Bodybuilding Nutrition: Interview with Dr. Scott Connelly
Pull Quote: The only well-documented supplement combination to significantly increase fat loss relative to energy loss— hence a true “supplement” effect— is the ephedrine/caffeine protocol.
While doing his research as a senior fellow in intensive care medicine at Stanford University, Scott Connelly, MD, created a high-quality protein formulation, Metamyosyn®, which later became the key ingredient in MET-Rx®, the original high-protein meal replacement product. According to Dr. Connelly, MET-Rx formulation is currently being issued as standard nutritional protocol in Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women's burn care trauma unit and Braintree Rehabilitation Hospital. Dr. Connelly is also a visiting professor at UCLA's School of Medicine with teaching responsibilities in the area of the physiology of nutrition and muscle metabolism.
In your opinion, how much protein should a serious strength-power athlete consume on a daily basis?
My real world answer to this question is to “consume as much as you can.” The response in muscle growth induced by resistance training to increasing dietary protein intake is virtually linear over a range of intakes that are attainable by human beings. For example human research shows that muscle mass gains are doubled by escalating intake of protein from two to three grams per kilogram of bodyweight. I have worked with subjects who’ve reached daily intakes of 400 grams per day with spectacular gains in LBM [lean body mass].
There are theoretical concerns surrounding the fact that any excess intake of amino acids over immediate requirements activate degradation pathways and that there can be finite limits to these mechanisms. In reality this is only an issue for the rare individual with genetic disorders of amino acid metabolism (phenylketonuria, for example) as the capacity for amino acid oxidation [burning] can be ramped up very rapidly to keep pace with intake values that are practically attainable. The pattern of consumption should be multiple feedings throughout the day with the protein content of each feeding representing equal fractions of the daily total. Disproportionate large quantities consumed at single feedings increases oxidative loss of amino acids as the system is geared to maintain individual plasma [blood] amino acid levels within certain limits of one another. Flooding the plasma with large excesses above physiologic ranges is immediately followed by irreversible oxidation of the excess.
How important is it to eat a lot of carbohydrates if one wishes to maximize muscular development?
Carbohydrate intake will synergize the positive effects of extracellular amino acid concentration on muscle anabolism. Protein synthesis and degradation rates are increased and decreased respectively by significant amounts, widening the anabolic “window” represented by the difference between these two dynamics of protein turnover. Modest amounts of carbohydrate are sufficient for this purpose. With a protein intake range between two and a half to three and a half grams per kilogram of bodyweight, probably the maximum attainable by even the most dedicated amateur trainers on a consistent basis, a protein/carbohydrate intake ratio of one and a half to one is more than sufficient. Absolute carbohydrate should always be predicated on the individual subject’s energy expenditure. Individuals who engage in vigorous weight training and have physically demanding jobs for example can liberalize their carbohydrate intakes.
What general approach do you recommend for power-strength athletes who want to lose fat or who must make a specific weight category for competition?
My general recommendations are probably different from the norm in that I advise people to minimize “weight loss” relative to “energy loss” by embracing a strategy that engenders pure fat loss with no loss or even modest gain of LBM. This isn’t really that difficult, especially for weight training individuals. My advice would be to increase the protein to carbohydrate ratio two to one and make up the energy differential with “negative calorie” fats [i.e., MCTs (medium-chain triglycerides) and diglyceride]. Consumer-friendly [i.e., palatable, versatile and no GI issues] sources of these are coconut oil/cream and enova oil, respectively. Monounsaturates in almonds could probably be included in this category although less human data exists on these fats.
More extreme outcomes demanded by special circumstances, for example, bodybuilding competitions, are benefited by additional calorie and macronutrient manipulations that are time-dependent and usually very transient and are beyond the scope of these generalized considerations. Aerobic exercise below the intensity of the anaerobic threshold (point at which breathing becomes labored) is additive, but not absolutely necessary. These strategies require execution over a more protracted period of time, but do provide superior body composition results to methods calling for a prominent restriction of calories. Finally, on the horizon are nutritional constituents that directly activate the cascade of transcription factors in muscle that underwrite the balance between hypertrophy and atrophy in skeletal muscle. For the past five years I’ve been collaborating with a group of investigators abroad in the elucidation of the effects of such compounds in muscle cell cultures, animal models and human trials and our recent success in commercialization will allow us to move forward with this product release in the foreseeable future.
[Editor´s Note: It’s now clear that a diet with higher protein and reduced carbohydrates improves body composition during weight loss. These diets provide a metabolic advantage during restricted energy intake that targets increased loss of body fat while reducing loss of muscle mass and stabilizing regulations of blood glucose. Dr. Donald Layman, a world leader in this area, has proposed that the branched-chain amino acid, leucine, is a key to the metabolic advantage of a higher protein diet (J Am Coll Nutr, 23:631S-636S, 2005).
A recent study reported that consumption of a diet rich in medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) results in greater loss of fat compared with olive oil, perhaps due to increased energy expenditure and fat burning observed with MCT intake. The investigators concluded that MCTs may be considered as agents that aid in the prevention of obesity or potentially stimulate weight loss (Obes Res, 11:395-402, 2003).]
What dietary supplements, if any, do you recommend to mimimize muscle mass loss during energy restriction?
Other than the “negative calorie” fats I mentioned, the only well-documented supplement combination to significantly increase fat loss relative to energy loss— hence a true “supplement” effect— is the ephedrine/caffeine protocol. Numerous confounding legal and political issues have rendered this approach moot with limited access and ambiguous consequences for personal use. Increasing the use of pure protein supplements will mitigate muscle loss and increase fat loss when reducing total energy from fats and carbohydrates. Other supplements [green tea, forskolin, HCA, etc.] have limited efficacy without a beta2 agonist in combination. Synephrine is predominately an alpha agonist clinically and in my opinion is more hazardous than ephedrine. Beta3 agonists have no clinical efficacy in human beings and thus octopamine is virtually worthless. Other than certain drugs, PPAR agonists/inhibitors (primarily modified fatty acids) have no documented efficacy to date regarding fat loss in humans. Guggulsterones are worthless fat loss agents.
[Editor´s Note: Recent studies suggest that forskolin may be an effective fat loss and/or weight management aid. Dr. Godard et al., reported that forskolin supplementation significantly decreases body fat percentage and fat mass while concurrently increasing bone mass in overweight and obese men. Also, the investigators noted that there was a trend toward a significant increase for lean body mass in the forskolin group (Obes Res, 13:1335-1343, 2005). More recently, Dr. Henderson et al., reported that forskolin doesn’t promote weight loss, but may help mitigate weight gain in overweight women. They suggested that forskolin has the potential to positively influence the loss and management of overall bodyweight, possibly as a means of maintaining weight after weight loss (J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2(2):54-62, 2005).
A study by Dr. Carpene et al., indicated that octopamine fully stimulated lipolysis (breakdown of storage fat) in rat, hamster and dog fat cells. In human fat cells, however, octopamine stimulated lipolysis only very weakly. Thus, it appears that octopamine is not an effective fat loss agent. (Naunyn-Schmiedeberg´s Arch Pharmacol, 359:310-321, 1999).]
How can average gym rats sort through all of the science and pseudo-science to determine for themselves if claims for nutritional products or regimens are valid?
The simple answer is “average” persons can’t distinguish truth from poetry in these areas. Prudence would suggest the need for the availability of a clinical human trial conducted by a third party without financial ties to the outcome. Unfortunately, even with this qualification, trials conducted under controlled conditions may not translate to free-living individuals. Technique errors and intellectual dishonestly are common in academic research. Published in the “journal of irreproducible results” is more than just a cliché. Probably the best measure is street credibility coupled with a well-articulated premise for efficacy. Products that perform well consistently over time are perpetuated in the marketplace by word-of-mouth market forces. Products that are over-hyped or are out and out frauds quickly disappear. My best advice would be “don’t be one of the first consumers to buy a product that seems too good to be true.”
