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 systematic umbrella review of reviews used the Bradford Hill criteria to check if the associations between eating red meat and adverse health outcomes are likely to be causal.
Their conclusion: "We infer red and processed meat intakes are not causally related to cardiovascular disease outcomes due to consistently weak associations and a lack of coherence with experimental evidence.
However, we infer processed meat [...] intakes are potentially causally related to type 2 diabetes mellitus due to consistently strong associations."
One interesting finding was that the relationship between all-cause mortality and red meat consumption failed the specificity test,
because red meat intake also correlated with multiple causes of death for which there is no biological plausibility. Red meat intake correlated with accidental deaths, for example. Does eating red meat make you get into car crashes or fall of your roof?
Overall, the researchers argued unprocessed red meat consumption is not inherently unhealthy. However, processed red meat consumption seems to cause type II diabetes, although it's unclear how.
The team of researchers declare they received money from the meat industry to fund their research but the sponsors were not involved in the research itself.
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.
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.