<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Research Review Archives - Bodyrecomposition</title>
	<atom:link href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/category/research/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com</link>
	<description>The Home of Lyle McDonald</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2020 22:27:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.10</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Muscle Fiber Adaptations to Rep Max or Relative Intensity</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/muscle-fiber-adaptations</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2019 18:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://bodyrecomposition.com/?p=15265</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>So there&#8217;s a war brewin&#8217;.  Or rather a war going on.  The war over volume versus intensity/tension.  So over the past three weeks I wrote a <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-part-1.html/">series</a> of <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-and-muscle-growth-2">articles</a> examining the <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-and-muscle-growth-3">issue</a> of muscular tension, it&#8217;s importance in initiating growth (it is the primary factor in growth no matter how anybody wants to cut it) and, among other topics discussed the idea of effective reps.</p>
<h2>What Are Effective Reps?</h2>
<p>The idea here is that the repetitions that actually turn on the FAK/PA/mTOR pathway are the repetitions done under maximum recruitment (said recruitment being reachable in multiple ways).  With some currently unknown number of &#8220;effective reps&#8221; being optimal for turning on growth (nobody including me has EVER said there isn&#8217;t a volume component to growth.  Only that it isn&#8217;t the primary driver.)</p>
<p>I&#8217;d mention that  I am by no means the first to write about or conceptualize this idea, I might add. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/muscle-fiber-adaptations" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/muscle-fiber-adaptations">Muscle Fiber Adaptations to Rep Max or Relative Intensity</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So there&#8217;s a war brewin&#8217;.  Or rather a war going on.  The war over volume versus intensity/tension.  So over the past three weeks I wrote a <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-part-1.html/">series</a> of <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-and-muscle-growth-2">articles</a> examining the <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/muscular-tension-and-muscle-growth-3">issue</a> of muscular tension, it&#8217;s importance in initiating growth (it is the primary factor in growth no matter how anybody wants to cut it) and, among other topics discussed the idea of effective reps.</p>
<h2>What Are Effective Reps?</h2>
<p>The idea here is that the repetitions that actually turn on the FAK/PA/mTOR pathway are the repetitions done under maximum recruitment (said recruitment being reachable in multiple ways).  With some currently unknown number of &#8220;effective reps&#8221; being optimal for turning on growth (nobody including me has EVER said there isn&#8217;t a volume component to growth.  Only that it isn&#8217;t the primary driver.)</p>
<p>I&#8217;d mention that  I am by no means the first to write about or conceptualize this idea, I might add. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/muscle-fiber-adaptations" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/muscle-fiber-adaptations">Muscle Fiber Adaptations to Rep Max or Relative Intensity</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Trained Men</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/training-volume-trained-men</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lyle McDonald]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://bodyrecomposition.com/?p=15041</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I had previously reviewed this paper on the website.  However, it was <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/15/2/article-p268.xml?fbclid=IwAR1WQyWqqU8agN_3w0DBFZPCLpioGPT8OuAfRcG1DSSEn83j-ULlk3hHCX0" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">announced on April 28th, 2020, that this paper had been retracted</a>.  The reason given was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This article has been retracted at the request of the authors on April 16, 2020. They performed an a posteriori analysis of the data and identified inconsistencies that changed their evaluation of the results. The authors apologize for the inconvenience.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But no more information has been provided at this time.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> posteriori does not have to do with your butt.  So <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/hip-thrust-better-than-squat">settle down Bret</a>.</p>
<p>My hope is that the paper will be republished or at least the change in results interpretation will be made available.  But rather than simply depublish my article, I felt it was the honest thing to make it clear that it had been retracted at this time.</p>
<p>If, at some point, it is republished with new results, I will re-examine it. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/training-volume-trained-men" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/training-volume-trained-men">Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Trained Men</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had previously reviewed this paper on the website.  However, it was <a href="https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/15/2/article-p268.xml?fbclid=IwAR1WQyWqqU8agN_3w0DBFZPCLpioGPT8OuAfRcG1DSSEn83j-ULlk3hHCX0" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">announced on April 28th, 2020, that this paper had been retracted</a>.  The reason given was:</p>
<blockquote><p>This article has been retracted at the request of the authors on April 16, 2020. They performed an a posteriori analysis of the data and identified inconsistencies that changed their evaluation of the results. The authors apologize for the inconvenience.</p></blockquote>
<p>But no more information has been provided at this time.</p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> posteriori does not have to do with your butt.  So <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/training/hip-thrust-better-than-squat">settle down Bret</a>.</p>
<p>My hope is that the paper will be republished or at least the change in results interpretation will be made available.  But rather than simply depublish my article, I felt it was the honest thing to make it clear that it had been retracted at this time.</p>
<p>If, at some point, it is republished with new results, I will re-examine it. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/training-volume-trained-men" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/training-volume-trained-men">Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Trained Men</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Challenge to Brad Schoenfeld and Others</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-challenge-to-brad-schoenfeld-and-others</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lyle McDonald]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:03:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://bodyrecomposition.com/?p=14419</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>So I had originally said I would leave this be, that this wasn&#8217;t a rap battle, <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/a-response-to-james-krieger.html/">after writing my last detailed criticism of the recent Brad Schoenfeld study</a>.  Well clearly that&#8217;s not the case.</p>
<h3>More on the Statistics</h3>
<p>First let me point readers to a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/9i9h0j/the_schoenfeld_volume_study_results_do_not/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thorough analysis of the statistics used in Brad&#8217;s paper by Brian Bucher</a>.  Basically he takes them apart and shows that none of the THREE metrics supports their strongly worded conclusions.</p>
<p>None of them.</p>
<p>In this vein, here&#8217;s something interesting.</p>
<p>Brad and his group have NEVER used Bayesian statistics until this paper.  I searched on my folder of his papers and the term Bayesian shows up 4 times.  Three are papers that Menno Henselmans was on and it&#8217;s his email address.  The fourth is one of James Krieger&#8217;s meta analyses.  At best James has used them before.</p>
<p>Now I find this interesting because there is no way to know if Brad and James had planned to use this approach ahead of time. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-challenge-to-brad-schoenfeld-and-others" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-challenge-to-brad-schoenfeld-and-others">A Challenge to Brad Schoenfeld and Others</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So I had originally said I would leave this be, that this wasn&#8217;t a rap battle, <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/a-response-to-james-krieger.html/">after writing my last detailed criticism of the recent Brad Schoenfeld study</a>.  Well clearly that&#8217;s not the case.</p>
<h3>More on the Statistics</h3>
<p>First let me point readers to a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/weightroom/comments/9i9h0j/the_schoenfeld_volume_study_results_do_not/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thorough analysis of the statistics used in Brad&#8217;s paper by Brian Bucher</a>.  Basically he takes them apart and shows that none of the THREE metrics supports their strongly worded conclusions.</p>
<p>None of them.</p>
<p>In this vein, here&#8217;s something interesting.</p>
<p>Brad and his group have NEVER used Bayesian statistics until this paper.  I searched on my folder of his papers and the term Bayesian shows up 4 times.  Three are papers that Menno Henselmans was on and it&#8217;s his email address.  The fourth is one of James Krieger&#8217;s meta analyses.  At best James has used them before.</p>
<p>Now I find this interesting because there is no way to know if Brad and James had planned to use this approach ahead of time. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-challenge-to-brad-schoenfeld-and-others" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-challenge-to-brad-schoenfeld-and-others">A Challenge to Brad Schoenfeld and Others</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Response to James Krieger and Brad Schoenfeld</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-response-to-james-krieger</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lyle McDonald]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://bodyrecomposition.com/?p=14353</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>So there&#8217;s a war brewing in online fitness land.  About three weeks ago, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153194/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Brad Schoenfeld et. al. released a paper purporting to show that more volume meant more growth with 30 sets per week for upper body and 45 sets for lower body outperforming lower and more moderate volumes</a>.  To say there has been a shitstorm, much of which is driven by myself, is a bit of an understatement.</p>
<p>I wrote a fairly critical piece about that paper (that had issues, see below) and brought up several other problems with it (including one I will finish this piece with).  My questions at Brad or James went completely unanswered with any number of deflections and obfuscations occurring throughout. Even when others, not me, asked similar questions, they went unanswered or were deflected with the kind of behaviors only the best gurus use.</p>
<h2>James Krieger, Just Another Lame Guru</h2>
<p>Then, a few days ago, James Krieger wrote an article explaining why different studies find different results to &#8220;address criticisms being leveled at the study by certain people (like Lyle McDonald)&#8221;. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-response-to-james-krieger" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-response-to-james-krieger">A Response to James Krieger and Brad Schoenfeld</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So there&#8217;s a war brewing in online fitness land.  About three weeks ago, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153194/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Brad Schoenfeld et. al. released a paper purporting to show that more volume meant more growth with 30 sets per week for upper body and 45 sets for lower body outperforming lower and more moderate volumes</a>.  To say there has been a shitstorm, much of which is driven by myself, is a bit of an understatement.</p>
<p>I wrote a fairly critical piece about that paper (that had issues, see below) and brought up several other problems with it (including one I will finish this piece with).  My questions at Brad or James went completely unanswered with any number of deflections and obfuscations occurring throughout. Even when others, not me, asked similar questions, they went unanswered or were deflected with the kind of behaviors only the best gurus use.</p>
<h2>James Krieger, Just Another Lame Guru</h2>
<p>Then, a few days ago, James Krieger wrote an article explaining why different studies find different results to &#8220;address criticisms being leveled at the study by certain people (like Lyle McDonald)&#8221;. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-response-to-james-krieger" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/a-response-to-james-krieger">A Response to James Krieger and Brad Schoenfeld</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Protein Intake and Post Workout Protein Synthesis</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/protein-intake-protein-synthesis</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=13597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A long standing debate in the field of nutrition is how much protein should be consumed after training to provide an optimal stimulus for protein synthesis.  Let me note that only focusing on MPS is <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth">short-sighted at best and moronic at worst</a>.  Today I want to look at the following paper which addresses the issue.</p>
<p><a href="https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy2.12893" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">MacNaughton et. al. The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein.  hysiol Rep, 4 (15), 2016, e12893</a></p>
<h2>Around Workout Nutrition</h2>
<p>This paper is quite timely given that I&#8217;m currently mired (yes, mired) in the around workout nutrition chapter of the <a href="https://store.bodyrecomposition.com/the-womens-book-vol1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">woman&#8217;s book</a>.  Now, in recent years, the whole post-workout nutrition thing (or more generally around workout or peri-workout nutrition) has become a little bit more confusing than it was originally.</p>
<p>Back in the day everybody knew you had to consume carbs and fluids (endurance athlete) or carbs and protein (resistance training) for optimal results.&#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/protein-intake-protein-synthesis" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/protein-intake-protein-synthesis">Protein Intake and Post Workout Protein Synthesis</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A long standing debate in the field of nutrition is how much protein should be consumed after training to provide an optimal stimulus for protein synthesis.  Let me note that only focusing on MPS is <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth">short-sighted at best and moronic at worst</a>.  Today I want to look at the following paper which addresses the issue.</p>
<p><a href="https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.14814/phy2.12893" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">MacNaughton et. al. The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein.  hysiol Rep, 4 (15), 2016, e12893</a></p>
<h2>Around Workout Nutrition</h2>
<p>This paper is quite timely given that I&#8217;m currently mired (yes, mired) in the around workout nutrition chapter of the <a href="https://store.bodyrecomposition.com/the-womens-book-vol1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">woman&#8217;s book</a>.  Now, in recent years, the whole post-workout nutrition thing (or more generally around workout or peri-workout nutrition) has become a little bit more confusing than it was originally.</p>
<p>Back in the day everybody knew you had to consume carbs and fluids (endurance athlete) or carbs and protein (resistance training) for optimal results.&hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/protein-intake-protein-synthesis" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/protein-intake-protein-synthesis">Protein Intake and Post Workout Protein Synthesis</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strength and Muscle Mass Increases in Young Women</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/strength-muscle-mass-women</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=13478</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t usually bother with studies on untrained beginners.  The main reason is that, to a first approximation, everything more or less works the same.  One set or three sets, twice a week or three times per week, different loading parameters&#8230;it usually ends up being about the same.  So it doesn&#8217;t really tell us anything under most circumstances.  Certainly nothing you could apply to a non-beginner.</p>
<p>There are occasional exceptions, studies on beginners that do make an interesting observation at least for beginners.  Specifically in this case is a study that looked at differences in strength and muscle mass for untrained women doing simple or complex exercises.  So today I want to look at the following paper:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9459538/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Chilibeck PD et. al. A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;77(1-2):170-5.</a></p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>I haven&#8217;t done a research review in a fairly long time since I think I found it more useful to write articles and just link out. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/strength-muscle-mass-women" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/strength-muscle-mass-women">Strength and Muscle Mass Increases in Young Women</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t usually bother with studies on untrained beginners.  The main reason is that, to a first approximation, everything more or less works the same.  One set or three sets, twice a week or three times per week, different loading parameters&#8230;it usually ends up being about the same.  So it doesn&#8217;t really tell us anything under most circumstances.  Certainly nothing you could apply to a non-beginner.</p>
<p>There are occasional exceptions, studies on beginners that do make an interesting observation at least for beginners.  Specifically in this case is a study that looked at differences in strength and muscle mass for untrained women doing simple or complex exercises.  So today I want to look at the following paper:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9459538/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Chilibeck PD et. al. A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;77(1-2):170-5.</a></p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>I haven&#8217;t done a research review in a fairly long time since I think I found it more useful to write articles and just link out. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/strength-muscle-mass-women" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/strength-muscle-mass-women">Strength and Muscle Mass Increases in Young Women</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dietary Restraint and Cortisol Levels</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=11353</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve done a research review in a while and even though I imagine some visitors to the site may be getting tired of topics related to the book I&#8217;m working on, well, that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m currently working on so it&#8217;s kind of at the top of my mind right now.  Today I want to look at how dietary restraint impacts on cortisol levels based on the following paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11124742/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">McLean JA et. al. Cognitive dietary restraint is associated with higher urinary cortisol excretion in healthy premenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jan;73(1):7-12</a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p>And you can get the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124742" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">free full text here</a>.</p>
<h2>A Primer on Cortisol</h2>
<p>I imagine most visitors to my site are familiar with the hormone cortisol, even if many aren&#8217;t quite clear on what it does. Cortisol is often thought of as a &#8220;bad&#8221; hormone but this is too simplistic; what cortisol does in the body depends on a host of factors.&#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels">Dietary Restraint and Cortisol Levels</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve done a research review in a while and even though I imagine some visitors to the site may be getting tired of topics related to the book I&#8217;m working on, well, that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m currently working on so it&#8217;s kind of at the top of my mind right now.  Today I want to look at how dietary restraint impacts on cortisol levels based on the following paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11124742/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">McLean JA et. al. Cognitive dietary restraint is associated with higher urinary cortisol excretion in healthy premenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jan;73(1):7-12</a><strong>.</strong></p>
<p>And you can get the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11124742" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">free full text here</a>.</p>
<h2>A Primer on Cortisol</h2>
<p>I imagine most visitors to my site are familiar with the hormone cortisol, even if many aren&#8217;t quite clear on what it does. Cortisol is often thought of as a &#8220;bad&#8221; hormone but this is too simplistic; what cortisol does in the body depends on a host of factors.&hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels">Dietary Restraint and Cortisol Levels</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Does the Menstrual Cycle Affect Energy Balance?</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/menstrual-cycle-energy-balance</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=2108</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>One of the primary factors that <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/women/female-vs-male-physiology">separate women and men</a> is the presence of the menstrual cycle, the roughly 28 day cycle during which her primary sex hormones estrogen and progesterone change in a fairly &#8220;standard&#8221; pattern.  During this time, nearly every aspect of her physiology changes.  Specific to today&#8217;s article I want to look at the impact of the menstrual cycle on <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation">energy balance</a> (i.e. calorie intake vs. calorie expenditure).    In doing so I will be primarily looking at the following paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684511" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">L Davidsen et. al. Impact of the menstrual cycle on determinants of energy balance: a putative role in weight loss attempts. International Journal of Obesity (2007) 31, 887-890</a></p>
<h2>Women and Body Composition</h2>
<p>As I discuss in extreme detail in <a href="https://store.bodyrecomposition.com/the-womens-book-vol1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Women&#8217;s Book</a> women get the short of the end of the stick when it comes to body composition.  Their bodies fight back harder, they lose both weight and fat slower (even given an identical intervention), they tend to gain fat more easily, they gain muscle more slowly, etc. &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/menstrual-cycle-energy-balance" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/menstrual-cycle-energy-balance">How Does the Menstrual Cycle Affect Energy Balance?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the primary factors that <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/women/female-vs-male-physiology">separate women and men</a> is the presence of the menstrual cycle, the roughly 28 day cycle during which her primary sex hormones estrogen and progesterone change in a fairly &#8220;standard&#8221; pattern.  During this time, nearly every aspect of her physiology changes.  Specific to today&#8217;s article I want to look at the impact of the menstrual cycle on <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation">energy balance</a> (i.e. calorie intake vs. calorie expenditure).    In doing so I will be primarily looking at the following paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684511" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">L Davidsen et. al. Impact of the menstrual cycle on determinants of energy balance: a putative role in weight loss attempts. International Journal of Obesity (2007) 31, 887-890</a></p>
<h2>Women and Body Composition</h2>
<p>As I discuss in extreme detail in <a href="https://store.bodyrecomposition.com/the-womens-book-vol1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Women&#8217;s Book</a> women get the short of the end of the stick when it comes to body composition.  Their bodies fight back harder, they lose both weight and fat slower (even given an identical intervention), they tend to gain fat more easily, they gain muscle more slowly, etc. &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/menstrual-cycle-energy-balance" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/menstrual-cycle-energy-balance">How Does the Menstrual Cycle Affect Energy Balance?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Low Fat or Low Carb Diets Superior?</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/low-fat-vs-low-carb-diets</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=11204</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A long-standing debate in the field of dieting for fat loss is over the relative superiority of low fat and low carb diets in terms of which is superior.  Today I want to address the issue by examining the following research paper by Kevin Hall.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hall, KD et. al. Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity Cell Metabolism  Cell Metabolism (2015) 22: 1–10.</a></p>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<h2><span style="font-size: 32px;">The Diet Debate: Low Fat or Low Carb</span></h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>For years the debate over reduced fat or reduced carbohydrates has gone on and it shows no sign of stopping.  The pendulum has actually swung over the years.  In the 70&#8217;s, the Atkins diet drove interest in very low/reduced carbohydrate diets.</p>
<p>In the 80&#8217;s, reduced fat diets came into vogue as it looked like dietary fat was more easily stored as body fat and it looked like, so long as fat intake was kept low enough, weight and fat loss would happen (this was true until people went nuts and started overeating low fat foods in excess).&#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/low-fat-vs-low-carb-diets" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/low-fat-vs-low-carb-diets">Are Low Fat or Low Carb Diets Superior?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A long-standing debate in the field of dieting for fat loss is over the relative superiority of low fat and low carb diets in terms of which is superior.  Today I want to address the issue by examining the following research paper by Kevin Hall.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hall, KD et. al. Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity Cell Metabolism  Cell Metabolism (2015) 22: 1–10.</a></p>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<h2><span style="font-size: 32px;">The Diet Debate: Low Fat or Low Carb</span></h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>For years the debate over reduced fat or reduced carbohydrates has gone on and it shows no sign of stopping.  The pendulum has actually swung over the years.  In the 70&#8217;s, the Atkins diet drove interest in very low/reduced carbohydrate diets.</p>
<p>In the 80&#8217;s, reduced fat diets came into vogue as it looked like dietary fat was more easily stored as body fat and it looked like, so long as fat intake was kept low enough, weight and fat loss would happen (this was true until people went nuts and started overeating low fat foods in excess).&hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/low-fat-vs-low-carb-diets" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/low-fat-vs-low-carb-diets">Are Low Fat or Low Carb Diets Superior?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Dieters Paradox</title>
		<link>https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/the-dieters-paradox</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lylemcd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Research Review]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/?p=8649</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In writing this, I am reminded of an old joke/quip to the effect that &#8220;All that separates man from the animals is our ability to rationalize.&#8221;   I&#8217;d add &#8220;And accessorize&#8221; but that&#8217;s neither here nor there.   The reality is that humans are able to engage in amazing mental gymnastics sometimes.  As psychologists put it, we are slaves to cognitive bias.  In this context, I want to look at an odd little paper addressing what they call the dieter&#8217;s paradox.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740810000987" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-size: medium;">Chernev A.  The Dieters Paradox.  Journal of Consumer Psychology.  (2001) 21: 178-183.</span></a></p>
<h2>Cognitive Bias in Diet and Exercise</h2>
<p>I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;d say that people do or do not engage in more cognitive bias when it comes to nutrition than in other areas of life but but there is no doubt that they do.  Some of this is conscious but much of it can be chalked up to either unconscious behaviors, misunderstandings (<a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/reason-youre-not-losing-weight">or a lack of information/education</a>) or mishearing or misinterpreting the message.  &#8230; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/the-dieters-paradox" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/the-dieters-paradox">The Dieters Paradox</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In writing this, I am reminded of an old joke/quip to the effect that &#8220;All that separates man from the animals is our ability to rationalize.&#8221;   I&#8217;d add &#8220;And accessorize&#8221; but that&#8217;s neither here nor there.   The reality is that humans are able to engage in amazing mental gymnastics sometimes.  As psychologists put it, we are slaves to cognitive bias.  In this context, I want to look at an odd little paper addressing what they call the dieter&#8217;s paradox.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740810000987" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"><span style="font-size: medium;">Chernev A.  The Dieters Paradox.  Journal of Consumer Psychology.  (2001) 21: 178-183.</span></a></p>
<h2>Cognitive Bias in Diet and Exercise</h2>
<p>I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;d say that people do or do not engage in more cognitive bias when it comes to nutrition than in other areas of life but but there is no doubt that they do.  Some of this is conscious but much of it can be chalked up to either unconscious behaviors, misunderstandings (<a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/reason-youre-not-losing-weight">or a lack of information/education</a>) or mishearing or misinterpreting the message.  &hellip; <a href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/the-dieters-paradox" class="read-more">Keep Reading </a></p><p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/the-dieters-paradox">The Dieters Paradox</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://bodyrecomposition.com">Bodyrecomposition</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
