets per muscle group. One study found that a carbohydrate meal improved performance compared to water but not in comparison to a sensory-matched placebo breakfast. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. After glycogen depletion, carbohydrate supplementation improved performance in three studies compared to placebo, in particular during bi-daily workouts, but not in research with isocaloric controls. None of the seven short-term studies found beneficial effects of carbohydrate manipulation. Longer-term changes in performance were not influenced by carbohydrate intake in 15 studies; one study favored the higher- and one the lower-carbohydrate condition. Carbohydrate intake per se is unlikely to strength training performance in a fed state in workouts consisting of up to 10 sets per muscle group. Performance during higher volumes may benefit from carbohydrates, but more studies with isocaloric control groups, sensory-matched placebos and locally measured glycogen depletion are needed.publishedVersio

A systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults

Objective We performed a systematic review, metaanalysis and meta-regression to determine if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength. Data sources A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SportDiscus. Eligibility criteria Only randomised controlled trials with RET ≥6 weeks in duration and dietary protein supplementation. Design Random-effects meta-analyses and metaregressions with four a priori determined covariates. Twophase break point analysis was used to determine the relationship between total protein intake and changes in fat-free mass (FFM). ResultsData from 49 studies with 1863 participants showed that dietary protein supplementation significantly (all p Summary/conclusion Dietary protein supplementation significantly enhanced changes in muscle strength and size during prolonged RET in healthy adults. Increasing age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation during RET. With protein supplementation, protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g/kg/day do not further contribute RET-induced gains in FFM

Changes in body composition and performance with supplemental HMB-FA+ATP (Manuscript Clarification)

Additional co-authors: Matthew D. Vukovich, Colin Wilborn, and Darryn S. Willoughb

The short-term effect of high versus moderate protein intake on recovery after strength training in resistance-trained individuals

Background: Dietary protein intakes up to 2.9 g.kg-1.d-1 and protein consumption before and after resistance training may enhance recovery, resulting in hypertrophy and strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether protein quantity or nutrient timing is central to positive adaptations. This study investigated the effect of total dietary protein content, whilst controlling for protein timing, on recovery in resistance trainees. Methods: Fourteen resistance-trained individuals underwent two 10-day isocaloric dietary regimes with a protein content of 1.8 g.kg-1.d-1 (PROMOD) or 2.9 g.kg-1.d-1 (PROHIGH) in a randomised, counterbalanced, crossover design. On days 8-10 (T1-T3), participants undertook resistance exercise under controlled conditions, performing 3 sets of squat, bench press and bent-over rows at 80% 1 repetition maximum until volitional exhaustion. Additionally, participants consumed a 0.4 g.kg-1 whey protein concentrate/isolate mix 30 minutes before and after exercise sessions to standardise protein timing specific to training. Recovery was assessed via daily repetition performance, muscle soreness, bioelectrical impedance phase angle, plasma creatine kinase (CK) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Results: No significant differences were reported between conditions for any of the performance repetition count variables (p>0.05). However, within PROMOD only, squat performance total repetition count was significantly lower at T3 (19.7 ± 6.8) compared to T1 (23.0 ± 7.5; p=0.006). Pre and post-exercise CK concentrations significantly increased across test days (p≤0.003), although no differences were reported between conditions. No differences for TNF-α or muscle soreness were reported between dietary conditions. Phase angle was significantly greater at T3 for PROHIGH (8.26 ± 0.82°) compared with PROMOD (8.08 ± 0.80°; p=0.012). Conclusions: When energy intake and peri-exercise protein intake was controlled for, a short term PROHIGH diet did not improve markers of muscle damage or soreness in comparison to a PROMOD approach following repeated days of intensive training. Whilst it is therefore likely that protein intakes (1.8g.kg-1.d-1) may be sufficient for resistance-trained individuals, it is noteworthy that both lower body exercise performance and bioelectrical phase angle were maintained with PROHIGH. Longer term interventions are warranted to determine whether PROMOD intakes are sufficient during prolonged training periods or when extensive exercise (e.g. training twice daily) is undertaken

Hip thrust and back squat training elicit similar gluteus muscle hypertrophy and transfer similarly to the deadlift

We examined how set-volume equated resistance training using either the back squat (SQ) or hip thrust (HT) affected hypertrophy and various strength outcomes. Untrained college-aged participants were randomized into HT (n = 18) or SQ (n = 16) groups. Surface electromyograms (sEMG) from the right gluteus maximus and medius muscles were obtained during the first training session. Participants completed 9 weeks of supervised training (15–17 sessions), before and after which gluteus and leg muscle cross-sectional area (mCSA) was assessed via magnetic resonance imaging. Strength was also assessed prior to and after the training intervention via three-repetition maximum (3RM) testing and an isometric wall push test. Gluteus mCSA increases were similar across both groups. Specifically, estimates [(−) favors HT (+) favors SQ] modestly favored the HT versus SQ for lower [effect ±SE, −1.6 ± 2.1 cm2; CI95% (−6.1, 2.0)], mid [−0.5 ± 1.7 cm2; CI95% (−4.0, 2.6)], and upper [−0.5 ± 2.6 cm2; CI95% (−5.8, 4.1)] gluteal mCSAs but with appreciable variance. Gluteus medius + minimus [−1.8 ± 1.5 cm2; CI95% (−4.6, 1.4)] and hamstrings [0.1 ± 0.6 cm2; CI95% (−0.9, 1.4)] mCSA demonstrated little to no growth with small differences between groups. mCSA changes were greater in SQ for the quadriceps [3.6 ± 1.5 cm2; CI95% (0.7, 6.4)] and adductors [2.5 ± 0.7 cm2; CI95% (1.2, 3.9)]. Squat 3RM increases favored SQ [14 ± 2 kg; CI95% (9, 18),] and hip thrust 3RM favored HT [−26 ± 5 kg; CI95% (−34, −16)]. 3RM deadlift [0 ± 2 kg; CI95% (−4, 3)] and wall push strength [−7 ± 12N; CI95% (−32, 17)] similarly improved. All measured gluteal sites showed greater mean sEMG amplitudes during the first bout hip thrust versus squat set, but this did not consistently predict gluteal hypertrophy outcomes. Squat and hip thrust training elicited similar gluteal hypertrophy, greater thigh hypertrophy in SQ, strength increases that favored exercise allocation, and similar deadlift and wall push strength increases

The Effect of Carbohydrate Intake on Strength and Resistance Training Performance: A Systematic Review

High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength training performance has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic literature search was conducted for trials that manipulated carbohydrate intake, including supplements, and measured strength, resistance training or power either acutely or after a diet and strength training program. Studies were categorized as either (1) acute supplementation, (2) exercise-induced glycogen depletion with subsequent carbohydrate manipulation, (3) short-term (2–7 days) carbohydrate manipulation or (4) changes in performance after longer-term diet manipulation and strength training. Forty-nine studies were included: 19 acute, six glycogen depletion, seven short-term and 17 long-term studies. Participants were strength trainees or athletes (39 studies), recreationally active (six studies) or untrained (four studies). Acutely, higher carbohydrate intake did not improve performance in 13 studies and enhanced performance in six studies, primarily in those with fasted control groups and workouts with over 10 sets per muscle group. One study found that a carbohydrate meal improved performance compared to water but not in comparison to a sensory-matched placebo breakfast. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. After glycogen depletion, carbohydrate supplementation improved performance in three studies compared to placebo, in particular during bi-daily workouts, but not in research with isocaloric controls. None of the seven short-term studies found beneficial effects of carbohydrate manipulation. Longer-term changes in performance were not influenced by carbohydrate intake in 15 studies; one study favored the higher- and one the lower-carbohydrate condition. Carbohydrate intake per se is unlikely to strength training performance in a fed state in workouts consisting of up to 10 sets per muscle group. Performance during higher volumes may benefit from carbohydrates, but more studies with isocaloric control groups, sensory-matched placebos and locally measured glycogen depletion are needed

Satiating Effect of High Protein Diets on Resistance-Trained Subjects in Energy Deficit.

Short-term energy deficit strategies are practiced by weight class and physique athletes, often involving high protein intakes to maximize satiety and maintain lean mass despite a paucity of research. This study compared the satiating effect of two protein diets on resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Following ethical approval, 16 participants (age: 28 ± 2 years; height: 1.72 ± 0.03 m; body-mass: 88.83 ± 5.54 kg; body-fat: 21.85 ± 1.82%) were randomly assigned to 7-days moderate (PROMOD: 1.8 g·kg-1·d-1) or high protein (PROHIGH: 2.9 g·kg-1·d-1) matched calorie-deficit diets in a cross-over design. Daily satiety responses were recorded throughout interventions. Pre-post diet, plasma ghrelin and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY), and satiety ratings were assessed in response to a protein-rich meal. Only perceived satisfaction was significantly greater following PROHIGH (67.29 ± 4.28 v 58.96 ± 4.51 mm, p = 0.04). Perceived cravings increased following PROMOD only (46.25 ± 4.96 to 57.60 ± 4.41 mm, p = 0.01). Absolute ghrelin concentration significantly reduced post-meal following PROMOD (972.8 ± 130.4 to 613.6 ± 114.3 pg·mL-1; p = 0.003), remaining lower than PROHIGH at 2 h (-0.40 ± 0.06 v -0.26 ± 0.06 pg·mL-1 normalized relative change; p = 0.015). Absolute PYY concentration increased to a similar extent post-meal (PROMOD: 84.9 ± 8.9 to 147.1 ± 11.9 pg·mL-1, PROHIGH: 100.6 ± 9.5 to 143.3 ± 12.0 pg·mL-1; p 0.05). However, desire to eat remained significantly blunted for PROMOD (p = 0.048). PROHIGH does not confer additional satiating benefits in resistance-trained individuals during short-term energy deficit. Ghrelin and PYY responses to a test-meal support the contention that satiety was maintained following PROMOD, although athletes experiencing negative symptoms (i.e., cravings) may benefit from protein-rich meals as opposed to over-consumption of protein