Home / Articles / Q & A / Going Postal / Aug 30 2003

Going Postal
We respond to the good, the bad, and the ugly of this month's mailbag.

In your opinion, should we -- either in the morning or later in the day -- eat carbs or a slower digesting protein with whey isolates to keep the whey isolates from being used for energy?

In addition, are BCAAs, free-form amino acids or whey isolates in danger of being converted to glucose for energy (other than during intense exercise or when a person has consumed over the amount of protein to accommodate daily turn-over rates), or is this just advertising hype?

These are good questions, both of them. Looking deeper into your questions, though, the assumption that lies beneath them is that somehow the conversion of protein into "energy" or "glucose" is, in fact, bad or at least that if this conversion happens, it will be bad for muscle growth.

While I agree that converting most of your protein (whether we're talking complete protein or the constituent amino acids, including BCAA) is a bad thing, ultimately, even if much of the protein is being converted to glucose, if you have an adequate surplus you'll grow just fine. Enter the high protein diet.

To answer your questions specifically, I am of the opinion that it's always a good idea to eat protein with carbs since carbs do blunt the glucagon response that promotes the conversion of amino acids to glucose in the liver. But there are a whole host of things to consider here. To read about some of them and to gain a better understanding of glucagon, check out the upcoming Fat Roundtable 2 and Carbohydrate Roundtable articles at www.t-mag.com.

One of the exceptions to that rule in the last paragraph occurs obviously when you're on a low carb, ketogenic diet. When following this type of diet, the carbs wont be around to prevent the glucagon response therefore more protein will be converted into glucose. In this case you'll want to take in alot of protein since so that there is plenty of excess for muscle growth.

With respect to your second question, all amino acids can easily convert to glucose. Since whole protein and protein isolates/concentrates are digested into their amino acid constituents, they are all treated similarly when in the body. So this piece of info isn't marketing hype. However, the marketing hype lies in making you believe that a high protein diet won't necessarily be enough to support your muscle building gains. Of course, some aminos will always be made into glucose but a high protein diet provides enough protein for that while leaving enough amino acids for muscle growth.

While your web site is excellent and I'm certain that you're one of the best out there, how much help can you actually give someone from a distance?

We understand your reservations/skepticism, but want to assure you that distance-based consulting can really work. It is quite effective as long as both the client and the trainer are diligent in providing regular feedback (via body comp measures, gym performance, pictures, etc). Interestingly we've found that the distance-based nature of the arrangement allows for greater objectivity in appraisal. As the trainer, seeing only the numbers and the visual evidence, it's easy to know exactly what type of progress is being made. As the client, the regular feedback allows you to clarify your expectations without fear of jeopardizing the day-to-day relationship you might have with a local trainer.

We're so certain that distance-based training is a winning technique that one of our big projects this year will be to revolutionize how distance-based consulting is conducted from the perspectives of both the client and the trainer. Unfortunately, in the interim, we will not be taking on any new clients at all. We're just too busy preparing for the future. In the meantime, you will still have all the free information that we're sharing on this site, which is more than enough to point you in the right direction.

I've been emailing you for months at your other email address (jmbmuscle@hotmail.com) and haven't gotten a reply. Do you think you're better than me?

No, but I think do that I'm the World's #1 Trainer. (That one was for Seinfeld fans that remember the episode with three generations of old men asking the question "Do you think you're better than me?").

Actually, that's not it at all. The reason I've been unresponsive is that, in rearranging my email accounts, I have decided to delete 2 of my old Hotmail accounts due to an inordinate amount of junk mail being received on a regular basis. I have a difficult time finding reader mail when it is located among the 60 pieces of daily junk mail. That said, the spam regarding mail-order degrees was somewhat appealing (and if I find a mail-order PhD, I'm taking it).

Therefore, I made the executive decision to cancel my "jmbmuscle@hotmail.com" and "sciencelink@hotmail.com" accounts. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

For those interested in reaching me for exercise and nutrition related correspondence, please email me at info@johnberardi.com

When determining caloric need, which equations are most applicable to athletes and the general public? Also, how have these equations been created?

I'll go ahead and assume that you're asking about calculating your maintenance needs. If this is the case, there have been dozens of equations generated by researchers over time. Taking a large group of athletes or non-athletes and measuring their metabolic rate via indirect calorimetry is the most popular current method of generating these equations. Direct calorimetry, or the measurement of total body heat produced, which is proportional to calories expended since calories are units of heat, is much too costly and difficult to be regularly performed.

Indirect calorimetry, on the other hand, is a method by which expired and inspired gasses are measured to determine how much oxygen is consumed and carbon dioxide is released during a particular period of time. Gas exchange at the level of the lung is more or less proportional to oxygen consumption at the tissue level and therefore indicative of tissue metabolism. After all, oxygen must be consumed to metabolize substrates and carbon dioxide must be given off.

Since every liter of oxygen consumed is equivalent to 4.82 calories burned, the measurement of oxygen consumption gives us an indicator of total calories burned. Under fasted, resting (basal) conditions, the average person consumes about 200-400ml of oxygen per minute and this translates to 288-576L of oxygen consumed per day. That means the average person's oxygen consumption translates into a total basal daily calorie cost of 1388-2776 calories per day.

From these measures of indirect calorimetry, the actual basal metabolic rate (BMR) can be calculated for each study subject. Using these data, statistical mumbo jumbo is performed to derive equations using variables like age, body weight, lean mass, etc to predict BMR without the use of laboratory equipment. Therefore, by plugging age, body weight, lean body mass, or a host of other variables into the particular equation that the researchers generated, you might be able to closely predict your own BMR.

Since similar studies have been done on subjects performing different activities, several charts have been generated that allow us to add on things like the cost of daily activity, the cost of exercise activity, and the thermic effect of food.

What this all does is allow us to predict how many calories we may burn in a day. Getting back to your first question, you're right in that there have been many equations generated over the years. However, since I typically write for an active/athletic crowd, I like to use an equation generated (as described above) from athletic subjects. In a review/study published in J Sports Med Phys Fitness in 1999, De Lorenzo et al compared 8 athlete equations for accuracy and precision. Of the 8, I liked the Cunningham equation best since it tended to mildly overestimate basal metabolic rate (by a measly 59 calories). Our Massive Eating Calorie Calculator is based on this equation.

I hope this wasn't too confusing and serves to validate our own equations, which we think work quite well.

Any thoughts on the science behind calorie restriction and longevity? What are your impressions of the studies, if any?

My preliminary thoughts are as follows. Calorie restriction, in rats, tends to increase longevity as a result of increased tissue turnover (some studies are now verifying this hypothesis, especially with respect to liver turnover). Basically, due to the fact that calories are so chronically low, the body is constantly breaking itself down. However, with the right micronutrient intake and adequate (while sub optimal) protein and energy intake, the body can survive and actually becomes more efficient at these lower caloric intakes. It does become much, much smaller and weaker though. In fact, in one study (The Biosphere 2 data), the men and women on long-term calorie restricted diets experienced body weight stabilization at about 23 lbs lighter than their original body weights (which, on average, went from 149 to 126lbs).

For these, as well as other reasons, I certainly do not want to tell anyone to eat fewer calories to increase their shelf life. From what we know of intense exercise training, it seems like calorie restriction and intense exercise training can promote very similar effects on tissue turnover. In fact, it's a hypothesis of mine that an intense training regimen may also promote similarly high rates of tissue turnover, thus causing similar hormonal cascades, metabolic profiles, and some of the same benefits.

I'd much rather exercise more and eat normally instead of simply eating ½ of my current intake. Make no mistake; the calorie restriction proponents don't mess around. The Biosphere study used 1700kcal per day and proponents of this type of restriction often recommend fewer calories.

Wanna drop us a line? Contact us at info@johnberardi.com