8 Weeks of 5mg/kg Zinc-Sulfate Fire Up Immune System of Turkish Wrestlers

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that I am generally opposed to mega-dose supplementation with isolated nutrients and so I do not really know what to make of the results of a recent investigation (Kara. 2011) into the effects of 5mg/kg bodyweight zinc-sulfate on cytokine response in 15–17 year-old male subjects.

At the beginning of the study, there were no significant differences of the measured parameters between the four study groups. At the end of the study, the levels of TNF-α, IL-2, and IFN-γ were significantly higher in the two zinc-supplemented groups compared to those that did not receive supplementation, regardless of the activity status (p < 0.01).

Most interestingly, mega-dose (I do not really get, why the authors call 350mg zinc, which would be the dose for a 70kg subject still "physiological") zinc-sulfate supplementation elevated TNF-alpha, IL-2 and IFN-Gamma by >90% regardless of whether the subjects were active sportsmen or sedentary.

Figure 1: Serum IL-2 levels in the study groups (pg/ml) (Kara. 2011)

Other than one might expect zinc supplementation did thus not only blunt exercise induced reductions in immunity, but provoked an overall increase in cytokines which are associated to leukocyte (IL-2) and macrophage (IFN-Gamma) or both (TNF-alpha) activation. In view of the not yet fully understood involvement of these cytokines in metabolic and autoimmune diseases, the authors' conclusion that this "Physiological dose of zinc supplementation to athletes may be useful for sport health and nutrition" does yet appear to be premature.

Energy Drinks Increase Resting Metabolic Rate, But Do Not Influence Energy Expenditure During Exercise

Ever wondered, whether the drink that was once rumored to contain "taurine from bull sperm" and similar fashionable "energy drinks" are of any use? Well, a recent study (Nienhuesser. 2011) coming from an international team of scientists showed that the consumption of each and every of the three energy drinks used in this study lead to a statistically significant increase in resting metabolic rate (RMR).

[...] in a randomly assigned cross-over design, the subjects consumed 473 ml of one of three commercially available energy drinks or a placebo and then RMR and RER [respiratory exchange ratio; i.e. a measure of the relative amount of fat/carbs that is used as fuel] were measured 1 hour later.  The subjects then engaged in 15 minutes of treadmill exercise at 50% of V02max, during which RER and oxygen consumption (VO2) were measured. RMR was not changed by placebo, but increased (P<0.05, means ± se) above baseline by 10 ± 2.5%, 15.0 ± 2.9%, and 15.3 ± 2.9%, following Energy Drink One, Energy Drink Two, and Energy Drink Three (respectively) [...]

In view of the stimulating effect, some of the ingredients (cf. Table 1) of these chemical containing beverages exhibit, these results do not come as a surprise.

Table 1: Listing of ingredients according to Nienhuesser. 2011

What may be surprising, however, is that the study results suggest that - at least from a "calorie expenditure" point of view - the consumption of an energy drink before exercise appears to be less effective than drinking it after exercise or at your desk at the office...

Gadgetry & Caffeine a Dynamic Duo for Sleep Deprivation and, Consequently, Obesity in School-Aged Children

Ever wondered what your children do, when you send them to bed in the evening? According to the results of a study from the Department of Family and Community Health at the University of Maryland School of Nursing, they probably drink Coke and watch TV or play video-games. Does not sound too bad? Well, Calamaro et al. found that children who

drank caffeinated beverages had 15 fewer minutes of sleep per night than did children who did not drink such beverages (b = –0.27, P = .002). Children with three technology items in their bedroom received 45 fewer minutes of sleep than did children without these items in their bedroom (b = –0.75, P = .010).

Still not impressed? What if I told you that these kids missed out on 15 to 60 minutes of what - to my mind - is the most healthiest, most anabolic and most lipolytic time of the day (sleep), and that the study provides evidence for the hypothesis that the immediate consequence of caffeine induced sleep deprivation is obesity? If you do now reconsider whether your 7 year old really needs his own TV-set and whether plain water ain't no viable alternative for Red Bull and Coca Cola, you've already taken the first step to make a change that could - in the years to come - save your children from turning from the "fat guy / girl" in elementary school into the fat and diabetic guy / girl at high school.

Arginine + Glycine a Synergistic Duo for Gut Health

Lately, "gut health" has become a topic of interest way beyond colonics and irritable bowel syndrome. Scientists begin to understand more and more how important an intact intestinal system is for nutrient absorption, infection defense and general health. The results of a very recent study published in the Journal of Colerectal Disease (Picano. 2011) are thus relevant for all of us.

In an experiment with rats Picano et al. found that a combination therapy of l-arginine and glycine inhibited irradiation induced damage to the colon walls of the animals:

Stereologic analysis showed that irradiation induced a reduction of the total volume of the colon wall of group II and III animals compared to healthy controls, but not of group IV animals supplemented with glycine. The mucosal layer of the irradiated animals of all groups was reduced compared to healthy group I animals, but supplementation with L-arginine and glycine was effective in maintaining the epithelial surface of the mucosal layer.

Although I hope none of you is treated (or otherwise exposed) to similar doses of ionizing radiation, it certainly won't hurt your gut health to have an eye on your dietary intake of these two amino acids, in order to maintain optimal gut health.

Caramel Coloring, E150D, or Coca Cola Brown: Not So Carcinogenic as Some People Would Have It

You probably have read it in the NEWS: "Caramel Coloring in Cola carcinogenic!" Well, after yesterday's post on aspartame, I thought it might be advisable to have a closer look at this one, as well. After all, it suddenly appeared more likely that the sulfite ammonia caramel in your diet coke would kill you than the overly dreaded artificial sweetener aspartame.

Although almost none of the webpages, which covered the carcinogenicity of caramel coloring cites the original source of this information, it is yet not difficult to find the respective study (Moon. 2001) on PubMed. It was published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry and contains the following small table with data about the amount of 4(5)-Methylimidazole (a byproduct of the production process) in five commercially available cola softdrinks:

cola soft-drink	amount (μg/mL)	in one bottle (μg/591 mL)
brand 1	0.36±0.02	212.76
brand 2	0.32±0.01	189.12
brand 3	0.30±0.01	177.30
brand 4	0.32±0.02	189.12
brand 5	0.36±0.00	212.76

Now, on their own, this figures are hardly significant. Put into the context of the findings of a previous study (NTP. 2007) on the toxicity of this particular chemical, however, they may be disquieting, yet far less alarming than the media would have it:

[...] carcinogenic incidences were observed in experimental mice when they were fed diets containing 0, 312, 625, or 1250 ppm 4-methylimidazole for 2 years. The amounts of 4-methylimidazole in these diets were equivalent to average daily doses of approximately 4, 80, and 170 mg/kg of body weight to mice. If a person weighing 60 kg consumes one bottle of cola soft drink, only 3.3 μg/kg 4-methylimidazole is ingested. Therefore, the amounts ingested from these beverages may not be significant.

As with my previous blogpost on aspartame. I do by no means want to trivialize the toxic potential of these chemicals; nor is it my intention to encourage the use of any chemical substances in foodstuff, BUT I want YOU not to fall victim to each and every fear monger, trying to tell you that XYZ will kill you instantly, when the very science he references tells otherwise. In fact, if you are a man you probably would not have to worry at all, since the NTP study showed "no evidence of carcinogenic activity of 4-methylimidazole in male F344/N rats" at either of the injected dosages over a 2 year period. And in case you are a women, you better open another bottle of coke immediately, because you still have 999x0.5l bottles of Coca Cola to drink today (and for the next 2 years) to "feed" the cancer ;-)

Carbohydrate Restriction Reduces Liver Triglycerides More Effectively Than Calorie Restriction - With Equal Weight Loss Outcomes.

A calorie is not a calorie, I hope you knew that even before Garry Taubes published his famous NY Times best-seller. Yet, in case you are still looking for respective studies to show to medially indoctrinated family members or friends, who still believe that - even if fat is not the enemy - half ratios would be the key to health & longevity, you might be interested in the results of a very recent investigation by Browning et al. (Browning. 2011).

The scientists put a group 18 non-alcoholic-fatty-liver patients on either a carbohydrate-restricted (<20g/day) or a calorie restricted (1200-1500kcal/day) diet - just to make sure you get this right: the carb-restricted group ate as much calories as they wanted! - and measured hepatic triglyceride levels before and after the 2 week dietary intervention. Probably to the surprise of many members of the medical orthodoxy, both groups lost about the same amount of weight (in fact the low-carb group lost -4.6kg, while the low-calorie group lost only -4.0kg!), yet the low-carb group had a much greater reduction in hepatic triglyceride levels:

Liver triglycerides decreased significantly with weight loss (P , 0.001) but decreased significantly more (P = 0.008) in carbohydrate-restricted subjects (-55.6%) than in calorie-restricted subjects (-28.6%).

So, even if you are not particularly interested in your liver health, the fact that by eating to satiety and just dropping your carb intake to <20g/day you can lose the same ~4.5kg you would lose if you starved yourself for 14 days should prick your ears.

Diet Coke & Liver Damage? Long Term Very High Dose Aspartame Consumption Impairs Antioxidant Defense of Rat Livers.

The ever-growing group of health conscious costumers is rightly very skeptical of artificial sweeteners in general and Aspartame in particular. A recent study (Abhilash. 2011) done by scientists from the Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam, Kerala, India, seems to rectify this attitude.

The scientists fed rats drinking water that contained either no, i.e. 0mg, 500mg or 1.000mg aspartame per kg body weight day for a period of 160days. The rats from the 1.000mg/kg group showed...

[...] a significant increase in activities of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and γ- glutamyl transferase (GGT). The concentration of reduced glutathione (GSH) and the activity of glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and glutathione reductase (GR) were significantly reduced in the liver of rats that had received aspartame (1000mg/kg.b.wt).

The presence of "leukocyte infiltration in aspartame-treated rats (1000mg/kg.b.wt)" further underlines that high dose aspartame consumption over a period of 160 days induced "hepatocellular injury and alterations in liver antioxidant status" by increasing the detoxification burden on the liver to supra-physiological levels.

Yet, what does that mean for the average consumer? Let us put the figures into perspective: 1 liter of diet coke contains about 390mg of aspartame. The rats in the high dose aspartame group in the study (which is the only one where anti-oxidant status fell enough to induce histological side effects) received 1.000mg/kg of aspartame per day. In human equivalent dosages (HED), this is 162mg/kg, which would be 11.35g of aspartame or 29 l diet coke for a 70kg adult. Not that I want to trivialize the possible liver toxicity due to aspartame consumption, but let's be honest: you would probably long have died from hyperhydration before you would notice any of the toxic effects induced by the consumption of an artificial sweetener, which - far from being healthy - is yet not as toxic as some health-fetishists would have it.

In spite of the fact that a diet coke here and there won't kill you, you should still ask yourselves, whether or not you really need this "spawn" of a society where we want all the convenience and (unnaturally sweet) taste of unhealthy foods without the negative consequences for our health? I mean, you obviously chose the "diet" version because you want to avoid sugar; but do you still want the sweet taste, which (at least for some artificial sweeteners, eg. Nakagawa. 2009) has been shown to increase insulin secretion even in the absence of direct beta cell stimulation!? If you are willing to accept this compromise and do not care about the other chemicals your average can of diet coke "nourishes" you with, fine! But do not tell me later on, I had told you that diet coke was good for you ;-)