Nootropic Battle Conclusion: Acetyl-L-Carnitine vs. Ginkgo Biloba vs. Taurine

The search for ways to improve cognition and mood continues. (Photo by mtungate)

For the past several months, I've been experimenting with these three supplements to see if they have an effect on cognitition and mood. Many people report good effects, and there is some scientific evidence to support these claims.

However, because of the nature of the medicine business, most of the studies have been done either on animals or on people suffering from a disease such as Alzheimer's. The use of these supplements as nootropics in healthy people is therefore something of a grey area.

The idea of the experiment was to find out if they might increase mood, energy or cognitive performance using myself as the test subject. Below is a description of my experiences with each of the supplements along with a quick summary of the science behind their use.

Taurine

Taurine is added into many energy drinks, but the evidence behind its effectiveness is very limited. In mice, fairly low doses of taurine have been shown to either increase or decrease social interaction and anxiety, whereas in humans data is virtually non-existent except as a treatment for alcoholism.

In my own experiments, I did not see any effect from taking taurine. The recommended amount on the label is 675 mg between meals or at bedtime; my own intake varied between about 200 and 2400 mg. I tried taking it before meals, with meals, and after meals. The only time I thought I noticed something was when I took it before going to bed and had more vivid dreams than usual, but I was unable to reproduce the effect later on.

The potential benefit for preventing hangovers still intrigues me, so I may continue to take taurine in the future. However, I actually did take some taurine once after drinking, and unlike I usually do, did not drink much water before going to sleep. I woke up with a headache, so if it is effective, it's not a miracle drug.

Acetyl-L-carnitine

Carnitine in its various forms has quite a bit of scientific evidence behind it for use as a nootropic. Both L-carnitine and acetyl-L-carnitine help rodents perform better in maze tests and protect them from age-related cognitive decline. Elderly people seem to benefit from carnitine too, especially with higher doses. One study reported a nootropic effect even in young, healthy people.

This was the supplement I was expecting the best results from, but alas, it didn't have any effect on me. The doses used in human studies usually range from 1 to 3 grams; my own intake varied between 500 mg and 3,000 mg. Like in the case of taurine, I tried it during various times of the day. Most people suggest it should be taken away from meals, which is what I did towards the end of the experiment.

There was one time when it seemed that a higher dose resulted in suppression of hunger, but as I was unable to reproduce the effect, I concluded that it was due to something else. Indeed, one of the potential side effects of carnitine is an increase, not a decrease in appetite.

Another time when I thought I noticed an effect was when I took about a half an hour before going for a run. This was towards the end of a fast, and I felt more energetic than usual while running. There is some evidence that L-carnitine may increase aerobic performance, but since later attempts didn't produce similar results, I assume that the increased energy I felt was simply due to variations in the hunger cycle of intermittent fasting.

Although I feel that carnitine may have some long-term benefits for preventing cognitive decline, I find the price too high for me to keep supplementing with it. If I were to take it, however, I would go for bulk powder instead of capsules to save some cash.

Ginkgo biloba

Even though ginkgo biloba has been studied quite a bit, the results are inconclusive. It seems that gingko biloba does have a neuroprotective effect. In addition, it may reduce anxiety and prevent cognitive decline in elderly people.

The standard dose used in many studies is 120 mg, but doses two or three times as large are not unheard of. Comparing doses and ginkgo biloba supplements is difficult, because the extracts can be standardized differently. In my own experiments, I took between 60 mg and 360 mg at various times of the day.

This was perhaps the one supplement that had me wondering the most whether I was experiencing placebo or an actual effect from the pills. I often took 2-4 capsules (with 60 mg each) of ginkgo before going out, and sometimes it seemed like it gave me an energy boost. On the other hand, it may well have been due to other things, such as the caffeine from coffee or yerba mate. Indeed, taking only ginkgo biloba produced very inconsistent results: sometimes I thought I felt more energetic, other times I definitely didn't notice anything.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some brands of ginkgo may be more effective than others, probably because of differences in the extraction methods. The price of ginkgo biloba is generally not terribly high, so I may experiment with other brands in the future.

Conclusion

In my own experience, none of the three supplements mentioned above produced significant and consistent results in terms of mood, energy or cognitive enhancement. As I mentioned at the beginning of the experiment, I also tried various combinations of the three, but this did not change the fact that for me, they were ineffective. This is based on both my own subjective evaluation and my scores in a memory game that I use to rate my concentration.

For the record, the supplements used in the nootropic battle were: Nu Health Ginkgo Biloba, Source Naturals Taurine, and Doctor's Best Acetyl-L-Carnitine.

Based on these results, I'm beginning to think that my susceptability to the placebo effect is fairly low. I don't necessarily mean that's a good thing, either – an imagined increase in mood or energy levels is just as good as an objectively measured increase, right? On the other hand, it probably does help me weed out the things that have a measurable effect on most people. Caffeine taken on an empty stomach still remains the unbeatable nootropic in my books.

If you have tried taurine, carnitine or ginkgo biloba (or any other nootropic), feel free to drop a comment and share your experience. Meanwhile, for more information on cognition, see these posts:

Green Tea Protects from the Psychological Effects of Stress in Rats
Caloric Restriction Improves Memory in the Elderly
Moderate and Severe Caloric Restriction Alter Behavior Differently in Rats
Anti-Aging in the Media: Rolling Stone on Ray Kurzweil

Read More......

5 Simple Exercises for Correcting Anterior Pelvic Tilt

A model performing a variation of the lower back stretch. (Photo by TerenceKearns.com)

Anterior pelvic tilt may sound like some horrible bone disease, but it's actually a fairly common problem with posture. In fact, according to some fitness people and gym teachers, it may even be the most common postural deviation.

What is anterior pelvic tilt?

In anatomical terms, "anterior" refers to the "front" side of the body (the side your face is on), and "pelvic tilt" means that the pelvis is tilted to one side. In this case, the tilt is towards the front, like in the image below:



As you can see, the spine is naturally slightly curved, but in anterior pelvic tilt the curve is excessive compared to a neutral posture. According to some physiotherapists, a desirable tilt is 0-5 degrees in men and 7-10 degrees in women. You can estimate your tilt by standing with your back against the wall and measuring how much space is between your lower back and the wall. If you can fit one hand in there you're fine. If you can fit a couple of wine bottles you're in trouble.

But what exactly is the problem with the anterior pelvic tilt? Well, for one thing, it doesn't make your posture look very good – at least not if you're a guy. If you're a woman, you may be able to pull it off. An arched back is considered a feminine trait, after all. Still, there's no need to go overboard, because the second reason to avoid (excessive) anterior pelvic tilt is that it causes lower back pain, especially with old age. Besides, a protruding belly doesn't look good on anyone.

Identifying the muscles that need fixing

There are several good articles out there with intricate anatomical descriptions of the interplay between muscles related to pelvic tilt, so I'll skip the details here and just give a brief overview. The gist is that not using certain muscles eventually causes other muscles to overcompensate, which leads to some muscles becoming lengthened and weak and other muscles short and stiff. Here's a list of things that typically lead to anterior pelvic tilt (or characteristics of anterior pelvic tilt; it's difficult to say what causes what):

• Lengthened (weak) hamstrings
• Lengthened (weak) abdominals
• Lengthened (weak) glutes
• Shortened (tight) erector spinae
  
• Shortened (tight) hip flexors
  

Hamstrings are the long thick muscles on the back of your legs that flex the knee and extend the hip. Abdominals are the muscles around the torso. While the outermost muscle (rectus abdominus) is responsible for that six-pack look, it's the deeper muscles that have the biggest effect on posture. Glutes are simply the butt muscles.

The erector spinae (or spinal erectors) is a group of muscles in the back that supports the spine. Finally, hip flexors are a group of muscles near the pelvis that move the hip forward during walking and running.

Exercises for correcting anterior pelvic tilt

To fix the problem and bring the pelvic tilt back to normal levels, a set of exercises that target these issues is needed. In essence, we need to do two things:

1. Make the hamstrings, deeper abdominals and glutes stronger
2. Stretch the spinal erectors and hip flexors

There are numerous exercises that can be done to achieve these ends, and quite possibly the most effective ones are those that also involve weights and gym equipment. However, there are also exercises that you can do at home using only your body weight. It's these exercises we'll be looking at next.

Exercise 1: Glute bridge

This exercise, also known as supine hip extension or pelvic lift, strengthens both the glutes and the hamstrings. Here's the basic way to do it:


One variation of the exercise is to straighten one leg so that only one foot is on the ground, hold for a while and then do the same with the other leg.

Exercise 2: Front and side plank

Plank exercises are good for making the abdominal muscles stronger. In contrast to sit-ups, which mainly affect the superficial muscles, planks target the deeper muscles. In addition to the usual front plank where both feet and elbows are on the ground, you can do side planks:


This exercise can also be made more difficult by lifting one of the legs up and holding for at least 30 seconds.

Exercise 3: Lunge stretch

The lunge stretch exercise stretches the hip flexors. It's also called by various other names like hip flexor lunge, lunging hip flexor stretch, psoas stretch, etc. Depending on who you ask, you may get a different answer as to how to perform the exercise, but here's one way:


This exercise can also be done as a forward lunge, in which you begin from a standing position and then lunge forward and drop your hips towards the floor. Performed this way, you'll target glutes and hamstrings more than the hip flexors, unless you also do the stretch.

Exercise 4: Lower back stretch

The lower back stretch is an exercise that stretches the erector spinae. It's also known as all fours back stretch, back arch stretch, cat pose stretch, and various other names. Here's how to do it:


You can alternate between the two arches as seen in the video, but keep in mind that it's the upward arch that stretches the erector spinae.

Exercise 5: Supine pelvic tilt

Finally, here's an exercise imitating what you want to happen through all your hard work. Like planks, the supine pelvic tilt mainly targets the deeper abdominal muscles. Here's a good example of how to do it (nevermind the Swedish subtitles):


The exercise itself is very subtle, but it gives a good idea of what you're trying to achieve. You can alternate between short reps and holding the tilt for a longer period.

Summary and my experiment

The muscles that are required to maintain a natural posture don't get enough exercise during daily routines, especially if you work at a desk job. This causes some muscles to weaken and others to compensate. As a result, the pelvis tilts forward, which in turn results in a postural problem known as anterior pelvic tilt. Many people have some degree of (excessive) anterior pelvic tilt, whether or not they realize it.

There are several exercises that can be performed to train the muscles that are weakened (hamstrings, deeper abdominals and glutes) and stretch the ones that are overcompensating (hip flexors and the erector spinae). You may get better and faster results by combining many different exercises, but the ones shown here will get you started.

Personally, I recognize my posture from the first picture showing excessive anterior pelvic tilt. I also have occasional problems with pain in the lower back. Until now, I haven't really known what the precise issue with my posture was, but thankfully, I was pointed in the right direction by some members of the imminst.org forums.

So for my newest human experiment, I'll be doing these exercises (and possibly others as I discover them) at least three times a week and seeing whether I can fix my anterior pelvic tilt. Meanwhile, if you have suggestions for other and/or better exercises, please drop a comment and share them!

For more information on exercise and health, see these posts:

L-Carnitine, Exercise Performance & Oxidative Stress
Green Tea Extract Increases Insulin Sensitivity & Fat Burning during Exercise
Green Tea Extract Enhances Abdominal Fat Loss from Exercise
Coenzyme Q10, Exercise and Oxidative Stress

Read More......

Alternate-Day Feeding and Weight Loss: Is It the Calories Or the Fasting?

Weight loss with one slice of pizza one day and anything you want on the next? (Photo by nettsu)

I don't know if you noticed, but a new study on intermittent fasting recently made headlines in several media. The paper basically found that alternate-day fasting (or "on-off fasting" as it was named in some articles) helped obese adults to lose weight.

That's not a huge surprise, really. If you're obese, it means you eat too much of the wrong foods and probably too often. Fasting every other day means you'll at least be eating them less often, if not less per se. However, the conclusions that have been drawn in various articles from the study seemed a little suspicious to me, so I decided to read the whole paper.

Indeed, the authors themselves appear to be somewhat confused as to what really caused the weight loss. So without further due, let's take a closer look at what the study actually found (link).

Study design

12 obese women and 4 obese men were recruited for the study. Mean age was 46 years, mean body weight was 96.8 kg, and mean BMI 33.8. Not exactly the featherweight league.

The study consisted of three phases. The first one was a 2-week control phase, during which the subjects were told to maintain their usual weight by eating and exercising as they normally would. In the second phase, which lasted for 4 weeks, all participants were given a standard menu containing 25% of their baseline energy needs on the fast days. On the feeding days they could eat as much as they wanted. The third phase, also 4 weeks, was similar to the second one. The only difference was that the participants could choose what they wanted to eat on their fasting days, as long as they only ate 25% of their baseline needs.

So, the first thing that sets this study apart from how most people do intermittent fasting is that they didn't consume zero calories during their fast. They just ate significantly less. The second thing is that the fasts began and ended at midnight. Most people (including me) start and end their fast sometime during the day, because it allows them to eat at least once a day. If the participants went to sleep before midnight, their "fasts" were significantly longer than 24 hours.

Their standard diets were also less than optimal in my opinion. Things like chicken fettucini, vegetarian pizza, chicken enchilada, cookies, and crackers aren't exactly paleolithic foods consistent with the idea of intermittent fasting. But then, this wasn't a paleo study, which explains why they were fed high-carb, low-fat foods. For the third phase, they were given diet tips by a registered dietitian:

On the ad libitum food intake day, subjects were instructed to limit fat intake to <30%> dairy options.

So more carbs and less fat once again. They probably took some of this advice and applied for their feeding days as well, which makes me wonder if they wouldn't have lost even more weight had they opted for low-carb foods instead. Still, as you can see from the results below, they did manage to lose weight even with this diet.

Results

During the first phase, there was no weight loss. This is unsurprising, since all the participants just kept on eating whatever made them obese in the first place. During the eight weeks of alternate-day fasting they did lose weight, however.

In the second and third phase the subjects lost weight at a rate of ~0.7 kg per week. At the end of the study, they had lost about 5.6 kg, most of which was fat. Mean BMI decreased from 33.7 to 29.9, while body fat percentage dropped from ~45 to ~42%.

Cholesterol levels were also reduced as a result of alternate-day fasting. HDL remained the same, but LDL decreased by almost 25%. This to me is a more impressive result than the weight loss, which I think could've been greater with proper food choices.

Systolic blood pressure was lowered by 4.4 mm Hg, but diastolic blood pressure remained the same. Heart rates varied throughout the study, but at the end, they were about 4 beats per minute lower than in the beginning.

Discussion

Okay, so everyone lost some weight and improved their LDL/HDL ratio on this modified version of intermittent fasting. But what exactly is behind these results? The first thing that came to my mind as I was reading the paper was: how much were these people eating on their feeding days? Surely that would have a drastic effect on weight loss.

Unfortunately, there's no mention of this in the paper. Yes, they were told they could eat ad libitum, but apparently they were not told to keep a record of what or how much calories they ate when they were not fasting. I know food diaries are generally unreliable (people tend to underestimate how much they eat), but it would've been better than nothing. The authors seem surprised that the subjects lost as much weight as they did:

We predicted that subjects would lose a total of 4.5 kg fat mass after 8 wk (on the basis of a 75% decrease in energy intake on the fast day, with no change in energy intake on the feed day). The actual fat mass lost (5.4 kg) exceeded our predictions.

With no change in energy intake on the feed day? I'm not sure where the authors got the idea that when you eat very little on one day, the next day you won't be extra hungry and compensate. That's certainly not my experience. On the contrary, I fully compensate for any missed calories by just eating twice as much the next day. Certainly not compensating can be done if one wants to, which may be what happened here:

This indicates that these subjects were also limiting their energy intake on the feed day, which may have occurred because the subjects knew they were enrolled in a weight loss trial.

On the other hand, some articles in the media (such as this one) have reported that there was a slight compensation going on:

On non-fasting days people typically ate between 100 percent or 125 percent of their calorie needs.

This statement is probably from a press release by the authors, but the paper itself is silent on the issue. In any case, if you're eating 75% less on one day and only 25% more the next, you're still 50% short.

That, in effect, makes this a study on caloric restriction, not intermittent fasting. How is it surprising in any way that people who eat half (or even less) than what they're used to manage to lose weight? Isn't that obvious? The amount of weight they lost is pretty much what you'd expect on a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet. And based on other studies, if they'd eaten more calories but restricted carbohydrates, they'd have lost more weight.

The whole point of intermittent fasting is that you don't have to restrict your energy intake, you just don't eat all the time. If energy intake is the same and yet there are health benefits, then we can conclude that it's the fasting that is behind them. If, at the same time, calorie intake is restricted, there's no way of knowing whether it's the reduced calories or the fasting that is the cause. And of course, if intermittent fasting leads to a voluntary reduction in energy intake, that tells us something too.

I have a feeling that eating the small meal every other day magically resulted in no hunger in this study. They were probably consciously limiting their food intake even though they were told they could eat as much as they want. The fact that the authors actually expected the participants to eat only their usual calories on feeding days makes me even more suspicious.

Try eating 500 kcal on one day and then seeing how you feel the next day. If you typically eat 2,000 kcal, somehow I don't think 2,500 kcal is going to cut it. I know it doesn't for me, at least not in the long term. As for this diet being much easier to follow than old-school calorie restriction (which the paper seems to suggest), I doubt it.

For more information on intermittent fasting and caloric restriction, see these posts:

Intermittent Fasting: Understanding the Hunger Cycle
Slowing Down Aging with Intermittent Protein Restriction
Caloric Restriction Improves Memory in the Elderly
Intermittent Fasting Reduces Mitochondrial Damage and Lymphoma Incidence in Aged Mice

Read More......