Many people are under the impression that keto diets are better for fat loss but worse for muscle growth than higher-carb diets.
Last week I posted a review on the ketogenic diet for concurrent athletes that concluded keto diets are actually equally effective for both fat loss and muscle growth.
Now a new meta-analysis specifically on strength trainees, both male and female, concluded that keto diets are indeed equally effective to gain muscle.
We recently published a systematic review of the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength and strength development in which we also looked at muscle growth.
Our conclusion was also that given the same energy and protein intake, low-carb diets are equally effective for muscle growth as higher-carb diets.
However, in practice many trainees that try to bulk on a ketogenic diet fail to do so. It's not easy for everyone to go into energy surplus on a keto diet due to the appetite suppressive effect it has and the limited food choices you have available.
I find it's particularly difficult to go to energy intake that require your fat intake to exceed your protein intake. You're almost forced to consume oils or butters at that point, which is not everyone's cup of coffee.
As a result, if you just lump all studies in the literature together and interpret those without scrutiny, you find that keto diets are indeed better for fat loss but worse for muscle growth. This was the conclusion of another recent meta-analysis on keto diets.
On a side note, I think exercise scientists are conducting too many meta-analyses at the moment and we'd be much better off with more original research.
Meta-analyses with only a few studies without careful interpretation of the included studies are of very limited value to the field.
In conclusion, you can gain muscle just fine on a low-carb diet if you consume enough calories and protein.
Red meat consumption does not cause cardiovascular disease,
new systematic review says
Red meat consumption is correlated with cardiovascular disease in many studies. However, people that eat more red meat on average also have a significantly worse lifestyle than people that eat less red meat.
They smoke more, they consume more sugar and they're less wealthy. So is red meat or one of these other factors the culprit? Covariate analyses are always limited by knowing the covariate and having it in your data set, among other limitations.
A new meta-analysis of the scientific literature sought to answer this question by looking at velocity stops.
During a set, your velocity gradually decreases until it reaches 0 in the biomechanical sticking point when you reach momentary muscle failure. The level of velocity loss can thus serve as an objective measure of how close to failure you are.
However, one problem with the use of velocity-based training is that the relationship between proximity to failure and velocity loss is highly individual and context-dependent. It differs per exercise, training intensity and individual.
New meta-analysis says 1.5 g/kg protein is enough to maximize strength development
One of my first articles was about the myth of 1 gram protein per pound of bodyweight. I argued 0.82 g/lb was more than enough to optimize our gains based on the research, in contrast to virtually every other source in fitness at the time.
This article stood the test of time extremely well. In 2017, I participated in a meta-analysis of the literature that found 1.6 g/kg/d was the break-off point of further benefits in gains.
After a single with 90% of 1RM, you can perform more reps across 4 sets of squats at 70% of 1RM.
That's what a new study by De Freitas et al. found. This phenomenon is called post-activation potentiation and it's one of my favorite advanced training techniques.
I use it in particular for these 2 groups of clients: 1) Powerlifters, obviously. If you're going to do heavy singles anyway, PAP(E) is a nice way to get some free extra volume for your hypertrophy work. It also helps you be explosive during the lighter sets.
The researchers had 2 groups of women and 2 groups of men train to either a 20% velocity loss per set or a 40% velocity loss per set. In other words, one group trained closer to failure than the other by performing more reps per set.
Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, but the magnitudes of improvement differed between groups. Women showed greater effect size gains from training closer to failure than men for 1RM strength and power.
I agree with the overall conclusion of the researchers, although we need a lot more research on strength training women.