Diets and body composition (Review)

[WillBrink]

This new ISSN position paper summarizes what people need to know about diet and bodycomp:

International society of sports nutrition position stand: diets and body composition

Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition201714:16

Abstract

Position Statement: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) bases the following position stand on a critical analysis of the literature regarding the effects of diet types (macronutrient composition; eating styles) and their influence on body composition. The ISSN has concluded the following.

1) There is a multitude of diet types and eating styles, whereby numerous subtypes fall under each major dietary archetype.

2) All body composition assessment methods have strengths and limitations.

3) Diets primarily focused on fat loss are driven by a sustained caloric deficit. The higher the baseline body fat level, the more aggressively the caloric deficit may be imposed. Slower rates of weight loss can better preserve lean mass (LM) in leaner subjects.

4) Diets focused primarily on accruing LM are driven by a sustained caloric surplus to facilitate anabolic processes and support increasing resistance-training demands. The composition and magnitude of the surplus, as well as training status of the subjects can influence the nature of the gains.

5) A wide range of dietary approaches (low-fat to low-carbohydrate/ketogenic, and all points between) can be similarly effective for improving body composition.

6) Increasing dietary protein to levels significantly beyond current recommendations for athletic populations may result in improved body composition. Higher protein intakes (2.3–3.1 g/kg FFM) may be required to maximize muscle retention in lean, resistance-trained subjects under hypocaloric conditions. Emerging research on very high protein intakes (>3 g/kg) has demonstrated that the known thermic, satiating, and LM-preserving effects of dietary protein might be amplified in resistance-training subjects.

7) The collective body of intermittent caloric restriction research demonstrates no significant advantage over daily caloric restriction for improving body composition.

8) The long-term success of a diet depends upon compliance and suppression or circumvention of mitigating factors such as adaptive thermogenesis.

9) There is a paucity of research on women and older populations, as well as a wide range of untapped permutations of feeding frequency and macronutrient distribution at various energetic balances combined with training. Behavioral and lifestyle modification strategies are still poorly researched areas of weight management.

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-017-0174-y

[M Sadler]

Not trying to be a dick but ISSN is a joke. Their contributions to sports nutrition is about as credible as BALCO's contributions to sports performance. Seriously, other than a pay-to-play accrediting body and hosting seminars for wanna-be personal trainers, all they seem to do is aggregate and regurgitate other peoples studies.

[WillBrink]

Their contributions to sports nutrition is about as credible as BALCO's contributions to sports performance. Seriously, other than a pay-to-play accrediting body and hosting seminars for wanna-be personal trainers, all they seem to do is aggregate and regurgitate other peoples studies.

Not one word above would I agree with. A simple search of authors from the ISSN, using that position paper for example, many of whom I know well, have published more primary lit on sports nutri, supplements, etc than anyone else out there. Many (1) have published stacks of studies in various high impact journals, etc, etc. and have added considerable original "contributions to sports performance" lit. The ISSN journal itself, publishes as much, if not more, primary original data as any I'm aware of on the field of sports nutri. That's probably the most in depth paper on that topic I'm aware of and used original sources from a variety of sources.

A review paper/position paper, is by it's nature and design an aggregate of other authors data.

(1) Earnest, Kalman, Stout, Willoughby, Campbell, Smith-Ryan, Antonio, Schoenfeld, Kleiner, for starters

[WillBrink]

Not trying to be a dick but ISSN is a joke. Their contributions to sports nutrition is about as credible as BALCO's contributions to sports performance. Seriously, other than a pay-to-play accrediting body and hosting seminars for wanna-be personal trainers, all they seem to do is aggregate and regurgitate other peoples studies.

Vs starting a new thread, I thought this a worthy thread bump:


Bias in research. Bias in research is something to be concerned about be it supplement industry or pharma. I do like to point out however that much dismissal of supplements has been the accusation of bias and researchers in the supplement/sports nutri industry being financially motivated, yet it's as bad if not worse in pharma! What irks me is the double standard that exists and continues to exist. Be it supplements, drugs, or any health/med related topic, bias (intentionally or unintentionally) is a factor that must constantly be suspected and that's why an a corner stone of "good" science is being reproducible. No single study not matter who it comes from, especially if it originates from people/groups with a potential conflict of interest (and some fail to divulge that!) should be viewed as authoritative until it's been reproduced by other researchers in the field. There's no lack of studies finding research done by people/groups with financial connections directly or indirectly tend to find positive results than those not. Is it getting worse? That I'm not sure of, but this article worth a read:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/special-...ngtheBar/58048