ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

Yes, coconut oil does contain MCTs, but it is not as some people believe pure MCT. Only ~50% of the fat in coconut oil is actually in MCT form. If you want pure MCTs you have to resort to specific MCT supplements / oils.

The mechanisms by which medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) may help you to lose fat are manifold. They are not only hard to store for your body. They also counteract fat deposition in adipocytes by increasing thermogenesis and satiety.

MCTs contain 8 to 12 carbon atoms and include caprylic acid (C8:0, octanoic acid), capric acid (C10:0, decanoic acid), and lauric acid (C12:0, dodecanoic acid). Foods high in MCTs include coconut oil (58%), palm kernel oil (54%), desiccated coconut (37%), and raw coconut meat (19% of total energy) (USDA). Average intakes of 1.35 g/day (0.7% of total energy intake | USDA. 2008) MCTs have been reported in the United States and 0.2 g/day in Japan | Kasai. 2003).
MCT is cleaved into glycerol and medium-chain fatty acids in the gut lumen.5 The medium chain length makes a smaller, more soluble molecule compared with a longchain fatty acid, giving it a preferential absorption and metabolic route in the body. As the authors of the latest meta-analysis of the effects of MCTs on body weight say:

"[t]his physicochemical nature of medium-chain fatty acids allows them to pass into the portal vein on route to the liver to be rapidly metabolized via b oxidation with no requirement of reesterification in intestinal cells, incorporation into chylomicrons, or the rate limiting enzyme carnitine acyltransferase for intramitochondrial transport. In comparison, long-chain fatty acids have a slower route, being re-esterified in the small intestine and transported by chylomicrons via the lymphatic and vascular system before being oxidized for energy or stored. Thus, rapid metabolism of MCTs reduces their opportunity of adipose tissue uptake." (Mumme. 2015)

Several human intervention studies have been conducted investigating the weight-reducing potential of MCT, with mixed results. In their latest meta-analysis, Mumme et al. set out to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to answer the question whether MCTs, specifically C8:0 and C10:0, provide significant weight loss benefits and/or trigger changes in body composition compared to "regular" long-chain fatty acids (LCT).

Figure 1: Meta-analysis for changes in body weight (in kilograms) in randomized control trials that compared dietary medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) with a longer-chain triglyceride (control) shows a favorable effect of MCT intervention on body weight. *Oleic acid as control. **Myristic acid as control. #Body mass index < 23. ##Body mass index > 23. IV inverse variance. SD standard deviation (Mumme. 2015).

The researchers primary outcome measures were body mass, waist and hip circumference, total body fat, and subcutaneous and visceral fat. Secondary outcomes were blood lipids, including triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol. Of the latter the foremost values are those that are of greatest interest and among them the body mass shows a measurable, albeit not earth-shattering reduction in almost all trials. Only the in the 2001 study by Matsuo et al. there was an increase in body weight in response to an MCT supplement that contained almost no medium chain triglycerides.

Figure 2: Meta-analysis for changes in total body fat, total subcutaneous fat, and visceral fat (Mumme. 2015).

In view of the fact that the most relevant obesity parameters, i.e. the waist and hip circumferences and body fat percentages (Figure 2) dropped in all studies that investigated this parameter and considering the fact that there were no significant deterioration - rather improvements - in blood lipids, it appears warranted to assume that the replacement (!), but not the addition, of 2g/day MCTs (1% of the energy) to 54 g/day MCTs (20% of the total energy intake)  over a duration of 4 to 16 weeks leads to measurable and potentially health relevant weight loss, compared to bacon, butter & co, i.e. regular long chain fatty acids.
References:

• DeLany, James P., et al. "Differential oxidation of individual dietary fatty acids in humans." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.4 (2000): 905-911.
• Hamman, Richard F., et al. "Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes." Diabetes care 29.9 (2006): 2102-2107.
• Kasai, Michio, et al. "Effect of dietary medium-and long-chain triacylglycerols (MLCT) on accumulation of body fat in healthy humans." Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition 12.2 (2003): 151-160.
• Mumme et al. "Effects of Medium-Chain Triglycerides on Weight Loss and Body Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials." EAT RIGHT - Research Review (2015).
• US Department of Agriculture. Nutrient Intakes From Food: Mean Amounts Counsumed per Individual, One Day, 2005-2006. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 2008.

Its one thing to make strength and mass gains, its a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise we would hardly be able to get our hands on papers that are written by Iranian scientists and published in the Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise; and that, my dear (mostly) American friends, would be a real pity!

"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - thats the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the  University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to

"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes."  (Tadibi. 2013)

To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:

• group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and 
• group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old). 

The participants attended physical education classes for six weeks/three times a week, with duration of 45-60 min each session. Each training session involved three phases in both groups and lasted 50–60minutes:

• warm up, specific or related training and cool down. 

Warm up and cool down phases were similar in both groups included 7 min running with intensity sufficient to raise breath rate, 3 min stretching training.
The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:

• Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen

  bench press, 
• squat, 
• biceps curls, 
• triceps extensions, 
• shoulder press

What? No, I have no idea, if they forgot to list the back exercises, or if the subjects actually didnt do any. What I do know, though is that the

"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)

In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).

TRAINING ? DETRAINING ? RESULTS?

Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).

Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)

Well, you can see the results of this type of realistic 6-weeks on 2-weeks of regimen in Figure 1 - a result based on which you should be able to confirm the following conclusions:

• Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
• The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
• The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from  12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs.   11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).

As the researchers point out, this result may look different, if the study population was older or sick. In less-conditioned individuals (Hakkinen. 1994), which is - in my humble opinion - a very important hint for both, the young and old SuppVersity readers, as it confirms (once again), that the optimal training routine is a very individual thing and cannot be cookie cut based on a single study.
References:

• Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
• Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).

It always hits the (already) big ones.

A recent study that was conducted by a group of researchers from the Roehampton University, and the Universities of Northampton and Hull in London took an interesting and totally overdue approach to dispel the myths that revolve around the anti-obesity effects of breakfast. In the said study, a team of researchers recruited 37 participants who were assigned to one out of four groups on the basis of their body mass index (BMI) - normal weight BMI <25 kg/m² | or overweight/obese BMI > 25 kg/m² | habitual breakfast eaters | habitual breakfast omitters.

Subsequently, even the latter, i.e. the breakfast eaters were requested  to  eat  breakfast  for  an  entire  week. The BREAKFAST week was followed by a one week wash-out and an entire  week during which the subjects had to omit breakfast.
Over the course of the whole study period, all subjects hat do keep detailed 7-day food diaries, reporting what was consumed and the timing of consumption were completed for each breakfast condition.

Figure 1: Lean (left) and overweight (right) subjects react very different to breakfast skipping (Reeves. 2014)

As the data in Figure 1 already reveals, the total energy intake was significantly higher during the breakfast than the no breakfast week. But just as the scientists say, the present study did also reveal a "significant effects of timing on energy intakes": More energy was consumed during the afternoon in the no breakfast week compared to the breakfast week.

Timing and body weight, both make a difference!

In general, overweight participants consumed greater amounts of  energy than normal weight  participants (surprise ;-) in the early evening - the effect was even more pronounced for those of them who were regular breakfast omitters and thus used to feasting in the afternoon / evening.

Overall, this sounds as if having breakfast regularly was a very good idea, but unlike some people want to make you believe, the total energy intake does count. The same is yet also true for the amount of sugar, which skyrocketed in the overweight subjects in the no breakfast week. Running around on empty and being unable to tap into their affluent energy depots on the hips and around the waist, the insulin resistant (dont tell me about "healthy obesity!") overweight part of the study participants gravitated towards readily available energy intake.
References:

• Reeves, Sue, et al. "Experimental manipulation of breakfast in normal and overweight/obese participants is associated with changes to nutrient and energy intake consumption patterns." Physiology & Behavior | Available online 24 May 2014.