5 New Based Studies to Get Dangerously Fit [2025]

In this video I'm going to walk you through the results of five new studies

that answer some of the most popular questions in fitness.

#1: Is it okay to train fasted?

A new meta-analysis compared a number of studies

that compared groups that either trained fasted or fed.

There were no significant differences in muscle growth or strength development,

and fat loss was greater in the fasted training groups.

However, the difference in fat loss disappeared in a subgroup analysis,

and if you look at the effect sizes on muscle growth and strength development,

they all moderately favored the groups that were training fed.

So overall, it seems that in the studies, even though some of them tried to correct

for energy intake, people end up eating a little bit less when training fasted

therefore explaining the trends towards greater fat loss but somewhat worse

muscle growth. It's important to note that the meta-analysis was limited

to four studies,

and all of them had major caveats, such as being a Ramadan fasting specifically,

or including very non-serious trainees. In multiple of the studies

total volume loads were equal in both groups.

We recently conducted one of our own studies on this topic,

which was not yet included in this meta analysis.

We found that in serious lifters there was actually a difference in total

training performance,

and importantly, this difference widened over time

and was associated with worse gains in strength,

at least on some measures, in the group that was training fasted.

So in people doing high volume training, very serious lifters

that are really pushing themselves to the extreme,

fasted training is likely suboptimal to at least some extent,

and I would expect that in the long term

it's probably not ideal for muscle growth either.

But based on the current research the differences are not statistically

significant in the majority of studies.

Therefore, if you really prefer to train fasted

and you don't want to get

in a piece of chicken and a banana or something like that, then sure, go for it.

It's not going to make a big difference in your gains.

#2: What is the optimal step count?

Many people these days track their step count,

and it's good to have an idea of what to aim for.

A new meta-analysis of 31 studies found that higher step counts in general

are associated with better health, both physically and mentally,

on basically all fronts.

People with higher step counts have lower rates of dementia and depression,

and they also have lower all cause mortality and lower mortality

on basically every individual marker of health that we have.

However, more is not always better.

There were sharp diminishing returns,

and there seems to be an inflection point around 5 to 7 K steps per day,

after which further benefits became marginal and quite unclear.

Diminishing returns apply in particular to younger individuals

and individuals that already do a substantial amount of exercise.

You can only get so healthy,

and many of the health benefits of higher step counts and exercise overlap.

The logical conclusion here is that you should walk

exactly 7000 steps per day from now on, not a step more or less.

In all seriousness, step counts are a very crude measure

of total physical activity level, and it's actually questionable

if you really need to track your step count.

Step counts in this type of research

only show associations with health, not causative evidence.

In practice, I think for most individuals, targeting an actual concrete step

count to hit every day is a very high effort, low reward strategy.

What works much better from a lifestyle perspective is trying to think

of sustainable ways to increase your physical activity level.

If that means walking your dog along

a nicer route, going to work by bicycle, or working from a standing desk,

those are all great ways you can sustainably increase

your energy expenditure without it necessarily being high effort.

If, however, you obsess over your step count to the extent that at 10 p.m.

you feel like, oh, I haven't hit my 7K or 10K steps yet,

and therefore you have to go on a walk that you really don't want to,

that is very questionable in terms of benefits and sustainability.

Nevertheless, if you are tracking your step counts

where you want some concrete number, 7K steps is pretty reasonable

based on this meta-analysis and former research as well.

Just to keep in mind that it's a very crude measure

and research findings can be quite variable.

Next!

Study #3: A new study had strength trained

men supplement most of their protein in either 3 or 5 meals per day.

Both of the groups consumed five meals a day,

but the other two meals were lower in protein.

After eight weeks, there were no significant differences

in measures of body composition or strength development.

Importantly, total protein intake did not differ between the groups.

I would have greatly preferred it

if the study had looked at three meals versus five meals instead of five

meals, with protein distributed in 3 or 5 meals.

However, based on previous research, we can infer that three meals per day is

likely sufficient for essentially maximum muscle growth and strength development.

These findings are supported

by the Norwegian Meal Frequency Project in strength training individuals,

and a Japanese study on competitive rowers.

We do see benefits of higher meal frequencies in some studies,

and these studies were partly the reason that bodybuilders used to think

that you need to consume six meals a day,

but those studies specifically look at people only supplementing protein.

So most of the protein is in the form of whey shakes. Whey shakes are absorbed

very rapidly and therefore cannot sustain postprandial anabolism for very long.

Muscle protein synthesis after a whey shake just doesn't last as long as after

a whole meal with some fiber, some fats, and a whole protein source.

The exact optimal meal timing will depend on the individual:

what type of exercise they do, if they train once or twice per day,

but as a general rule of thumb for most individuals that are consuming

whole foods based meals with fiber, fats, and all macronutrients

in all of the meals, I think three meals a day

is enough to get you the vast majority of your gains.

Based on research on muscle protein synthesis

there might be benefits

to consuming four or more meals a day, but the difference is definitely going

to be small.

Two meals per day,

however, is unlikely to cut it based on the research that we have.

A similar study to this new study compared three meals

a day with the protein distributed in two of them, or in three of them.

They found that the group with the protein

in three of their meals had a strong trend towards better overall gains.

This doesn't mean you can't build muscle on two meals a day,

but for most individuals,

three meals a day is likely going to lead to more muscle growth.

#4: If you're interested in optimizing your health, should you be fasting?

A new study concluded this is probably not necessary over the course of a year.

The researchers found no differences in weight loss or markers of the inflammation

between a group, restricting their energy intake to an 8 to 10 hour eating window,

and a group that had the same total daily energy deficit without any fasting.

These findings are in line with the majority of research

that most of the health benefits of fasting

are mediated by energy restriction.

So it's not the fasting itself that makes you healthier,

it's the energy restriction. In that sense,

fasting is a tool, and if it fits your lifestyle,

if it makes it easier for you to reduce your energy intake

it is great.

I personally do intermittent fasting myself

because I'm naturally not hungry in the mornings.

However, if you're not interested in fasting

or you prefer to have four square meals a day

with an early breakfast and a late dinner, that is perfectly fine as well.

#5: High protein diets have become very popular and for good reason.

They help you achieve a better body composition.

They are good for appetite management, and they don't seem to really have

any downsides compared to carbohydrates or fats.

That is for your gains.

But what about your health?

There's widespread concern that the constant anabolism an elevation

of insulin like growth factor one, activation of mTOR and other growth

pathways will reduce longevity and increase the risk of cancer.

A new study tested this.

The researchers looked at dietary data collected from just under 16,000 U.S.

individuals from the late 80s to the early 90s, and they correlated

these data to national death records up to 2006.

The researchers found no significant relationships between protein intake,

measured as either plant protein intake, animal protein intake, or total daily

protein intake, and mortality rates of any kinds in any age group.

Interestingly, there was even some evidence for higher protein

intakes being associated with lower rates of cancer mortality.

Associative research like this can only establish

correlations, not causation, and is very prone to confounding.

However, these data are in line with other analyzes that protein intake

is not detrimental for all cause mortality or longevity.

In fact, there's also good reason to think that higher protein intakes

will improve your health and possibly even lifespan

because of all the health benefits.

The word protein, after all, comes from the word proteios

from Greek, which means of first importance.

Proteins are the worker bees of the human body,

and they are absolutely essential for many vital functions.

A lot of the protein scaremongering

also doesn't take into account that anabolism is highly tissue selective.

Nutrition is mostly permissive for anabolism,

so if you have a high protein intake and you do

strength training, muscle protein synthesis in muscle tissue can be elevated

to a much higher level.

But it's not like your body will just build your heart up

and keep growing all your organs until they explode or die from cancer.

For plant protein in particular,

previous research has even suggested that it's associated with lower mortality.

So overall,

While certain high protein foods may be healthier than others.

Protein intake per se does not seem to be a significant health risk.

If you like this type of evidence based content,

I'd be honored if you like and subscribe.

And if you want to go into a deep dive of how to build muscle

in the most optimal manner possible,

check out my online PT course.

You'll learn absolutely everything there is to know

about how to take your physique to the next level,

as well as develop strength, health, and how to stick to your diet.

Check it out!