Supplement Performance - Sports Supplement Update: An Interview with Chris Lockwood

Pull Quote: “Though protein is vitally important to obtaining a positive net protein balance

and thus, gaining muscle mass, protein isn’t the only nutritional determinant to gaining lean

muscle…”

Pull Quote: “Any company not investing in clinical safety and efficacy trials isn’t in it for

the longevity of the industry and, in my opinion, should just get the hell out now because their

actions only end up hurting all of us…”

Pull Quote: “Was it the ephedra herb that sealed this fat loss powerhouse’s fate or

rather the greed, ignorance and lack of checks and balances within our own industry that sealed

our own fate?”

The relatively poor regulation of sports supplements allows athletes and their coaches to

be targets of marketing campaigns based on pseudo-scientific claims and marketing hype rather

than documented benefits. However, some supplements offer real advantages to the athlete.

Some products work by producing a direct performance-enhancing effect (e.g., creatine,

caffeine). Other products can be used by athletes to meet their nutritional goals and, as an

indirect outcome, allow them to achieve optimal performance (e.g., meal replacement products).

Furthermore, several herbal medicines may have therapeutic medicinal value applicable to

athletes. Finally, some products may help to optimize body composition.

Muscular Development discussed the issue of sports supplementation with Chris

Lockwood, M.S., C.S.C.S., who has worked as the diet and energy category director for GNC and

senior brand manager of American Body Building/Science Foods. Chris is currently the vice

president of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN).

Lockwood: First, I’d like to comment on the regulation of sports supplements, as was

addressed in your intro. As the old saying goes: “Point one figure in blame and there are three

(fingers) pointing back at you.” This, in response to any blame “our industry” or members thereof,

choose to place on the FDA or any other agency for “poor regulation” of the products labeled,

sold and protected as dietary supplements. To be more specific, the criticism, scrutiny, lawsuits

and disrespect directed toward sports supplements, the companies that manufacture and market

them (supplements), those employed within the industry, as well as the dietary supplement

industry as a whole and the immediate industries dietary supplements support (ex: retail outlets,

online merchants, raw material suppliers, magazines, etc.) are, instead, whom are to blame for

the predicament we now find ourselves facing. As we are all part and parcel to this sandbox in

which we play, it’s equally important each of us take responsibility for cleaning up and ridding

ourselves of the garbage that’s hamstringing our ability to compete on a much higher level. Put

simply, to scream foul and stand behind the shield of DSHEA [the Dietary Supplement Health and

Education Act] when ephedrine and pro-hormones are removed, but to then lay blame externally

for “poor regulation” when we feel sports supplements are being wrongly judged is an exercise in

hypocrisy.

DSHEA was established to create an industry of self-regulation and control, not unlike

that of most areas of commerce. However, effective self-regulation requires internal checks and

balances, barriers to entry (other than monetary), clearly defined standards of practice and

internal enforcement of policies, just to name a few. The dietary supplement industry has no such

barriers to entry, has not one unifying association to represent our interests, but dozens, each

with their own agenda(s) and motives and there are no internal checks and balances even if a

company is clearly not playing by the rules. It isn’t until “our industry” gets our respective shit

together that we’ll finally be taken seriously, though the journey from where we currently are and

where we need to be won’t be without its roadblocks and setbacks. With that, I’ll step down from

my soapbox.

What are the basic nutritional determinants of whether or not muscle size

increases when one trains with weights?

Lockwood: The textbook story of “calories-in, minus calories-out,” that’s been repeated

ad nausea for decades, is quite possibly the most misleading nutritional advice ever spoken.

Theoretically, when all variables are controlled, such a simplified approach to weight gain/loss is

acceptable— eating more than you burn will enable you to gain weight; eating less, you’ll lose

weight. However, what happens when not just one, but hundreds and even thousands of

variables influence how one person metabolizes a calorie compared to another [person]? To

loosely quote Scott Connelly [founder of MET-Rx®], “If one of those persons is taking nandrolone

[i.e., deca durabolin] and the other isn’t, is a calorie really a calorie?” No way! Twenty-five

hundred calories to the person on deca is likely to be met with far different results than the same

number of calories to a person not taking deca.

Training is also a variable, as is recovery and a whole host of other controllable and

uncontrollable variables. If your long-term training is just shy of a Pilates episode combined with a

few Thera-balls and resistance band exercises, then in the long-run your nutritional needs

resemble little of that required for someone pushing serious poundage with increasing overload.

Train like an animal every day and never rest nor slow down, then even the greatest of nutritional

programs can lead to muscle wasting. All that being said, the only way to know if a person’s

nutritional requirements for gaining muscle mass are being met by that person’s diet is to assess

net protein balance (net protein accretion minus net protein catabolism). Though protein is vitally

important to obtaining a positive net protein balance and thus, gaining muscle mass, protein isn’t

the only nutritional determinant to gaining lean muscle; albeit, a very important one. I have little

doubt that if a research study were designed to find a correlation between macronutrient

composition and net muscle gain, we’d likely find those consuming high amounts of protein

having a strong correlation with ability to gain muscle mass. However, if the CHO-PRO-FAT

[carbohydrate-protein-fat] studies offer a glimpse into such, it would also be equally as likely that

we find protein to reach a saturation point at which, if protein consistently accounted for a greater

and greater percent of total calories (holding calories constant), then there would come a point at

which the correlation between protein intake and muscle gain would begin to become inversely

related.

Editor´s Note: We agree that the old notion of “a calorie is a calorie” is probably the most

misleading nutritional advice known to mankind. One can´t assume that the only thing that counts

in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of calories and weight storage.

How important are carbohydrate-protein drinks as aids to rapid recovery?

Lockwood: Assuming first, we all agree it’s highly unlikely that a well-constructed meal

will be immediately available upon cessation of exercise, then, yes, it’s of my opinion that a postworkout

powder, MRP [meal replacement powder] or RTD [ready-to-drink] is vitally important to

promote efficient recovery. That isn’t to say that I believe all post-workout supplements need to

include both carbohydrates and protein. In fact, if non-competitive, steady-state recreational

bodybuilding is the primary form of exercise, a protein-only post-workout supplement appears to

be just as effective as a combination of carbs and protein; assuming total calories are roughly

equal. However, if a bodybuilder or strength/power athlete is in a heavy cycle of their periodized

training program, then as has been concluded by some of Tarnopolsky’s current work,

carbohydrate content and total calories are required for complete glycogen resynthesis. Robert

Wolfe, [the late] Gayle Butterfield, Peter Lemon and Kevin Tipton are just a few of the

researchers whom have provided a wealth of understanding to this area of study. When viewed

collectively and in light of some of the recent work by Jeff Stout and others, one could make a

strong argument for consuming a precise amino acid combination at specific time points around

one’s training to maximize muscle growth. Time will tell, however, what, if any, specific amino

acid ratio works best, whether different amino acid combinations are better than others at various

times around the training window and what amounts are optimal. And that just scratches the

surface of where the research is heading.

What do you think about the following “

muscle-building” supplements: ZMA, KIC,

Tribulus terrestris?

Lockwood: Independently, there’s solid data to support the use of zinc, magnesium and

vitamin B6— all are commonly depleted both in active and inactive populations— however, the

claims most often cited in support of ZMA are quite misleading. “The ZMA study” is co-authored

by one of the principle owners of the ZMA patent and thus raises serious red flags as to the

independence and bias of the study itself. Though, yes, zinc and magnesium are being delivered

in more bioavailable, chelated forms, we’ve yet to see if ZMA offers any advantage over, say,

consuming a well-formulated multi-mineral and/or MRP with comparable amounts of the active

ingredients. From a strictly branding perspective, the ZMA folks have done a superb job. The

unfortunate reality, however, is if consumers are provided with the knowledge of using chelated

forms of zinc and magnesium, in combination with vitamin B6 as a co-factor to drive the system

then they’ll find on their own that there’s little reason to pay the additional cost for the ZMA name.

That is, unless studies begin to show that the patent-pending ratio of zinc:magnesium:B6, as is

used in the ZMA preparations, is somehow superior to other similar blends. Even so, ZMA is a

mixture, not a compound and as such I hope the ZMA folks have some powerful patent protection

attorneys as well as the finances to litigate against all of the knock-offs.

Editor´s Note: The ZMA study co-authored by Victor Conte reported that the ZMA group

had increased levels of total testosterone, free (biologically active) testosterone and IGF-I

compared to plateaus or drops in the placebo (fake supplementation) group (Journal of Exercise

Physiology, 3(4):26-36, 2000). However, a recent study by Dr. Richard Kreider and colleagues

indicated that ZMA supplementation during training doesn’t appear to enhance training

adaptations in gym rats (Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 1(2):12-20, 2004).

Obviously, more research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Lockwood: Where do I begin with KIC? a-KIC [alpha-ketoisocaproate] will likely become

just as big a “household” name as the nitric oxide products made a-KG [alpha-ketoglutarate]. The

difference is, if science and not ignorance leads the way, the use of the two will remain somewhat

distinct from the other; both having their respective roles, albeit if I had but enough money to

purchase only one or the other, I’d put my dollars on a-KIC. I’ll suggest that readers pick up a

copy of the chapter I wrote in the Essentials of Sports Nutrition and Supplements for a more

detailed discussion, but here’s the jist of it: a-KIC is referred to as a branched-chain keto acid

(BCKA), which, as the name implies, is very similar to a BCAA [branched-chain amino acid], with

the exception of the keto group. In fact, about 50 percent of ingested a-KIC is converted directly

into what is largely becoming known as the most anabolic and anti-catabolic of all the amino

acids— the BCAA, leucine. Here’s where it gets even more interesting. a-KIC is a direct

precursor to the production of HMB and thus one could beg the question, “HMB, in high enough

doses and when consumed in a minimal carb environment, is supposed to be so great, and

leucine is beginning to be found-out as the premier amino acid, and all of these compounds

contain one very similar ingredient— a-KIC— then can’t I simply take a-KIC throughout the day

and get the best of all benefits?” Maybe yes, maybe no. Thus far, it looks like a-KIC needs to be

bound to another amino acid to offer its greatest advantage. For example, arginine-a-KIC

(AAKIC) was found to be more beneficial than either arginine or arginine-a-KG (AAKG) at

increasing nitrogen retention and weight gain in mice and AAKIC was also more effective than

ornithine-a-KIC (OAKIC) at increasing protein synthesis. A dipeptide of leucine and a-KIC may be

interesting, though, one could argue that bonding with arginine is more advantageous than with

leucine because via arginine catabolism during first-pass digestion [i.e., first-pass metabolism], a

greater amount of a-KIC is left available to be delivered to receptor sites. Frankly, I’m not that

smart, so I don’t know the answer to this one. As a caveat to the use of a-KIC, I offer this, though:

a-KIC may be one of the worst-tasting amino acid compounds I’ve ever had the displeasure to

taste and try to formulate against for flavor. Almost all amino acids taste like feet, but when we

first experimented, back in 2001, with a-KIC, forskolin, yohimbine and copper, the workout results

may have been phenomenal, but the downside was that I kept burping-up what tasted like sweaty

socks (by the way, I have no actual comparative for the taste of sweaty socks; only assuming).

Editor´s Note: Essentials of Sports Nutrition and Supplements will be released by

Humana Press in early 2006.

It’s now clear that leucine is the most anabolic of all the amino acids. For example, a

recent study published in the American Journal of Physiology (Epub ahead of print) indicates that

leucine, but not isoleucine or valine, acts as a nutrient signal to stimulate protein synthesis in

heart and skeletal muscles of neonates.

First-pass metabolism of dietary supplements or drugs can occur in the gut and the liver.

This can greatly reduce the amount of active substance that ends up in systemic circulation.

Lockwood: My case for, as well as against, Tribulus is the same for and against all

active ingredients, but unfortunately seems to be most damaging to herbs: that is, I absolutely

support the use of a pure form of Tribulus terrestris extract such as what the analytical testing

facility, Chromadex, found being used in the Biotest product, TribexÔ, however, as with ALL

active ingredients that get as little as a mention of support for their use in a scientific paper, the

active ingredient quickly becomes the bastard child of many a whoring-out in the raw materials

markets. That is to say that, yes, there’s strong data that a standardized extract of Tribulus

terrestris L., from above ground parts, containing five to 10 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight,

per day, of active Protodioscin, offers some form of ergogenic [performance-enhancing] affect.

Problem is, Tribulus is an herb, so just as we’ve all come to understand that a wine

grown in Northern California during a dry season is different from the same wine, from the same

vineyard, grown during a rainy season and is still far different from a totally different vineyard’s

version of that wine, grown in Alabama, so too, are herbs used in dietary supplements different.

For example, a common name for Tribulus is “puncture vine” and almost any mountain biker

who’s ever ridden in the West at the end of the spring season can attest to the number of

punctured tires that arise as a result of these tiny, dried-up balls of thorns. But, am I to assume

that Tribulus growing on the trails outside of Salt Lake City is just as efficacious as the Tribulus

grown in the high-altitude climate of Bulgaria? Absolutely n. However, that’s what so many raw

material suppliers and the people who manufacture those products would like for you to believe—

that Tribulus is Tribulus; ephedra is ephedra; Rhodiola is Rhodiola; that an herb’s an herb.

Worse still, companies commonly use an inferior-grade herb, but still use all of the

positive research data of the more efficacious form of that herb to support their marketing efforts.

It’s what’s polluted and ruined the herb market, as a whole and brought a horrible black-eye to the

efficacy of all herbs and supplements— when a study finds that an herb “doesn’t work,” the entire

herb family gets cast in a poor light. But most studies, unfortunately, don’t even run analyticals to

determine if the active ingredients in the herb being studied contain similar level(s) of actives as

those from a previous study showing positive findings. Which leads me to another all-to-common

scam of raw material “spiking”— that is, to spike an otherwise inferior form of the herb with extra

amounts of the principle active used in standardization of that herb family. Sounds good in theory,

but it’s the equivalent of adding extra alcohol and/or sugar to a bottle of wine or using more wood

to build your home, but without using additional nails and supporting materials to keep everything

together. Aside from being totally unethical and, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons so

many Tribulus products don’t work, spiking and the use of inferior raw materials is essentially

totally legal because our industry does so little, if anything, to regulate or dissuade against such

practices.

Rhodiola rosea is another great example of an effective herb that’s been dragged through

the mud. R. crenulata is essentially crap, but R. rosea standardized to 3.6 percent rosavin, 1.6

percent salidroside and not more than 0.1 percent p-tyrosol, per 100 milligrams of R. rosea root,

has consistently been shown to provide beneficial acute training effects as a powerful

adaptogenic herb. Oh and by the way, outside of the Tribestan® studies, conducted by the

Bulgarian manufacturer Sopharma, the only data that supports increased testosterone and

arousal from Tribulus, is in rodents. However, there’s data showing that Tribulus has a definite

hypoglycemic effect, which may indirectly lead to an increase in testosterone production as a

result of an increase in cAMP in response to low glucose levels. Nobody has looked that closely

at the molecular level, but if that’s the case and we also find similar results as have been found in

our little rodent friends, then we’ll also likely conclude that, as in the rodent studies, there exists

both a minimum AND a maximum dose for peak effectiveness.

Can vitamin supplementation improve performance?

Lockwood: Most definitely. Let’s face it, the majority of the human population either

doesn’t make the correct food choices and/or simply doesn’t have access to the foods best

designed to help that person meet their daily physical needs, far less, improve a person’s human

performance. That said, I agree with the RDs of the world that supplements aren’t necessary if

someone eats the right foods. However, in that same breath, I’m also not so ignorant as to

assume people follow that advice or, more importantly, are being provided the tools required to

follow that “simple” pearl of wisdom. Fact is, a supplement is just that: a supplement; not to

replace food, but to fill the gaps. Thus, yes, dietary supplements can offer great advantages to

aiding performance. If the question is more specific to vitamins, then I recommend a healthy dose

of the B vitamins to any athlete consuming a lot of protein and training heavily. The B6 vitamin, in

particular, may be the most important because of its conversion to pyridoxal-5-phosphate, which

functions as one of the body’s premier co-factors in energy conversion.

One side note, though, I do think it horribly irresponsible and ignorant how so many

supplement companies just kitchen-sink vitamins and minerals into a formula, using only a

percentage of the daily recommended intakes (DRIs, or RDAs) as their guide. In my earlier years,

I was just as guilty at making this rookie mistake. But given today’s availability to better

information, there’s no excuse for formulating a product with, for example, all vitamins and

minerals containing 20, 50 or even 100 percent of the DRIs. Yes, it looks good on a label if you’re

marketing to the Centrum® or One-a-Day® mass market legions, but any informed biochemist will

quickly inform such companies of how little of so many of those ingredients are going to end up

being used because of the competing nature of certain vitamins and/or minerals during digestion,

as well as the co-ingestion or absence thereof of macronutrients to support their transport.

How do you feel about thermogenic fat loss supplements?

Lockwood: First off, possibly the best and worst thing that ever happened to this industry

was the removal of its too often tapped, too-used, late-night booty call of a supplement, ephedra.

Though I was hopeful that the removal of ephedra would bring lurking and laboratory hopefuls

into the fat loss limelight, as well as rally the industry to work more closely and begin to adopt

standards and practices that would thwart future repeats, I’ve seen little, if not the opposite

transpire.

The new products that were immediately brought to market were mostly out of sales and

retail shelf preservation, rather than innovation…though there were a small handful of very

innovative and effective ingredients that were actually unique (7-keto, A7-E and forskolin being

the most metabolic of the bunch). However, here we are two years later and still there’s little

innovation. That isn’t entirely due to a lack of trying, but rather the legal environment and a lack of

scientific support from the largest supplement retailer— i.e., if your largest retailer isn’t likely to

bring in a new item because they don’t trust and/or accept the science, then, as consumers and

as an industry, we’re all hamstrung by this innovation roadblock, so to speak. Hell, I was on board

that large retail ship when ephedra got pulled and could do little to redirect the course of our sales

dollars— only the captain and his industry-hopping crewmates chose to move this entire industry.

However, I can stand by and blame our current situation only on a handful of persons with little

regard for this very small segment of the industry or rather see that the way around such

ignorance is to flood the doors with scientific support of safety and efficacy of new ingredients and

compounds. Yes, the latter is more costly on the up-front, but the long-term benefit to a company,

the consumer and the health of this industry is immeasurable. Any company not investing in

clinical safety and efficacy trials isn’t in it for the longevity of the industry and, in my opinion,

should just get the hell out now because their actions only end up hurting all of us and the

consumers with whom trust has been placed blindly.

Some, however, would argue that ephedra had all the scientific validation it needed to

prove safety and efficacy, yet it still got pulled. That’s correct, however, ephedra didn’t get pulled