+Model

SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Science & Sports (2018) xxx, xxx—xxx

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Intake of carbohydrate-protein
supplements by recreational users at gyms:
Body composition improved?
Consommation de compléments en protéines et glucides chez
les pratiquants non professionnels de musculation :
composition corporelle améliorée ?

O. Saidi a,∗, I. Bezrati-Ben Ayed b, A. Benzarti c, P. Duché a,

R. Serairi c

a
EA 3533, laboratory of the metabolic adaptations to exercise under physiological and pathological
conditions (AME2P), Clermont-Auvergne University, Aubière cedex, France
b
Research laboratory sport performance optimization, National Center for Medicine and Sciences of
Sports, Tunis, Tunisia
c
El-Manar University, High School of Health Sciences, Tunis, Tunisia

Received 1st February 2017; accepted 5 February 2018

KEYWORDS Summary
Energy balance; Objectives. — The purpose of this study was to investigate the spontaneous use of protein and
Dietary supplement; carbohydrate supplements (PCS) in amateurs practicing resistance training in gyms, and deter-
Body composition; mine whether the intake of this type of supplement in practice can have beneficial effects on
Nutrition; energy balance and body composition.
Training Equipment and methods. — Sixty-seven men followed the same resistance training for 8 weeks.
They were assigned to two groups: (i) 27 consuming protein and carbohydrate supplements
(GC), and (ii) 40 not consuming dietary supplements (GNC). All the participants attended four
experimental sessions, underwent anthropometric measurements and bioelectrical impedance
analysis, and kept dietary and physical activity diaries. The GC group also recorded their
spontaneous intakes of protein and carbohydrate supplements.
Results. — Both groups significantly gained body mass (P < 0.001), GC more than GNC (P < 0.001 at
week 8). These gains were explained by increased fat mass in GC, while the GNC lost fat mass. No
significant differences in lean body mass were found between the two groups. PCS energy seems
to raise the energy balance in the GC group relative to the GNC group (P < 0.001). Moreover,

∗ Corresponding author. Clermont Auvergne University, laboratory of Adaptations to Exercise under Physiological and Pathological Condi-

tions (AME2P), Center for Research in Human Nutrition Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
E-mail address: saidi.oussama.002@live.com (O. Saidi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
0765-1597/© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 O. Saidi et al.

the change in fat body mass in GC was positively correlated with energy balance (P < 0.01),
and energy balance was positively correlated with PCS energy intake (P < 0.01). Spontaneous
intake of protein and carbohydrate supplements by this population was thus strongly associated
with an increase in body fat mass over the course of the training period, without any beneficial
change in the gain of lean body mass. This might be because protein requirements were already
largely covered by diet without supplementation.
Conclusion. — The spontaneous use of protein and carbohydrate supplements (PCS) by recre-
ational users practicing resistance training at gyms induced no positive effects on body
composition. We advocate more nutritional education to enhance nutritional status and learn
how to use protein and carbohydrate supplements in the light of dietary needs and food intake.
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Résumé
MOTS CLÉS Objectif. — Le but de cette étude a été de déterminer si l’utilisation spontanée des suppléments
Balance énergétique ; commercialisés de protéines et de glucides par les pratiquants amateurs de musculation dans
Complément les salles de sports a eu des effets bénéfiques sur la balance énergétique et la composition
alimentaire ; corporelle.
Composition Matériels et méthodes. — Soixante-sept hommes pratiquant la musculation en salle de sport ont
corporelle ; été sélectionnés pour suivre un entraînement en résistance pendant 8 semaines et ont été répar-
Nutrition ; tis en 2 groupes : 27 consommant habituellement des compléments de protéines et de glucides
Entraînement (GC) et 40 ne consommant aucun complément alimentaire (GNC). Il a été demandé au groupe
GC de continuer sa consommation habituelle de compléments de protéines et de glucides pen-
dant l’étude. Tous 15 jours, les sujets ont participé à des séances d’évaluation de leurs apports
alimentaires et de leur niveau d’activité physique, et des mesures anthropométriques et de
composition corporelle (bio-impédancemétrie) ont été réalisées. La consommation journalière
des compléments de protéines et glucides des sujets du groupe GC a été mesurée.
Résultats. — À la fin des 8 semaines d’entraînement, les deux groupes ont présenté un gain
de poids significatif (p < 0,01). Ce gain plus important pour GC (p < 0,001) est associé à
l’augmentation de masse grasse alors que cette dernière diminue chez GNC. Une augmentation
significative (p < 0,01) de la masse maigre a été observée pour les deux groupes mais aucune
différence significative n’a été constatée entre GC et GNC. L’apport calorique des suppléments
consommés a entraîné une balance énergétique positive chez GC. Le déséquilibre de la bal-
ance énergétique est associé à l’augmentation de masse grasse chez GC (p < 0,01) et à l’apport
calorique des suppléments consommés (p < 0,01). En revanche, cette consommation spontanée
n’a pas entraîné d’augmentation de la masse maigre. Ceci pourrait être expliqué par le fait
que les besoins en protéines étaient largement couverts par l’alimentation.
Conclusion. — L’utilisation spontanée de compléments de protéines et de glucides par les ama-
teurs pratiquant la musculation n’induit aucun effet positif sur la composition corporelle. Une
information nutritionnelle leur permettrait de mieux utiliser les suppléments de protéines et
de glucides, par rapport à leurs besoins et leurs apports alimentaires.
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

1. Introduction their diets with available protein and carbohydrate supple-

Dietary supplement use has increased dramatically, partic-
ularly by men training in gyms often in search of a perfect
body image. Alongside top athletes, this population is cur-
rently a major commercial target for dietary supplements.
Several types of dietary supplements are claimed to improve
muscle response to resistance training [1—3]. However, pro-
tein and carbohydrate formulations are among the most
common dietary supplements used in gyms. Available in var-
ious flavored powders, these supplements are dissolved in
milk or water and consumed throughout the day as shakes.
Men practicing resistance training in gyms often supplement
ments (PCS) based on the belief that these products promote
lean tissue accretion.
These supplements are considered to be catalysts for
increasing muscle mass and strength through carbohydrates,
protein, and branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) content.
They contain a variety of carbohydrates (e.g., glucose,
disaccharides and iso-maltulose) that allow better replen-
ishment of glycogen due to the different absorption rates
of each type [4,5]. Besides high calorie content, these sup-
plements have a high nutritional value because they also
contain a mixture of protein types such as whey and casein
enriched with BCAAs and calcium [6]. Several studies show

Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplements on body composition 3

that both protein and BCAAs enhance skeletal muscle pro- and physical activity diaries during the test period, and con-
tein synthesis in response to exercise [7—9]. In addition trol sessions were held every 2 weeks (on days 14, 28, 42 and
to macronutrients, these supplements contain a blend of 56) to check the data recorded by the participants during the
electrolytes (e.g., sodium glycerophosphate and potassium previous 14 days and assess changes in body composition.
glycerophosphate) that ensure proper cell hydration [9]. The Ethics Committee of the Abderrahmen-Mami hospital
Classified as osmotically active substances, these supple- approved this study. All measurements on human subjects
ments draw water into muscle cells and favor muscle growth were in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of
by enhancing the uptake of amino acids into the muscle cell Helsinki, and every participant agreed to participate in this
and protein synthesis. This results in greater positive nitro- study.
gen balance, which leads to better prevention of catabolism
and an improved anabolic response [10].
Morrison et al. reported that most people frequenting 2.2. Population
gyms took supplements [11]. Although they did not indicate
the amount and frequency of use, it seems that the use of Two groups of resistance-trained men (3 months, 3 times per
these products does not follow expert guidance. PCS are week for 90 min) paired by age, anthropometric measures,
sold in gyms, drugstores or via the internet without advice similar training history, and level of physical activity were
from a nutritionist or physician [12—14]. Further, neither the selected to follow the same resistance exercise program for
diet of recreational users nor their consumption of these 8 weeks. One group comprised 27 men already consuming
supplements seem to comply with recommendations. The PCS (GC) and the other comprised 40 men not consuming a
use of supplements most often results from suggestions in dietary supplement (GNC). Table 1 presents details of the
magazines, on websites, or through conversations with other two groups.
people attending gyms [13,14]. The use of any other type of dietary supplement or
Most studies testing the effect of protein and carbohy- anabolic substances was an exclusion criterion. The par-
drate powders have neglected energy balance data, and ticipants undertook not to practice any other resistance
do not take into account participants’ usual dietary intake activities during the test period.
or physical activity outside of resistance training. However,
many studies have supported the efficacy of PCS in improving 2.3. Food consumption and habits
muscle protein synthesis in response to resistance train-
ing under controlled settings in different study protocols
Subjects recorded all food consumed. The diet records were
[15—17]. Even so, no studies have tested the efficacy of
analyzed using a professional computerized nutrient analy-
these products under simulated applied conditions taking
sis program (Bilnut 4.0 SCDA Nutrisoft software) and food
into account pattern of use, dietary intake, physical activity
composition tables published by the Tunisian National Insti-
level and energy balance of users in real life. We therefore
tute of Statistics.
do not yet know whether men practicing resistance training
in gyms truly benefit from using protein and carbohydrate
shakes that they self-prescribe. The aim of this study was 2.4. Dietary supplement use
to compare the evolution of body composition in men self-
prescribing PCS with that in non-users practicing the same GC volunteers were asked to maintain their routine supple-
resistance training during an 8-week period while keeping mentation habits during the study protocol and to fill out
their spontaneous dietary and physical activity habits. the food diary to record any additional use of PCS. Partici-
pants recorded their supplementation habits, and during the
control session interview each GC member listed the supple-
2. Materials and methods ment products they used and the amount they took per day
in the course of the test period. Using the table of composi-
2.1. Study design tion on each product, we calculated the average nutritional
intake exclusively provided by PCS every 2 weeks during the
At baseline, men who had already been practicing resis- test period.
tance activities in gyms for at least 3 months and who were
attending the gym 3 times per week for at least 90 minutes
were selected and invited to attend the National Center of Table 1 Participants characteristic at baseline.
Medicine and Sports Sciences for a more detailed explo-
ration of their anthropometrics, dietary intake, level of Characteristics GNC GC
physical activity, and body composition. Two groups were
Age 21.7 ± 2.8 21.4 ± 2.6
subsequently selected to participate in the study.
Height (cm) 176.8 ± 5.2 178.9 ± 4.0
After inclusion, we conducted an interview to inform the
Weight (kg) 68.8 ± 6.3 70.7 ± 5.4
participants about the study protocol and familiarize them
BMI 22 ± 1.6 22.03 ± 1.4
with it. We handed out food and physical activity diaries and
FM (kg) 9.2 ± 2.4 9.8 ± 1.78
explained their use. A certified trainer conducted a train-
FFM (kg) 59.6 ± 4.9 60.9 ± 4.0
ing session to demonstrate the resistance-training program
PAL 1.50 ± 0.10 1.53 ± 0.11
designed for the study, and which was calibrated to meet
the average routine training session energy expenditure of Values are expressed as means ± SD; BMI: body mass index;
the selected participants. The volunteers filled out the food FM: fat mass; FFM: fat free mass; PAL: physical activity level.

Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 O. Saidi et al.
2.5. Anthropometry and body composition
We measured weight using a digital scale, the participant
standing in minimal clothing. We measured barefoot height
using a graduated non-deformable measuring rod. With the
participants in a supine position, we performed bioelectrical
impedance analysis (BIA) using a single frequency (50 kHz)
tetrapolar technique (BIA 101S analyzer from AKERN-RJL,
Italy).
We estimated body composition every 2 weeks using
the manufacturer’s computer software (Bodygram 1.31 by
AKERN-RJL, Italy). Strictly following the recommended mea-
surement conditions, we measured body composition in the
morning after overnight fasting. Participants were required
to urinate prior to body composition measurement, and were
instructed to abstain from drinking caffeinated beverages
and alcohol for at least 24 hours before the test and to
refrain from physical exercise for a minimum of 18 hours
before measurements.
2.6. Resistance exercise training
During the study period, the training volume remained the
same. Participants continued to train 3 times a week for
90 min per session. The training routine proposed was super-
vised and identical for the two groups. It involved a total
of 24 sessions. One week prior to the study, one-repetition
maximum tests (1-RM) were performed by a certified coach.
An individual training sheet based on the Epley formula was
then provided for each participant [18].
Each session consisted of 10 exercises: bench press, lat
pulldown, shoulder press, upright row, triceps curl, biceps
curl, leg press 45◦ , leg extension, leg curl, and calf press.
For each exercise, there were 3 sets of 8—12 repetitions
(70—80% of one-repetition maximum [1RM]), except for the
inclined leg press calf raise for which 15—20 repetitions were
performed. The interval between sets was 90 seconds and
between exercises 180 seconds. The coach was on-site with
the participants and helped them do the training exercises
properly.
2.7. Energy expenditure
To estimate energy expenditure, participants used the phys-
ical activity diary to record their physical activity habits
during the test period. During every control session, activity
diaries were collected and reviewed with the participants.
Activity levels were assigned using the metabolic equiva-
lents (METs) [19]. Total energy expenditure (TEE) was thus
Table 2 Daily nutritional intakes from proteins and/or carbohydrates supplements among GC.
Group Week 1—Week 2 Week 3—Week 4
PCS intake (g) 159.6 ± 36.4 139.6
CHO intake (g) 68.9 ± 33.5 57.3
Protein intake (g) 81.8 ± 38.1 73.3
Fat intake (g) 8.8 ± 2.1 8.9
Energy (kcal) 683.1 ± 163.4 603.5
Values are expressed as means ± SD; PCS: proteins and/or carbohydrates supplements.
Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
calculated based on the equation of Black [20]. The energy
expenditure corresponding to the training was added to the
TEE value according to McArdle [21].
2.8. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the data was performed by using SPSS
software version 19.0 package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
All data are expressed as group means ± standard devia-
tion. One-way and repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare energy balance and body
composition data. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used
to assess bivariate associations, with P < 0.05 considered sta-
tistically significant.
3. Results
Table 2 shows the daily energy and macronutrient intake of
PCS as checked every 2 weeks.
Table 3 presents the daily energy balance data
(mean ± SD) throughout the test period. Concerning nutri-
ents and energy intake exclusively provided by food, no
significant group or group × time effects were noted in car-
bohydrates (CHO) and protein, while a group × time effect
was observed in fat and energy intake (P < 0.01). How-
ever, CHO, protein and total energy intake values were
increased by supplementation. Our results show significant
group differences (P < 0.001). We did not detect any dif-
ference between groups with regard to exercise energy
expenditure. Energy expenditure, however, was generally
greater in the GC group than in the GNC group (P < 0.01). It
appears that the level of physical activity outside of train-
ing sessions was responsible for this difference. Regarding
energy balance, the GC group was situated below the GNC
group during the course of the 8 weeks without considering
PCS, and a significant difference between groups was found
(P < 0.05). However, PCS energy raised the energy balance in
the GC group relative to the GNC group; our analysis showed
a significant difference (P < 0.001) (Table 4).
Mean changes in body composition values are presented
in Fig. 1. Significant differences between the GC and GNC
groups were noted in the change in body mass and FM
(P < 0.001). However, the gain of FFM was the same in both
groups.
A strong positive correlation was observed between the
changes that occurred in fat body mass throughout the test
period in the GC group with the energy balance (see Fig. 2).
Week 5—Week 6 Week 7—Week 8
± 41.6 154 ± 41.4 142.5 ± 46.6
± 34.8 66.8 ± 33.1 55.8 ± 31.2
± 30.6 78.3 ± 33.1 77.7 ± 33.7
± 2.2 8.8 ± 2.1 8.8 ± 2.11
± 172.1 660.8 ± 173.6 614.4 ± 192.3
 Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplements on body composition

SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9

+Model
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3 Macronutrients intakes from food and supplements.

Variable Group Week 1—Week 2 Week 3—Week 4 Week 5—Week 6 Week 7—Week 8 P

(g/kg) (%) (g/kg) (%) (g/kg) (%) (g/kg) (%)

CHO GC (d) 4.92 ± 1.1 48.8 ± 10.25.27 ± 1.1 51.3 ± 8.6 4.99 ± 1.2 47.8 ± 10.0 4.96 ± 1.2 46.7 ± 9.5
GNC 4.88 ± 1.4 45.0 ± 10.95.01 ± 1.1 47.6 ± 9.0 4.88 ± 1.4 46.9 ± 11.1 4.85 ± 1.3 46.9 ± 10.9 GC (d) vs. GNC NS
GC (T) 5.90 ± 1.1 47.23 ± 6.96.08 ± 1.2 49.0 ± 6.6 5.94 ± 1.1 46.5 ± 6.8 5.75 ± 1.2 44.9 ± 6.8 GC (T) vs. GNC < 0.01
Protein GC (d) 1.43 ± 0.2 14.5 ± 3.3 1.45 ± 0.2 14.4 ± 3.1 1.43 ± 0.2 13.9 ± 3.1 1.44 ± 0.2 13.8 ± 3.2
GNC 1.41 ± 0.2 13.3 ± 2.5 1.41 ± 0.2 13.5 ± 2.5 1.41 ± 0.2 13.8 ±2.8 1.41 ± 0.2 13.8 ± 2.8 GC (d) vs. GNC NS
GC (T) 2.60 ± 0.5 20.93 ± 3.62.50 ± 0.4 20.2 ± 2.8 2.55 ± 0.4 20.0 ± 3.0 2.55 ± 0.4 20.0 ± 3.0 GC (T) vs. GNC < 0.001
Fat GC (d) 1.64 ± 0.4 36.63 ± 8.81.54 ± 0.3 34.1 ± 7.2 1.76 ± 0.4 38.1 ± 8.8 1.85 ± 0.4 39.3 ± 8.5
GNC 1.96 ± 0.4 41.6 ± 9.8 1.80 ± 0.4 38.7 ± 8.0 1.79 ± 0.4 39.1 ± 10.1 1.79 ± 0.4 39.2 ± 10.0 GC (d) vs. GNC NS
GC (T) 1.76 ± 0.4 31.83 ± 7.11.67 ± 0.3 30.7 ± 6.7 1.88 ± 0.4 33.4 ± 7.2 1.97 ± 0.4 34.9 ± 7.3 GC (T) vs. GNC NS
Values are expressed as means ± SD; GNC: group non-consumer; GC: group consumer; (d): dietary intake from food; (T): total dietary intake from food and proteins and/or carbohydrates
supplements.

5
 6

SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9

+Model
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4 Daily energy balance data of GNC and GC.

Variable Group Week 1—Week 2 Week 3—Week 4 Week 5—Week 6 Week 7—Week 8 P

(kcal) (kj) (kcal) (kj) (kcal) (kj) (kcal) (kj)

Energy GC (d) 2828 ± 381 11,833 ± 1483 2871 ± 371 12,015 ± 1553 2720 ± 805 1,1384 ± 3369 2970 ± 318 1,2428 ± 1334
intake GNC 2941 ± 279 1,2305 ± 1169 2883 ± 315 14,540 ± 1320 2829 ± 233 1,1838 ± 978 2820 ± 216 1,1801 ± 907 GC (d) vs. GNC = NS
GC (T) 3511 ± 461 14,691 ± 1731 3475 ± 383 12,066 ± 1603 3583 ± 346 14,992 ± 1449 3584 ± 375 1,4999 ± 1570 GC (T) vs. GNC < 0.001
Energy GNC 2976 ± 233 12,453 ± 977 2900 ± 225 12,136 ± 944 2831 ± 237 11,845 ± 995 2840 ± 260 11,882 ± 1089 GC
expen- GC 2896 ± 246 12,118 ± 1002 3012 ± 217 12,604 ± 939 3037 ± 212 12,707 ± 887 3118 ± 241 13,049 ± 1010 vs.
di-
Energy GC (d) −68 ± 340 −285 ± 1424 −140 ± 339 −589 ± 1419 −114 ± 288 −480 ± 1186 −148 ± 356 −621 ± 1492 GNC
ture
bal- GNC −35 ± 155 −148 ± 649 −16 ± 185 −70 ± 777 −1.7 ± 155 −7 ± 649 −19 ± 150 −81 ± 628 <
GC0.01
(d) vs. GNC < 0.05
ance GC (T) 615 ± 422 2573 ± 1722 462 ± 357 1936 ± 1503 545 ± 394 2284 ± 1652 465 ± 467 1949 ± 1955 GC (T) vs. GNC < 0.001

O. Saidi et al.
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplements on body composition
Figure 1 Evolution of body composition parameters over the
test period. A. Body mass. B. Fat mass. C. Fat free mass for GC
and GNC. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, difference between
GC and GNC groups; †P < 0.05, ††P < 0.01, †††P < 0.001, differ-
ence with time.
Energy balance was also correlated to mean daily protein
and/or carbohydrate energy intake.
4. Discussion
This investigation of the effect of spontaneous use of com-
mercially designed PCS on body composition during 8 weeks
of resistance-training under applied conditions showed pri-
marily that such supplementation by men training in gyms
most often exceeds both recommended amount and energy
requirements. This overuse may negatively affect energy
balance and body composition. Our results indicate a major
body mass gain in the GC group. However, the analysis
of body composition revealed that a gain of body fat was
responsible for this significant difference. The GC group
gained fat mass while the GNC group lost fat mass. In
the evolution of lean body mass, there was no significant
difference between the two groups. Many studies on supple-
mentation practices in athletes have shown widespread use
of dietary supplements, and a discrepancy between medi-
cal advice and actual practice in athletes’ supplement use
[13,22]. However, for amateurs training in gyms, fewer stud-
ies have reported on the frequency, type, and amount of
supplements used [11,14], but it seems that the recom-
mended doses are often exceeded [23]. Our results bear this
Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
7
Figure 2 Linear relationship between (A)  fat body mass
(baseline-week 8) and energy balance, (B) mean daily proteins
and/or carbohydrates supplements energy intake and energy
balance.
out especially as the proposed training volume was designed
to meet our population’s average habitual routine training.
PCS intake thus led to overfeeding.
Regarding the effect of supplementation on body compo-
sition, Schmitz et al. observed increased lean mass and
decreased fat mass after 9 weeks of multi-nutrient sup-
plementation in conjunction with training [24]. These
supplements, however, included creatine in addition to pro-
tein and carbohydrates, and the amount administered was
far lower than that taken in practice by amateurs training at
gyms. Furthermore, dietary intakes were not reported in this
study. Hulmi et al. also reported increased fat-free mass and
decreased fat mass after 12 weeks of resistance-training and
PCS post-workout use [15]. However, in this study dietary
intakes were much lower than those in our population. In
addition, average daily nutritional intakes from PCS by our
subjects were 4 times greater than the dose prescribed
in this protocol. Kreider et al. observed changes in body
composition similar to ours among sportsmen using high-
calorie supplements [25]. Further, Spillane and Willoughby
found that overfeeding with PCS in 21 men following
resistance-training for 8 weeks did not improve body compo-
sition or muscle protein synthesis, and resulted in fat mass
gain [26]. The divergence of results is certainly due to the
differences between experimental protocols (e.g., training
and measures), supplementation dosage (e.g., amount, tim-
ing, duration, and type), and also to differences in dietary
intake and physical activity level outside of training sessions.
Energy balance data were most often neglected in previous
studies. Nonetheless, all of these studies were conducted
in different conditions from those in practice. The major
difference between our investigation and previous studies
is that we took into account both the spontaneous dietary
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 O. Saidi et al.

intake and the real pattern of PCS use by men training in
gyms.
Concerning dietary intake, our results show that com-
pared with recommendations, the diet of both groups was
unbalanced, and consumption of fat was higher than the
recommended amount [27]. The calorie intake was accep-
table in both groups, and the use of PCS did not seem
to be needed, especially when the amount taken was
self-prescribed, and exceeded energy requirement. On the
contrary, positive energy balance occurring due to exces-
sive supplement intake in PCS users seemed to alter body
composition by promoting fat storage. Studies have demon-
strated that excess energy is efficiently stored in the body in
the case of positive energy balance [28,29]. In any case, the
participants’ diet showed an excess fat intake without con-
sidering PCS intake. Increased dietary protein intake was
probably the origin of the excess fat, because men train-
ing in gyms often consume high protein diets and protein
foods are generally high in fat (e.g., beef, eggs, and nuts).
Hence the PCS users’ total dietary intake, which was high
in carbohydrates, fat and calories, seems to be responsible
for the development of body fat mass. No difference was
noted for fat-free mass. This may be because both groups
had adequate protein intake from food [30,31]. Most ama-
teurs training in gyms consume excessive amounts of protein
owing to mistaken beliefs: our results show that supple-
mentation increased protein intake above 2.4 g.kg−1 , yet
few studies indicate that the intake of high amounts of
protein (2—3 g.kg−1 ) is appropriate even in athletes [32].
Newer recommendations to maximize muscle hypertrophy
and strength are based on the effect of other factors such as
timing of ingestion, type of protein, and amino acid compo-
sition [33,34].
The scientific societies still have diverging opinions on
the use of PCS. Although many believe that a balanced and
varied diet, focusing on food with high nutritional density, is
sufficient to meet nutritional needs, and that the use of sup-
plements is justified only in the case of a specific nutritional
deficiency, a considerable number of studies support the use
of PCS. Most amateurs exercising in gyms, however, are con-
suming PCS shakes regardless of their food intake. Although
the US Congress, in framing the Dietary Supplements Health
and Education Act defined dietary supplements (DS) as prod-
ucts taken orally to resolve a specific nutritional deficiency
[35], it appears that in practice PCS are not considered by
consumers as nutrients, and are consumed without taking
into account food dietary intakes, which leads to overfeed-
ing. The increased calorie intake through PCS could not be
offset by the energy expenditure of our amateur men prac-
ticing resistance-training in a gym. Supplementation intake
was found to be strongly implicated in the increase of body
fat mass over the course of an 8-week training period, with
no beneficial change in the gain of lean body mass.
Our results show that the use of PCS in practice is not
always related to an improvement in body composition if the
diet of consumers is unbalanced, the amount of supplemen-
tation is unsuitable, and the decision to use supplements has
been made regardless of individual dietary requirement.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
reporting the real pattern of use of protein and/or car-
bohydrate supplements among men training in gyms and
showing the effect of spontaneous use of these supplements
on energy balance and body composition compared with a
non-user group under real applied condition. Although it
presents some limitations such as BIA and diaries, which
are not the most accurate measures of energy balance
and body composition, these methods enabled us to collect
data in an outpatient setting and from a large sample. The
same person strictly under the same conditions underwent
bioelectrical impedance measurements, and the device
has been used and validated in a population of athletes
[36]. Furthermore, investigators interviewed participants
every two weeks to double-check diary data to reduce the
methodological biases. Future studies using more accurate
measurements of physical activity level and body compo-
sition are now needed to confirm these results. Timing of
ingestion was not considered in this study because data were
lacking: future studies focusing on this point are therefore
needed.
5. Conclusion
Good nutritional status plays a key role in promoting
progress for amateur men training at gyms. Providing
a balanced, appropriate diet is directly related to the
improvement of body composition. The dietary intakes of
amateurs in gyms require improvement. Supplement use
does not compensate for poor food choices. On the contrary,
self-prescription of PCS by this population seems most often
to raise calorie, carbohydrate and protein intake greatly
above the recommended values, and exacerbate energy and
nutritional imbalance.
In men practicing resistance-training in gyms, those con-
suming PCS are at risk of reaching a positive energy balance,
leading to an increase in body fat mass. Our results lead
us to question the efficacy of these supplements combining
protein and carbohydrates in conjunction with resistance
training in improving nutritional status and body compo-
sition, when they are overly and unduly used without
guidance. Finally, amateurs training in gyms need more
nutritional education to enhance their nutritional status and
learn how to use protein and carbohydrate supplements,
taking into account their dietary needs and food intake.
Nutrition experts must make proactive decisions to stream-
line behaviors related to dietary supplement use in this
population.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
References
[1] Grunewald KK, Bailey RS. Commercially marketed supplements
for bodybuilding athletes. Sports Med 1993;15:90—103.
[2] Clarkson PM, Rawson ES. Nutritional supplements to increase
muscle mass. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1999;39:317—28.
[3] Nissen SL, Sharp RL. Effect of dietary supplements on lean mass
and strength gains with resistance exercise: a meta-analysis. J
Appl Phys 2003;94:651—9.
[4] Jentjens R, Jeukendrup AE. Determinants of post-exercise
glycogen synthesis during short-term recovery. Sports Med
2003;33:117—44.

Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
+Model
SCISPO-3180; No. of Pages 9 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Effect of carbohydrate-protein supplements on body composition
[5] Haraguchi FK, Abreu WCD, Paula HD. Whey protein: composi-
tion, nutritional properties, applications in sports and benefits
for human health. Rev Nutr 2006;19:479—88.
[6] Borsheim E, Tipton KD, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR. Essential amino acids
and muscle protein recovery from resistance exercise. Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2002;283:648—57.
[7] Manninen AH. Protein hydrolysates in sports nutrition. Nutr
Metab 2009;6(1):1.
[8] Cermak NM, De Groot LC, Saris WH, Van Loon LJ. Protein
supplementation augments the adaptive response of skeletal
muscle to resistance-type exercise training: a meta-analysis.
Am J Clin Nutr 2012;96:1454—64.
[9] Goodman CA, Horvath D, Stathis C, Mori T, Croft K, Murphy RM,
et al. Taurine supplementation increases skeletal muscle force
production and protects muscle function during and after high-
frequency in vitro stimulation. J Appl Physiol 2009;107:144—54.
[10] Calbet JA, MacLean DA. Plasma glucagon and insulin responses
depend on the rate of appearance of amino acids after
ingestion of different protein solutions in humans. J Nutr
2002;132:2174—82.
[11] Morrison LJ, Gizis F, Shorter B. Prevalent use of dietary supple-
ments among people who exercise at a commercial gym. Int J
Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 2004;14:481—92.
[12] Burns RD, Schiller MR, Merrick MA, Wolf KN. Intercollegiate stu-
dent athlete use of nutritional supplements and the role of
athletic trainers and dieticians in nutrition counseling. J Am
Diet Assoc 2004;104:246—9.
[13] Petróczi A, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, Holloway A, Bingham J.
Limited agreement exists between rationale and practice in
athletes’ supplement use for maintenance of health: a retro-
spective study. Nutr J 2007;6:1.
[14] Goston JL, Correia MI. Intake of nutritional supplements among
people exercising in gyms and influencing factors. Nutrition
2010;26:604—11.
[15] Hulmi JJ, Laakso M, Mero AA, Häkkinen K, Ahtiainen JP,
Peltonen H. The effects of whey protein with or without car-
bohydrates on resistance training adaptations. J Int Soc Sports
Nutr 2015;12(1):48.
[16] Willoughby DS, Stout JR, Wilborn CD. Effects of resis-
tance training and protein plus amino acid supplementation
on muscle anabolism, mass, and strength. Amino acids
2007;32:467—77.
[17] Farup J, Rahbek SK, Knudsen IS, De Paoli F, Mackey AL, Viss-
ing K. Whey protein supplementation accelerates satellite cell
proliferation during recovery from eccentric exercise. Amino
Acids 2014;46:2503—16.
[18] Epley B. Poundage chart. Boyd Epley workout. Body Enter-
prises, Lincoln: NE; 1985.
[19] Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM,
Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update
of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2000;32(9 Suppl. 1):498—504.
[20] Black AE. Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Gold-
berg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate. A practical
Please cite this article in press as: Saidi O, et al. Intake of carbohydrate-protein supplements by recreational users at
gyms: Body composition improved? Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2018.02.004
9
guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat
Metab Disord 2000;24:1119—31.
[21] McArdle W, Katch FI, Katch VL. Nutrition et performances
sportives. France: Édition De Boeck Supérieur; 2004.
[22] Petróczi A, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, Holloway A, Bingham
J. Performance enhancement with supplements: incongru-
ence between rationale and practice. J Int Soc Sports Nutr
2007;4:1—9.
[23] Maughan RJ, King DS, Lea T. Dietary supplements. J Sports Sci
2004;22:95—113.
[24] Schmitz SM, Hofheins JE, Lemieux R. Nine weeks of supple-
mentation with a multi-nutrient product augments gains in
lean mass, strength, and muscular performance in resistance-
trained men. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 2010;7:40—9.
[25] Kreider RB, Klesges R, Harmon K, Grindstaff P, Ramsey L, Bullen
D, et al. Effects of ingesting supplements designed to promote
lean tissue accretion on body composition during resistance
training. Int J Sport Nutr 1996;6:234—46.
[26] Spillane M, Willoughby DS. Daily overfeeding from pro-
tein and/or carbohydrate supplementation for eight weeks
in conjunction with resistance training does not improve
body composition and muscle strength or increase mark-
ers indicative of muscle protein synthesis and myogenesis in
resistance-trained males. J Sports Sci Med 2016;15:17—25.
[27] Zello GA. Dietary reference intakes for the macronutrients and
energy: considerations for physical activity. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 2006;31:74—9.
[28] Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO.
Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects
on energy storage. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;62:19—29.
[29] Bouchard C, Tremblay A. Genetic influences on the response of
body fat and fat distribution to positive and negative energy
balances in human identical twins. J Nutr 1997;127:943—7.
[30] Phillips SM, Moore DR, Tang JE. A critical examination of dietary
protein requirements, benefits and excesses in athletes. Int J
Sport Nutri Exerc Metab 2007;17:S58—76.
[31] Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. Dietary protein for athletes: from
requirements to optimum adaptation. Journal of sports sci-
ences 2011;29:29—38.
[32] Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J
Sports Sci 2004;22:65—79.
[33] Areta JL, Burke LM, Ross ML, Camera DM, West DW, Broad EM,
et al. Timing and distribution of protein ingestion during pro-
longed recovery from resistance exercise alters myofibrillar
protein synthesis. J Physiol 2013;591:2319—31.
[34] Negro M, Vandoni M, Ottobrini S, Codrons E, Correale L, Buono-
core D, et al. Protein supplementation with low fat meat after
resistance training: Effects on body composition and strength.
Nutrients 2004;6:3040—9.
[35] [42 USC 287C—11] Dietary Supplement Health Education Act
(DSHEA); 1994.
[36] Moon JR. Body composition in athletes and sports nutrition: an
examination of the bioimpedance analysis technique. Eur J Clin
Nutr 2013;67:S54—9.