Download Fitness Tools

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to be at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know from the (very different things) I've heard from (ex-)girl friends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.
According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.
"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).

Bicycling to work is one of these "small things" that may make the difference between lean and obese.

I know this is not what your friends will want to hear, but for 99.9% of them it's not their genes which are to blame for their inability to lose weight. It's much simpler than that: It's their inability or unwillingness to induce a large enough caloric deficit to force their bodies to tap into the fat stores. Don't get me wrong: It's obvious that genes, with their direct and indirect influence on one's basal energy requirements (think of being tall vs. being small, if nothing else), amount of muscle, and even ability to handle glucose and fats, will factor in here. In the end, however, it's everyone's knowledge about the dos and don'ts of dieting, effort and dietary adherence that will make the difference.

That's no news for you? I think the results of a recent study from the University of Kansas Medical Center and the Texas Tech University will still come as a surprise. Usually, we talk about cheating on one's diet, skipping scheduled workouts and eating foods people are not supposed to eat, when we discuss the reasons why people fail. The results of said study, however, suggest that something else may have a much larger impact: Our regular non-exercise physical activity.
If you've read my March 2015 article "It Doesn't Have to be an Exhaustive Workout - Increasing Physical Activity Just as Effective as Strength, Endurance or Combined Exercise to Lose Fat and Build Muscle" (read it now), you will know about the importance of "taking the stairs", standing instead of seating, bicycling to work and other often overlooked low-intensity non-exercise physical activity in our everyday lives. Interestingly enough, it is just this type of low intensity 'non-exercise' of which the so-called "Midwest Exercise Trial 2" indicates that it is what distinguishes the weight loss responders (>5% weight loss) from the non-responders (<5% weight loss) in a relatively tightly controlled "work out five times per week for 10 months to lose weight"-intervention by Herrmann et al. (2015).

Before we are dealing with this surprising result, though, let's first take a look at what exactly the N=141 18-30 year-old men overweight/obesity (BMI 25-40 kg/m²) subjects had to do in this 'exercise for weight loss study' (details can be found in the description the scientists published when they registered their clinical trial | Donelly. 2012):

• Table 1: It is important to note that there were no sign. baseline differences in weight, age, etc. between responders and non-responders among the study participants (Herrmann. 2015).

  the subjects exercised on 5 days of the week - one of the session was "choose the activity you want", the other sessions were performed under supervision walking/jogging on treadmill
• the duration / intensity of all workouts was matched to initially burn 150 kcal; from months for on, 400 and 600 kcal/session (this is in line with the "2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans" | USDA. 2008) 

I see you're looking for the dietary advise? Well, there was none. That may look awkward, but in view of the fact that the scientists wanted to see whether the simple adherence to the USDA "Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans" would make a difference, the subjects were told to stay on their regular (junk food?) diets.
As the name of the study or rather the index "2" in the name implies, the "Midwest Exercise Trial 2" is a follow up study. It's a follow up that was supposed to elucidate (a) what distinguishes responders from non-responders and whether (b) the gender differences in weight response Donelly et al. observed in their 2003 predecessor study were coincidental or something we have to keep in mind, whenever we are designing exercise-based weight loss routines for men and women..

Figure 1: Total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), nonexercise energy expenditure (NEEx), and resting metabolic rate (RMR) at baseline and 10 months in responders (RS) and nonresponders (NR) to an aerobic exercise intervention.

What should I say? If you look at the data it would almost seem as if (2) was the case: Men and women appear to respond very differently to this kind of exercise-based weight loss efforts. Yes, the data in Figure 1 shows that there is a trend for non-responders from both sexes to be less active in their free time and thus having a lower non-exercise induced energy expenditure (NEEEx). On the other hand, though, ...

1. Figure 2: Nonexercise physical activity (NEPA) and sedentary time across 10 months in responders (RS) and nonresponders (NR) to an aerobic exercise intervention (Herrmann. 2015).

   only the male non-responders are truly characterized by their tendency to take the five weekly workouts as an excuse to use the elevator and drive the 200m to the next fast-food outlet by car, while 
2. there is no such compensatory effect on NEEEx in the women and even an increase in resting metabolic rate (so no metabolic damage or shut-down) in the female non-responders

This trend for a "compensatory effect" on non-exercise physical activity (NEPA) in male and its absence is in female non-responders becomes even more obvious in Figure 2.

Figure 3: Rel. energy balance in male and female weight loss responders and non-responders in month 10 - data calculated as (total intake / total expenditure - 1)*100 based on data from Herrmann et al. (2015).

If we go back to my initial comment on caloric deficits and do the math that's required to calculate the relative difference between the total reported energy intake and the estimated energy expenditure, we get an excellent explanation for the fact that the male "non-responders" don't lose weight: They simply weren't in caloric deficit (see Figure 3); and that - and this is actually the most interesting finding - not because they ate more (the reported energy intake didn't change much), but because they moved less in their everyday lives!
References:

• Donnelly, Joseph E., et al. "Effects of a 16-month randomized controlled exercise trial on body weight and composition in young, overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial." Archives of Internal Medicine 163.11 (2003): 1343-1350.
• Donnelly, Joseph E., et al. "A randomized, controlled, supervised, exercise trial in young overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial II (MET2)." Contemporary clinical trials 33.4 (2012): 804-810.
• Herrmann, Stephen D., et al. "Energy intake, nonexercise physical activity, and weight loss in responders and nonresponders: The Midwest Exercise Trial 2." Obesity 23.8 (2015): 1539-1549.
• Klesges, Robert C., Linda H. Eck, and JoAnne W. Ray. "Who underreports dietary intake in a dietary recall? Evidence from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey." Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 63.3 (1995): 438.
• USDA, Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. "Physical activity guidelines for Americans." Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services (2008): 15-34.
• Poppitt, S. D., et al. "Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22.4 (1998): 303-311.
• Smith, Wayne T., Karen L. Webb, and Peter F. Heywood. "The implications of underreporting in dietary studies." Australian journal of public health 18.3 (1994): 311-314.

Since the natural melatonin production decreases as we age, it is (unfortunately) possible that younger women wouldn't see the same benefits as the >56 year-old subjects of the study at hand.

No, I am not recommending laziness here, and I doubt that you will arrive at a cover model physique with nothing but a handful of melatonin pills, but the results of a recent study from the Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark are too intriguing not to devote a whole waredownloadsoft article to them.

In said study, Anne Kristine Amstrup and colleagues tested whether there's anything to the rumors that have it that "melatonin [has] a positive effect on body weight and energy metabolism" (Amstrup. 2015). As the researchers rightly point out, previous "evidence for this relies mainly on animal models" (ibid). It was thus about time for someone to "determine the effects of melatonin on body composition, lipid and glucose metabolism in humans" (ibid).
In this case, said human beings were 81 post-menopausal Caucasian women (aged 56-73 years) diagnosed with osteopenia (T-score between -1 and -2.5 in the hip or spine). The Danish scientists randomized the women to receive

• either melatonin, at a dosage of 1 or 3 mg per day, or
• an identically looking placebo nightly (timing matters!)

for a total time-period of 12 months. There were no dietary or exercise interventions, but all study subjects received a daily supplementation of 800mg calcium and 20ug vitamin D3 (which obviously wouldn't affect the results, also because all of the participants had taken Ca + D3 for at least 3 months before the study began). With DXA, ...

"To assess body composition, we used a whole body scan by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, Hologic Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). We performed scans at baseline and after one year of treatment. Assessments included total and subtotal body mass (g), lean mass (g), fat mass (g) and percentages of body fat. We calculated body mass index (BMI) as body weight (kg) divided by height² (in metres)" (Amstrup. 2015).

... and a detailed analysis of the blood of their subjects, the body composition and biochemical analyses were similarly thorough as the randomization protocol which was performed by an external pharmacy (Skanderborg Pharmacy).
Each block consisted of eight individuals. In the blocks, the women were randomly allocated to treatment, i.e. four received placebo, while two received 1mg of melatonin and two received 3mg melatonin.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition (left) and adiponectin (right) in response to 1-3mg of melatonin taken at night over a 12-months period without further exercise or diet intervention (Amstrup. 2015).

This is also why I have little doubt that we can rely on the data in Figure 1 which shows an astonishingly pronounced reduction in fat mass and a borderline-significant increase in lean mass in the melatonin groups, when the subjects on the placebo supplements gained total (and %) body fat and lost lean mass in the same 12-months period.
The one thing I would still like to repeat is what I already mentioned in the caption of the thumbnail to this article: Since the natural melatonin production decreases as we age and menopaus (Okatani. 2000), it is (unfortunately) possible that younger women wouldn't see the same benefits as the >56 year-old subjects of the study at hand.

Figure 2: Rodent studies also show that melatonin supplementation prolongs the lifespan of the average mouse (Pierpaoli. 1994) and rat (see data in graph) significantly (Oaknin-Bendahan. 1995).

In a similar vein, it cannot be said with any certainty, whether men will benefit to the same extent as the post-menopausal women in the study at hand. While studies in rodents clearly suggest that melatonin works its weight reducing, life pro-longing (see Figure 2) in both male and female middle-aged rodents (Rasmussen. 1999; Wolden-Hanson. 2000), as well as rats who are fed an obesogenic diet like the standard American diet (Prunet-Marcassus. 2003), men are no little mice... but I guess you know that ;-)
References:

• Amstrup, et al. "Reduced fat mass and increased lean mass in response to one year of melatonin treatment in postmenopausal women: A randomized placebo controlled trial." Clinical Endocrinology (2015): Accepted article.
• Leonardo-Mendonça RC,  et al. "The benefits of four weeks of melatonin treatment on circadian patterns in resistance-trained athletes." Chronobiol Int. 11 (2015): 1-10. 
• Oaknin-Bendahan, Sol, et al. "Effects of long-term administration of melatonin and a putative antagonist on the ageing rat." Neuroreport 6.5 (1995): 785-788.
• Okatani, Yuji, Nobuyuki Morioka, and Akihiko Wakatsuki. "Changes in nocturnal melatonin secretion in perimenopausal women: correlation with endogenous estrogen concentrations." Journal of pineal research 28.2 (2000): 111-118.
• Prunet-Marcassus, Benedicte, et al. "Melatonin reduces body weight gain in Sprague Dawley rats with diet-induced obesity." Endocrinology 144.12 (2003): 5347-5352.
• Rasmussen, Dennis D., et al. "Daily melatonin administration at middle age suppresses male rate visceral fat, plasma leptin, and plasma insulin to youthful levels." Endocrinology 140.2 (1999): 1009-1012.
• Wolden-Hanson, T., et al. "Daily Melatonin Administration to Middle-Aged Male Rats Suppresses Body Weight, Intraabdominal Adiposity, and Plasma Leptin and Insulin Independent of Food Intake and Total Body Fat 1." Endocrinology 141.2 (2000): 487-497.

Don't expect weight loss wonders from high(er) protein and dairy intakes, but especially when the energy intake is not controlled both can have benefits the study at hand could not detect.

What's better a calorie reduced diet with the suggested amount of protein or one with a slightly higher amount of protein and extra low-fat dairy in it, when it comes to shedding the exuberant body fat off the hips, abs and buttocks of 104 overweight / obese (or with a body fat content of 37%+ "overfat") premenopausal women?

That's probably not exactly the way the scientists from the Utah State University, the Pennsylvania State University, the University of Illinois and the FB Technical Center (Shlisky. 2015) would phrase their research question, but in the end, their 24-week three-phase randomized weight loss intervention comes tried to answer exactly this question.
To learn more about the impact of higher protein intakes (30% vs. 20% of total energy intakes) and the purported "magic" of diets that are high in low fat dairy (in particular yogurt), Julie D. Shlisky and her colleagues had their subjects go through a three-phase weight loss intervention with

• the JumpStart phase (weeks 0–2), being intended to kickstart the subjects' weight loss on a ~35% energy deficit, phase (2), 
• the Weightloss phase (weeks 3–12; total of 12 weeks), during which the subjects were supposed to adhere to a 1,500-1,700kcal diet which came close to a 25-30% energy deficit compared to their baseline energy intakes, and
• the Weightloss Maintenance phase, (weeks 13–24; total of 12 weeks), over the course of which the subjects had to stick to a dietitian designed "energy-balanced" diet which had still ~20% less energy than the subjects baseline diet (see Figure 4, right)

If you look at the tabular overview of what the subjects eat (I won't reprint 4 pages from the full text here) you can easily get confused and think that there were five different groups, eventually it does yet all come down to two groups, the intervention (INT) and comparison (COM) groups and their different diets during the previously explained phases of the study.

Figure 1: Macronutrient compositions of the prescribed diets in the intervention and comparison group (Shlisky. 2015).

In that, the most significant inter-group difference were (a) the macronutrient composition with 30% PRO, 25% FAT, 45% CHO in the intervention group (INT) and 16-17% PRO, 24-25% FAT, 59% CHO in the comparison group (COM).

Figure 2: Total intake (g) of carbohydrates, proteins and fats during the 12 week weight loss and maintenance phases (Shlisky. 2015)

"[w]eekly educational sessions were held for both INT and COM groups throughout the 6- month study and included lessons on basic nutrition knowledge, exchange patterns of eating, portion size and control, purchasing and preparing food and modifying recipes as well as motivational lessons on outcome expectations, selfregulation and monitoring, problem- solving, lifestyle modification, emotion eating and motivation for walking" (Shlisky. 2015) 

In addition, the subjects were told to consume 5 servings per day (with a focus on low fat yogurt) in the intervention and 3 servings of dairy (excluding yogurt) in the comparison group, as well as to finally get their behind off the couch for a total of ~8,000-10,000 steps per day (that was ~30-40 minutes of walking per day).
Needless to say that the novelty of the physical activity, of which I'd like to remind you that it had the same volume for both groups, must be taken into consideration when we take a look at the results of the 24-wk study:

Figure 3: Relative changes in markers of body composition after the weight loss and weight maintenance phase; all values expressed as percent difference to the respective pre-values in both groups (Shilsky. 2015).

Now, if you look at the overall effects and inter-group differences in Figure 3, three things are remarkable: Firstly, all subjects lost a significant amount of body weight and body fat without having to starve themselves or spending hours on the elliptical or treadmill. Secondly, there were no inter-group differences, which means that neither the overall increase in protein intake (see Figure 2), nor the increased intake of low-fat dairy and most prominently yogurt (effectively, the difference was only 1 serving per day, because the INT subjects failed to hit their target of five and ate only four servings per day) had beneficial effect on (a) the actual weight and more importantly fat / lean mass loss and (b) the subjects' general ability to keep the weight off during the follow up.

Figure 4: Reduction in energy expenditure (% of baseline) and total step count (activity level) of the subjects in the weight loss and weight maintenance phases of the study (Shlisky. 2015)

If we also take into account the data from Figure 3 which depicts the reduction in energy intake from baseline and the total number of steps participants in both groups took on a daily basis, we could yet conclude that the lower dairy (no yogurt) + lower protein group achieved very similar results with less efforts. There is thus no debating the scientists conclusion that

"[h]ealthy premenopausal women with excess adiposity effectively lost BW and fat mass and improved some metabolic risk factors following an ERD with approximately 20% protein and 3 svg/d of nonfat dairy intake." (Shlisky. 2015)

The increased protein or dairy (in this case mostly yogurt) intake did after all not offer significant benefits, as neither of the existing differences in Figure 3 was statistically significant.
References:

• Bowen, Jane, Manny Noakes, and Peter M. Clifton. "A high dairy protein, high-calcium diet minimizes bone turnover in overweight adults during weight loss." The Journal of nutrition 134.3 (2004): 568-573.
• Bowen, J., M. Noakes, and P. M. Clifton. "Effect of calcium and dairy foods in high protein, energy-restricted diets on weight loss and metabolic parameters in overweight adults." International journal of obesity 29.8 (2005): 957-965.
• In particularly in conjunction with exercise, high(er) protein intakes have been proven have additive beneficial effects on body composition during weight loss (Layman. 2005)
• Josse, Andrea R., et al. "Increased consumption of dairy foods and protein during diet-and exercise-induced weight loss promotes fat mass loss and lean mass gain in overweight and obese premenopausal women." The Journal of nutrition 141.9 (2011): 1626-1634.
• Shlisky, Julie D., et al. "An energy‐reduced dietary pattern, including moderate protein and increased nonfat dairy intake combined with walking promotes beneficial body composition and metabolic changes in women with excess adiposity: a randomized comparative trial." Food Science & Nutrition (2015).
• Thorpe, Matthew P., et al. "A diet high in protein, dairy, and calcium attenuates bone loss over twelve months of weight loss and maintenance relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate diet in adults." The Journal of nutrition 138.6 (2008): 1096-1100.
• Zemel, Michael B., et al. "Calcium and dairy acceleration of weight and fat loss during energy restriction in obese adults." Obesity research 12.4 (2004): 582-590.