Check Out What I’ve Been Checking Out
What I’m Reading
“Physiological Bases for the Superiority of Apolipoprotein B Over Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Non–High‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol as a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk”
While refreshing myself on lipidology concepts in preparation for an upcoming dive into research on saturated fat and cardiovascular disease risk, I read through the article above by Glavinovic et al. about the superiority of the Apo-B metric over cholesterol-based metrics (i.e. LDL-C, Total Cholesterol, and Non-HDL-C) for predicting cardiovascular disease risk.
For those of you lost in the paragraph above, I’m talking about the blood markers that your primary care physician checks when they order a lipid panel for you. If that doesn’t ring a bell, maybe phrases like, “good” and “bad” cholesterol will. If you’re interested in learning more about this stuff–you might be, considering that cardiovascular disease (largely heart attacks and strokes) is the leading cause of death globally–I covered it previously in the Learning Lipids Series.
Now, for those of you that previously read through that series and are caught up to speed, you’ll appreciate the quote below from the paper I cited above.
“Neither triglycerides nor LDL‐C are accurate markers of VLDL or LDL particle numbers. VLDL and LDL particles are atherogenic, but there is no way to integrate their risk using triglycerides and LDL‐C. apoB simplifies clinical care because it provides an accurate summary estimate of the atherogenic risk attributable to all apoB lipoprotein particles. Except for dysbetalipoproteinemia, triglycerides, LDL‐C, and non–HDL‐C add no significant information about cardiovascular risk to apoB, whereas apoB adds significant information to triglycerides, LDL‐C, and non–HDL‐C. At the same time, by integrating the information from lipids and apoB, detailed and accurate discrimination of the various dyslipoproteinemias becomes possible. Adding apoB to a conventional lipid panel converts the disorders of lipid metabolism to the disorders of lipoprotein metabolism.”
“The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular Size and Function”
In a previous post, I discussed misconceptions around muscle maintenance, specifically that it takes much less volume (i.e. sets per week) than most people think to maintain or even make progress in terms of strength and muscle mass gains.
The study above by Ostrowski et al. is another example of research supporting this notion. Amongst other interesting findings, it showed that trained subjects completing 1 set each of squat, leg press, and leg extensions per week gained ~6.8% and ~3.0% in cross-sectional area and circumference of the rectus femoris (one of the quadriceps muscles) and added 22 lbs to their 1-repetition-maximum squat (i.e. the most amount of weight they could squat for a single repetition).
Notably, based on a pre-study questionnaire, they were completing ⅓ the number of sets for quadriceps during the study compared to their training volume before the study. Also, the subjects showed similar results for triceps muscle growth and bench press strength, though they were completing 5 total sets of pressing per week as well as 2 sets of additional triceps exercises per week.
What I’m Watching
“Are Deloads Killing Your Gains? (Latest Science)”
“Does Diet Soda Actually Cause Weight GAIN?”
“Important Point About Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer Research”
What I’m Listening To
“Training Minimalism: Can You Get More Gains With Less Work? (feat. Dr. Pak)”
P.S. Is it a ridiculous idea to subscribe for more useful health and fitness content for FREE?
If not, hit that subscribe button below.